Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
nwc_voyageur

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

This is the first time I have ever posted anything in any forum, so bear with me if it is not in the right place.

 

I cannot object loud enought about the decision to move virtual caches to Waymarking and eliminate them from geocaching.com. You are taking away a very import feature from geocaching, especially for those that travel.

 

1. Keeping trackof then number of finds is a feature many like. I know my count, but am not driven to find the most caches possible. I do not see this feature in Waymarking.

2. You will now eliminate very interesting and educational caches. Fo instance. I lived an area for 40 years and never knew there was a Japaneese internment camp near by until someone posted a virtual cache. Why detract from the history by placing a needless mirco there if that was possible.

3. You will totalling eliminate caching from national parks and monuments. A category does not do it. I want to know about specific things out there that interest me. I know they will allow virtual caches, because I have had discussion with park rangers about placing some.

4. When traveling, I want to be able to download specific caches in the areas I am going; this includes virtuals. My understanding is that this will not work in Waymarking.

5. If there are problems with people posting finds they to not see, so what. They have to look at themselves in the mirror.

6. I believe there are far bigger issues with the hiding of physical caches in cemeteries and memorials, etc., that will be heightened by eliminating virtual caches.

 

Hopefully this is not a done deal and the decision can be looked at again. It is interesting that in the DVD sold be geocaching.com, one of the founders speaks of seeing all caches eventually being virtual caches!

 

nwc_voyageur

Share this post


Link to post
1.  Keeping trackof then number of finds is a feature many like.  I know my count, but am not driven to find the most caches possible.  I do not see this feature in Waymarking.

This feature will be available.

 

2.  You will now eliminate very interesting and educational caches.  Fo instance.  I lived an area for 40 years and never knew there was a Japaneese internment camp near by until someone posted a virtual cache.  Why detract from the history by placing a needless mirco there if that was possible.

 

You'll actually find more unique and interesting educational waymarks than you ever would with virtual caches. As the Waymarking categories grow you'll be amazed at the interesting local things. I realized from the site, for example, that there is a foucault pendulum at the University of Washington, and some pretty cool factory tours to check out.

 

3.  You will totalling eliminate caching from national parks and monuments.  A category does not do it.  I want to know about specific things out there that interest me.  I know they will allow virtual caches, because I have had discussion with park rangers about placing some.

 

Untrue. In fact by removing virtuals from being listed on geocaching.com you open up the possibility of having physical caches in National Parks. Right now the old standby is "why not just have a virtual in a National Park?" Perhaps now the National Park Service will pay more attention to the possibility of allowing caches there.

 

That aside, waymarks can flourish anywhere, including National Parks.

 

4.  When traveling, I want to be able to download specific caches in the areas I am going; this includes virtuals.  My understanding is that this will not work in Waymarking.

 

There will be downloads for Waymarking.

 

5.  If there are problems with people posting finds they to not see, so what.  They have to look at themselves in the mirror.

 

True. So what?

 

6.  I believe there are far bigger issues with the hiding of physical caches in cemeteries and memorials, etc., that will be heightened by eliminating virtual caches.

 

Actually I think the attention to geocaching was based on a locationless cache, not a physical one. Most (if not all) the photos were taken from a locationless cache listing. If anything the discussion will be better defined regarding physical caches and there will be less confusion over the difference between them.

 

Hopefully this is not a done deal and the decision can be looked at again.  It is interesting that in the DVD sold be geocaching.com, one of the founders speaks of seeing all caches eventually being virtual caches!

 

No offense meant to Dave Ulmer, but he never actually had to maintain the web site nor had an active role in the growth of the hobby. With that said it seems that Waymarking being a series of virtual caches is pretty close to what he is saying. So it seems your final comment supports Waymarking more than anything.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post

I hope virtuals stay a part of geocaching.com, also. I have so many on my watchlist from out west. I am looking forward to one day travelling there and finding them.

So many of the virtuals are harder than finding a keyholder on a guardrail.

As with any cache, if you don't like the kind that it is, just don't do it!

 

I can deal with the locationless caches going over to waymarketing, even though I really enjoy them. But I hope the decision will be made to keep virtual caches a part of the game.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy,

is the amount of traffic on GC wrt virtuals the cause for shifting them to WM?

I know that the LC's had a lot more traffic than was planned for, but are the virts taking a beating because they are in the middle of the traffic draw?

 

I like some of what WM has to offer, but i do not like the lack of historical data that the virtuals provided. The locationless cache can track it's lineage to the WM by direct comparison. Are the WM going to evolve to have the same sort of detail that is included in a virt?

 

The last problem is that the gate keepers are not playing by the same rules as what governs the virts. The loging requirements vary depening on the whim of some uber cacher who happened to be picked to manage the subcatagory, and that alone makes it more LC than virt.

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy,

is the amount of traffic on GC wrt virtuals the cause for shifting them to WM?

No. The subjective nature of the "wow" factor. And virtuals are waymarks.

 

I know that the LC's had a lot more traffic than was planned for, but are the virts taking a beating because they are in the middle of the traffic draw?

 

No. If you can figure out the definition of a virtual that isn't subjective, let me know.

 

I like some of what WM has to offer, but i do not like the lack of historical data that the virtuals provided.  The locationless cache can track it's lineage to the WM by direct comparison.  Are the WM going to evolve to have the same sort of detail that is included in a virt?

 

I don't understand this question. Can you explain?

 

The last problem is that the gate keepers are not playing by the same rules as what governs the virts.  The loging requirements vary depening on the whim of some uber cacher who happened to be picked to manage the subcatagory, and that alone makes it more LC than virt.

 

No you're just changing who you want to blame. The manager of a category is no different than the reviewers who look at and publish virtuals except for the fact that they have a bigger investment in the type of thing that should be included in their category. Right now the virtual rule is the "wow" factor which is subjective. As an individual geocacher you may not know about it but the rotting bird virtual comes to mind as one of the more offensive listings.

 

Someone has to review waymarks or virtuals or caches for that matter. Waymarking now allows people to pick new and interesting (and some uninteresting to you) categories that people can both create waymarks and visit them. I'm trying to see the problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post

To date, everyone that comes into Waymarking seems to have the same initial reaction....

 

"Please don't move Virtual Caches over to Waymarking"

 

Why not? I don't understand how logging a Visit to a Waymark of Mount Rushmore, is any way different than logging a Find on a Virtual Cache of Mount Rushmore.

 

It is searched out exactly the same way, you read the same plaques, or take the same pictures, you write the same entry on a web page.

 

Where is the difference? Show me... I guess I need to be lead to it.

 

I know I am repeating myself and others here but

 

Physical Containers are Geocaches, a Statue is not.

 

Visiting a "point of interest" and reading plaque and taking pictures and learning information is not finding a Cache. It is being shown something of interest to the general population... it is tourism, or sight-seeing.... it's not searching for that which is HIDDEN..

 

Caching is a hidden item.... if it is in plain sight, that hardly is a challenge to locate. It's just interesting to see.

 

So, to me, having a site (Geocaching) for the finding of hidden containers makes sense, and subsequently... listing neat or mundane things to look at or learn about would be another site... easily found at Waymarking.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Some virtuals are "hiden" gems waiting to be found. For example, in the middle of a Dearborn, MI neighborhood in a really cool wagon dedicated to a family which is not Ford. This is a virtual where even a micro could not be hiden. I enjoyed finding it. Stop thinking big national memorials/momuments and think small local oddities or cool, out of the way places. These are hiden off the beaten track and have to be found by cachers who don't mind going that extra mile or into areas that don't look right. These are places that we normally wouldn't visit but are glad we did. They are also places that I can take my infant granddaughter and my elderly mother.

 

The problem with waypointing is the lack of being able to combine a good virtual with a good traditional cache. We're getting ready to take a cross country trip. We're figuring we will travel x number of miles per day and then stop to camp. By taking where we're camping and getting a map, we can see where caches are and what kind. Easy and simple and we get to see a bit of the country without jumping from site to site and weeding through a bunch of trash. I found a set of virtuals in KY that looks interesting and out of the ordinary which we may try to get to. Didn't see many traditionals that were as interesting. I don't need a micro at Wal-Mart, unless I need to stop and shop! I need neat local historical places that give me a feel of the area. I don't mind looking for container in places (Waterwheel in Great Mills, Md is an example) but I don't need to hike miles to find a container in woods that looks no different than the ones at home.

 

I think geocaching is what you make it. Some like virtuals and some don't. Some don't understand the others like and some don't care. I would like to see those virtuals that are already approved stay. I would like to see the earthcaches that are already approved stay.

 

Unfortuately, I don't think I have a vote. The site is run by one person who has the say on what will and won't be on it (dictatorship). This is his right. He has the ability to say who and what will be allowed on geocaching.com. One can only pray that he is reasonable and listens to those that choose to play with him.

 

Terri

Share this post


Link to post

Please provide an example of what you consider as a new WM 'virtual'...

 

I have a better understanding of what you mean by subjective or wow...it took me a few times rereading what you had written to understand what you were saying (probably tired?)

 

Most of the virtuals i have completed have volumes of historical or local data. Does the WM entry sheet allow for the same? I bounced into some that i havent even thought about and they all apeared to be short and concise as the ones i have been exploring and creating entries for.

 

I never saw the dead bird virt, nor would i want to and you are right, it is a very poor idea, but than i wonder why it was approved???

 

Everyone wants to blame someone for whats happening to their various perspectives or versions of the game. As i understand the process: the reviewers have to follow specific guidelines on what can or cant be approved with a final appel to GC. With the virtual, there was a lot of different types of requirements to answer the question or get the find, but you didnt have to worry about being the 1st to find; you didnt have to worry about forgetting to take 3 different pictures; and sometimes, if you lost the picture or data to prove your visit, you could appeal to the owner and describe the details and they might let you log it.

 

As i am learning about WM, not only does the manager dictate how the waymarks are created, but they get to dictate how another player may or may not log the waymark that is listed by another player in between the category manager and the waymark creator. This seems to be putting a lot of control into one persons hand.

 

The string of comments at Creating New Waymark Categories, Deciding the process seem to show that i am not the only person asking about the managment selection or process.

 

I really do like what Jermey and GC have done with WM, but it definitely isnt the panacea for our woes to losing the LC's or the virts. It is in the terrible two's stage and hopefully it will evolve. And like children, it will have it's own personality. Heres hoping to a healthy growth!!!

 

And searching for a container in the ground or searching the frescoe of the Jefferson monument to figure out the answer to a question is still searching.

Is searching for someone lost at sea somehow different than searching for someone lost in the woods? Not to those who are lost, and while the means and methods vary, they still use the same basic search process for both.

Share this post


Link to post

These are good waymarks but definitely in the minority. Having scanned several catagories, I'd say trash most of them. They are useless as anything more than at this coordinate is something. No history, nothing to make you go wow or anything than ho hum.

 

Keep up the good work. May other listers realize what a good listing is!

 

I'd still rather have virtuals on geocaching.com though.

 

Terri

Share this post


Link to post

In case people reading this thread haven't read it yet, here is my proposal for a Wow!!! waymark category.

 

This category is meant to illustrate two things:

 

1. The subjective wow requirement for virtuals on geocaching.com is what makes them hard to keep as part of geocaching. The volunteer approvers must spend extra time on each virtual submitted to determine if it is unique, special, and novel enough to warrant becoming a virtual cache. I think some approvers simply reject every virtual cache and only if the submitter can reply with a good argument and not just whine that their cache was not approved while sone other one was, will the cache even be given any serious consideration. The subjective Wow! requirment could be removed on geocaching and all virtuals could be approved so long as other requirments were met. In this case, the people who like virtualswould soon be complaining how lame most virtuals are. I think people who like virtuals like them because most do have some Wow! factor.

 

2. People who like virtuals complain that they don't see how looking for waymarks could be like looking for virtuals. Most of the categories are lame. You certainly don't want to go looking at every McDonalds. And while other categories may be more interesting, they don't guarantee that any of the waymarks have a Wow! factor. You also lose some of the serendipity of finding a place you would not have looked for otherwise. The proposed Wow!!! category illustrates the ability to create categories in Waymarking that have the same advantages as virtuals have. I suspect that there will be several categories with different rules for accepting new waymarks. Mine proposes a category where I as the category manager gets to say what is Wow! but I can imagine categories where the community votes on Wowness perhaps using the ranking mechanism that is already part of Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Do I understand correctly that the existing virtuals on Gc.com will be archived at some point? That is, they will not automatically be moved to some appropriate category on Wm.com?

 

If I'm correct, will the owners of virtuals receive an email alert before that happens, and will there be some way for us to move our virtuals to Wm.com? Or will we need to re-create the virtual from scratch on Wm.com if we want to keep it going?

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

If it was up to me, and maybe it's best that it isn't...

 

I would have

 

www.Groundspeak.com devoted to

- the Member area, for joining the community

- the Stats area, for tracking Member finds/placements

- the Games area, to jump to the various activities of Groundspeak

- the Forums area, to discuss the various aspects of the activities

- the Search area, to look for items of the various games

- the Help area, for overview of the games and memberships etc (added in EDIT)

 

www.geocaching.com devoted to

- the Seek a Hidden Container area, the actual physical geocaches

- the Log a Find, for the various types of Geocaches

- the items that require a GPS to locate

- the Travel Bugs, since they require actual containers (added in EDIT)

- the Help area, to explain this game (added in EDIT)

 

www.Waymarking.com devoted to

- the Points of Interest, the locations that meet a visual referrence

- the Visited postings, to tell people that you completed the Waymark

- the items that don't require a GPS

- the Help area, to explain this game (added in EDIT)

 

Events and CITO's would have to be listed on a unique site, or a Groundspeak directly.

 

So the Search Area would have to have

 

- Search for Geocaches from home, from home that I have not found

- Search for Waymarks from home, from home that I have not found

- Search for Events/CITO from home, from home that I have not found

 

On each page, whether they be Geocaches, Waymarks or Events... you could have the same set but substitute "here" instead of "home"

 

I also think that instead of doing this vague kind of relocate or leaving some active etc, that a broad sweeping update should take place. There are many people that are opposed to this, I know, but if everything was re-classified, then it would be easier as long as the system was uniform for all.

 

So, take the Locationless and have them moved over to Waymarking by the end of the year, and any that don't move are then Archived... (I think that is the plan already). Any stats for those that found them, would remain intact but transfered to the Waymarking section on the Groundspeak Stats area.

 

On Waymarking, create the proper Catagories that all of the Virtuals can be relocated (there are already proper Catagories for EarthCaches, WebCams and Benchmarks) and require that they too be moved over along with the logs to the new Catagory... since the Virtuals and the variations thereof are already basically Waymarks, moving then logs with them ensures that people don't lose their Stats, which as was said earlier would be counted on the Groundspeak Stats area. There doesn't seem to be any reason to not move the entire Virtual Cache and the Logs over as a big lump. And then send out emails to the Virtual Cache owners saying that the Virtuals are being relocated to Waymarking.com.

 

People would still have the same Find tally, and it would be broken down as by types of finds/visits

 

So like...

 

Account: Super Finder

 

Visited

 

Geocaches

Traditional Cache: 34

Multi Cache: 10

Puzzle Cache: 4

Letterbox: 2

Project APE*: 0

 

Waymarks

People: 4

Places: 49

Things: 22

Locationless*: 24

 

Events

Events: 3

CITO: 2

 

* = no longer available to be placed, but archived for Stats

 

I think I better stop here

 

:lol: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Why not make the "geocaching.com" portion the "hide a container and use a GPS to find it" and find a new home for anything that doesn't fit that description?

 

Oh wait, that's what Waymarking just did... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Why not make the "geocaching.com" portion the "hide a container and use a GPS to find it" and find a new home for anything that doesn't fit that description?

 

Oh wait, that's what Waymarking just did... <_<

So CITO and events would then need to be moved to wm.com??? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

Is GC wanting to isolate the sport to only containers in the woods? I dont think so.... From what i have seen, they are just trying to divide up the labor on the servers to equal them out???

Share this post


Link to post

I think that gc.com is already a bunch of servers with parts of the site being split up to the different machines.

Share this post


Link to post

Events and CITO's don'e actually qualify as Geocaches or Waymarks, IMHO.

 

But if they have to be one or the other, I would say they should be listed under Geocaches... since that community is the social one. I cannot see how a tourist tool like Waymarking would be relavent.

 

If a Waymark Owner wanted to host an event at their Waymark... they could add that info to the Waymark itself, and maybe some day there will be a "Watch this Waymark" to assist in this feature.

 

But as I type it, a temporary Waymark might be a good way to do it too.

 

So, why not multiple list it... as a Geocaching Event and a Waymark?

 

<_< The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Why not make the "geocaching.com" portion the "hide a container and use a GPS to find it" and find a new home for anything that doesn't fit that description?

 

Oh wait, that's what Waymarking just did... <_<

So CITO and events would then need to be moved to wm.com??? :lol:

The sky is falling, the sky is falling :lol:

 

Events aren't a cache, virt, or a waymark. Last I heard there wasn't an outrage about "My event didn't have the "WOW!" factor needed to be listed, so they don't need to be moved like virts do.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, here's my two cents...:ph34r:

 

I love the idea of Waymarking, because having a GPSr users "yellow pages", of sorts, will open up new possibilities, new experiences and will equip the GPSr user with better knowledge about areas that they intend to visit. Waymarking is a great idea, and we will be partcipating to the best of our ability. Having said that-- I agree with th OP about replacing virtual caches with waymarks. The difference is this:

 

I am driving home from work, here in L.A. where I live. I've got an extra hour, and decide it's time to whip out the e600 and snag the nearest cache. I open up my "traditionals" database in the GPSr, only to see that I've already found all of them within 5 miles and don't have time to drive that far out of my way. So, I switch to my "virtuals" database, and boom-- a cache within 2 miles... a "park", it says. So, I follow the arrow to this familiar part of town where I see only tall buildings... I know the area and there COULDN'T be a park here.... but the GPSr keeps pointing to that darned building, so I figure I'll drive into the driveway and see what's there. What I find is a small, peaceful cemetary. A gorgeous cemetary with many famous people buried there that I never knew existed after a decade of living within 2 miles of it. That is the kind of experience that only a virtual can give you. Sure, I could have looked up famous cemetaries on the internet and found it-- but I didn't. I never even looked for it, but I'm sure glad I found it.

 

Sometimes, it's nice to find a place that you don't even know you are looking for. Hope that makes sense! In any case-- we love geocaching and I'm sure we'll love Waymarking, too! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I really hope someone listens to us regarding the removal of virtuals from GeoCaching.com. Yes, you can have too many, but where there are reasons to place a virtual rather than a box, maybe we could still do that - please?

 

I don't really want to start a riot, but maybe we should start a petition... :laughing:

Something along the lines of "Save Our Virtuals"?!?!

 

:laughing:

 

Bambi.

Share this post


Link to post

Bambi, as much as I would like that, I realized long ago it just isnt going to happen. TPTB have given us an alternative though with Waymarking. The quality of the waymarks will be what you make them to be. Im trying to include good waymarks, ones that are worth going to. I hope others will do that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
To date, everyone that comes into Waymarking seems to have the same initial reaction....

 

"Please don't move Virtual Caches over to Waymarking"

Untrue.

 

Please move Virtuals to Waymarking. I have had a number of fun ideas that don't involve a cache box/log and yet rely heavily on the GPSr and the hide/seek aspect of the game that is geocaching. Up until now, these ideas have been on hold because they didn't have a venue popular enough or useful enough to be given a fair chance at thriving. Here, they will likely succeed.

 

On top of that, a number of Virtual ideas that I've suggested in the forums have been shot down as being "not Wow! enough". These can now find their home here and those who *do* see the same Wow! that I do will have fun populating and maintaining the category.

Share this post


Link to post
To date, everyone that comes into Waymarking seems to have the same initial reaction....

 

"Please don't move Virtual Caches over to Waymarking"

Untrue.

 

Please move Virtuals to Waymarking.

I hate to admit it, but I agree with ju66l3r :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Why cant some of the virtuals stay on GC and some move over to WM????

 

Not all of the WM process is good for virtuals and some of GC is great for a few virtuals.....

Share this post


Link to post

The owner would submit it to the normal process if it didnt have a category, or would submit it to one of the existing....

Share this post


Link to post
The owner would submit it to the normal process if it didnt have a category, or would submit it to one of the existing....

So how do you propose people search for virts when they don't know if it's on GC or WM?

Share this post


Link to post

Ju66ler misquoted me, when he only took part of my message

 

QUOTE (The Blue Quasar @ Sep 10 2005, 01:01 AM)

To date, everyone that comes into Waymarking seems to have the same initial reaction....

 

"Please don't move Virtual Caches over to Waymarking" 

 

Untrue.

 

Please move Virtuals to Waymarking. I have had a number of fun ideas that don't involve a cache box/log and yet rely heavily on the GPSr and the hide/seek aspect of the game that is geocaching. Up until now, these ideas have been on hold because they didn't have a venue popular enough or useful enough to be given a fair chance at thriving. Here, they will likely succeed.

 

On top of that, a number of Virtual ideas that I've suggested in the forums have been shot down as being "not Wow! enough". These can now find their home here and those who *do* see the same Wow! that I do will have fun populating and maintaining the category.

 

The part I said right after was

Why not? I don't understand how logging a Visit to a Waymark of Mount Rushmore, is any way different than logging a Find on a Virtual Cache of Mount Rushmore.

 

It is searched out exactly the same way, you read the same plaques, or take the same pictures, you write the same entry on a web page.

 

Where is the difference? Show me... I guess I need to be lead to it.

 

I know I am repeating myself and others here but

 

Physical Containers are Geocaches, a Statue is not.

 

Visiting a "point of interest" and reading plaque and taking pictures and learning information is not finding a Cache. It is being shown something of interest to the general population... it is tourism, or sight-seeing.... it's not searching for that which is HIDDEN..

 

Caching is a hidden item.... if it is in plain sight, that hardly is a challenge to locate. It's just interesting to see.

 

So, to me, having a site (Geocaching) for the finding of hidden containers makes sense, and subsequently... listing neat or mundane things to look at or learn about would be another site... easily found at Waymarking.

 

So I agree with Ju66ler and GPSaxophone....

 

Please don't take just part of my quote making it look like I don't support Waymarking... which I do support.

 

In fact, I have often said that all of the Virtuals should be transferred to Waymarking as soon as possible.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Fine, keep submitting the virtuals and the site volunteers will keep archiving 95% of them in order to keep the area free for geocaches. Or you can play over here where there's "virtually" no limits.

Share this post


Link to post
waymarks can flourish anywhere, including National Parks.

 

Yeah, that going to be great.

 

I wonder what the National park people will think of that, lol... :ph34r:

 

They just can't keep use gps nuts out, :)

Share this post


Link to post
Milbank Posted on Oct 1 2005, 05:59 PM

 

Yeah, that going to be great.

 

I wonder what the National park people will think of that, lol...

 

From what people keep saying... they will have to embrace it. The story we keep hearing is that the NPS and other groups like that keep stating something to the effect of "We don't allow phyical containers, and since Virtuals are an option, we will allow those."

 

I know that up here in Canada, we hear that all the time... that Virtuals are okay, although often it is followed by "As long as the Park Warden approves the location of the Virtual"

 

I find that endless amusing... in fact I'm chuckling about it now.

 

Like I've said before, as long as Jeremy sticks to his guns and says to these various Parks Groups... "It's a public place, you cannot regulate the listing of the coordinates to a location on the Earth's surface"

 

Trespassing laws are already in place, as is signage about where 'civilians' can go. But sadly, Groundspeak has allowed groups to put pressure on Groundspeak and ultimately forced the Archival of perfectly good Virtuals.

 

Will that happen here in Waymarking...? that is up to TPTB... but I think it will unless things have changed.

 

I hope they have, as Waymarking can provide added exposure and interest in these places, places that can use the increased interest as leverage for increased funding from the governments that budget funds to the parks.

 

{edit - adding this section}

 

As for this on going arguement about keeping Virtuals and all that. I'm sorry, but that decision was made almost two years ago. It is not going to change, and I'm not saying I support or disagree with it, it's just not going to change. It's like being a member of the Flat Earth Society, or when Gallileo proved the Sun was the centre of the universe... feel free to keep believing what you want... but it isn't going to get you anywhere except frustrated.

 

Leprechaun was being nice saying that 95% of Virtual submissions will get Archived... I would bet good money that the mandate is a zero tolerance for listing Virtuals. I also know that our Reviewer has not listed a single Virtual anywhere in Canada for 15 months.... I have spoken to him/her personally... it is not an option anymore.

 

:ph34r: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
1.  Keeping trackof then number of finds is a feature many like.  I know my count, but am not driven to find the most caches possible.  I do not see this feature in Waymarking.

This feature will be available.

 

2.  You will now eliminate very interesting and educational caches.  Fo instance.  I lived an area for 40 years and never knew there was a Japaneese internment camp near by until someone posted a virtual cache.  Why detract from the history by placing a needless mirco there if that was possible.

 

You'll actually find more unique and interesting educational waymarks than you ever would with virtual caches. As the Waymarking categories grow you'll be amazed at the interesting local things. I realized from the site, for example, that there is a foucault pendulum at the University of Washington, and some pretty cool factory tours to check out.

 

3.  You will totalling eliminate caching from national parks and monuments.  A category does not do it.  I want to know about specific things out there that interest me.  I know they will allow virtual caches, because I have had discussion with park rangers about placing some.

 

Untrue. In fact by removing virtuals from being listed on geocaching.com you open up the possibility of having physical caches in National Parks. Right now the old standby is "why not just have a virtual in a National Park?" Perhaps now the National Park Service will pay more attention to the possibility of allowing caches there.

 

That aside, waymarks can flourish anywhere, including National Parks.

 

4.  When traveling, I want to be able to download specific caches in the areas I am going; this includes virtuals.  My understanding is that this will not work in Waymarking.

 

There will be downloads for Waymarking.

 

6.  I believe there are far bigger issues with the hiding of physical caches in cemeteries and memorials, etc., that will be heightened by eliminating virtual caches.

 

Actually I think the attention to geocaching was based on a locationless cache, not a physical one. Most (if not all) the photos were taken from a locationless cache listing. If anything the discussion will be better defined regarding physical caches and there will be less confusion over the difference between them.

 

.

.

 

Somehow missed this thread. Thanks for the succinct answers. Once up and working like you describe, it seems like those of us that liked virtuals will easily be able to incorporate Waymarks into our adventures.

.

Edited by Cheminer Will

Share this post


Link to post

We are not ones to post on the forum because most everything seems to go along smoothly. BUT! We keep hearing the reports of the virtual caches being moved to Waymarking and would like to voice an objection. We have a cache in Arlington NC in honor of our father who served this country well and would like to see it remain on the geocaching site. He would have loved this game and there have been many people who have visited this cache and the others within the cemetery. They are all well done and informative caches and everyone seems to really appreciate these caches. We have always found the virtuals to be wonderful sites of information and things we would never have seen if not for the caching. We hope the powers that be will think twice about removing the virtuals to another site and leave the ones that are already on geocaching.com in their place.

Share this post


Link to post

Searching for a WAYMARK is, pardon the pun, virtually identical to searching for a Virtual not-really-a-Cache.

 

No one yet has illustrated a difference, but many have illustrated how Waymarking is an improvement.

 

B) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

There is a little difference. I have one virtual cache that takes you to a door and asks you to go down the hall to another door. There is a surprise exhibit on display that most people (even those who work in the building) are not aware of. It is one of the foremost collections of its kind. On Waymarking, I would have to announce what it is in order to place it in its proper category. So some of the surprise is taken away if it goes over to Waymarking. So instead of searching for surprise virtuals, you will have searched for known categories of waymarks. I would like to see a category where the end point is an unknown target. So that some of us who like the surprise can still have that part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Searching for a WAYMARK is, pardon the pun, virtually identical to searching for a Virtual not-really-a-Cache.

 

No one yet has illustrated a difference, but many have illustrated how Waymarking is an improvement.

Oh, there are differences between searching for a Waymark and searching for a virtual cache:

 

1. To hide a virtual you had to meet some difficult criteria to get is listed. Supposedly, to hide a waymark you just need to put it in a category. But what if there is no category? What if the category manager wants to interpret his category in such a way that your virtual doesn't meet his criteria? What if you have a virtual like Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking where putting it in a category would ruin the suprise?

 

2. Finding a virtual generally required a verification answer to prove you were there. This entailed finding something - just like finding a cache. Usually it would be a difficulty 1, but not necessarilly. Some virtuals are just as much of a challenge to find as a well hid micro. Some are adamant that there should not be any difficult verification requirements for visiting a waymark so that new "waymarkers" would not be discouraged from participating. Suggesting a verification requirment for waymarks brings charges of "You're thinking too much like a geocacher". If you don't have verification requirements Waymarking cannot be a substitute for virtual caches.

 

3. Finding a virtual generally meant you were going to be impressed by what you saw. It would "wow" you and you would feel it was worthwhile visiting. It may be that Waymarking will let you pick waymarks only in categories that interest you - so you won't get stuck spending time looking at something you couldn't care less about. But it is just as certain that you will miss out on some very interesting places just because you thought the category wasn't interesting.

 

I think these differences could be handled in Waymarking - a Wow!!! category or a suprise category. For these categories verification would be required. But there seem to be some resistance to these suggestions.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
Searching for a WAYMARK is, pardon the pun, virtually identical to searching for a Virtual not-really-a-Cache.

 

No one yet has illustrated a difference, but many have illustrated how Waymarking is an improvement.

 

B) The Blue Quasar

It is pretty hard to illustrate a feeling. As I've stated before, the mechanics of the hunt may have been duplicated, but the feeling is missing. And plenty of people have outlined several things that show why Waymarking is not a good replacement for Virtual even-if-they-don't-have-a-box-and-a-log-book-doesn't-mean-they-are-not-Caches.

Share this post


Link to post

1. To hide a virtual didn't need a category...

 

2. Finding a virtual needed validation...

 

3. Finding a virtual was Wow...

1. My suggestion for the "Yet to be Classified" or "Unknown" category/placeholder

 

2. My suggestion for a "Strict Logging" flagging scheme

 

3. I think bookmarks and extending voting to the level of waymarks could suffice for this

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for any sort of brainstorming or official response from GS on my suggestions though...I know I've given up on seeing them come to light (or even be acknowledged!).

Share this post


Link to post

Don't hold your breath waiting for any sort of brainstorming or official response from GS on my suggestions though...I know I've given up on seeing them come to light (or even be acknowledged!).

Our lead developer has been out of the office for a while so chill. Don't be so needy.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't hold your breath waiting for any sort of brainstorming or official response from GS on my suggestions though...I know I've given up on seeing them come to light (or even be acknowledged!).

Our lead developer has been out of the office for a while so chill. Don't be so needy.

Thanks! That's all that was needed then (when they were leaving preferably).

Share this post


Link to post

I just think that many people are trying to find ways to make Waymarking fail.

 

Not the ones that actually repsonded, they at least provided insight.

 

But it has been said numerous times... VC's and LC's were broken. It is obvious to everyone that Jeremy has decided that Waymarking is the solution.

 

Like everything else I seem to comment on in the Canada section.... let's try to help find solutions, not just point out problems.

 

I do feel that Ju66ler, and tozainamboku and Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking are providing valuable input.

 

That I can support, but when people shoot from the hip, haven't read the entire discussion and wonder why things are the way they are, doesn't motivate me.

 

I'm sorry I even responed... it was futile at best to try to get someone to change their mind about something they feel passionately about.

 

Hope you find a solution for your Virtual Cache concerns, since the only being presented thus far is all we have.

 

{Sorry... tired and don't know if this is worth worrying about}

 

B) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks! That's all that was needed then (when they were leaving preferably).

Stuff happens. Sorry we don't keep you in the loop as often as we should.

Share this post


Link to post
Searching for a WAYMARK is, pardon the pun, virtually identical to searching for a Virtual not-really-a-Cache.

 

No one yet has illustrated a difference, but many have illustrated how Waymarking is an improvement.

 

:blink:  The Blue Quasar

There's two things in my mind that stick out as "ruining the Virtual Cache Fun":

 

1) You most likely didn't know what a virtual was of until you found it.

 

Case in point. There is a VC in the DC area right on the Mall of a large monument. The VC was really about something hidden on the back side of the monument away from foot traffic near the grate access to the water pump. I would never have looked for it, but it told an awesome story of American history that I never knew. In the new system it would be characterized, categorized, signed, sealed, delivered, and given a cigarette to you to relax after the fun before you even started.

 

2) There is no easy way to weed out the typical (or the extroardinary).

 

Some people view Waymarking as "My GPS YellowBook." Others view Waymarking as "My new home for Virtual and Locationless caches." In the current format these two camps have no way to get along, since there is no simple, wholistic approach to filter out either the "YellowBook" kind (for those that although like burgers, don't need a GPS signal to get a McDonalds fix) or the "Virtual Cache" kind (for those that need current POIs for their travels, including fine, quick places to eat, like McDonalds).

 

If there's a way to fix these two items, everyone will live happily ever after. It's that simple. I don't know how, that's where Groundspeak and this forum come in. Hopefully we can figure this out together.

Edited by Brian_R

Share this post


Link to post
There's two things in my mind that stick out as "ruining the Virtual Cache Fun":

 

1) You most likely didn't know what a virtual was of until you found it.

I don't think that a category called "Monuments" would give a whole lot away. And for truly unique surprises, there's talk about a "surprise" or "grab bag" category being set up to accommodate these.

 

2)  There is no easy way to weed out the typical (or the extroardinary).

 

Are you suggesting that the Geocaching.com system does a better job of this? "Here are all the virtual caches within X miles of your search point. You go figure out which ones are in categories that might interest you, and which ones don't." "Here is a jumbled list of locationless caches, the titles for many of which provide absolutely no clue about what the subject matter of the cache might be. You go figure it out."

 

In contrast, the directory structure and popularity filter feature in Waymarking allows me to concentrate on searching categories that are of interest to me, and also to the community at large. If I am only happy when I find "Ginormous Everyday Objects," I can log waymarks just in that category and skip others.

Share this post


Link to post
There's two things in my mind that stick out as "ruining the Virtual Cache Fun":

 

1)  You most likely didn't know what a virtual was of until you found it. 

I don't think that a category called "Monuments" would give a whole lot away.

Well, except for you knowing that it is a monument of some type of course. :(

 

And for truly unique surprises, there's talk about a "surprise" or "grab bag" category being set up to accommodate these.

 

I've always been a big proponent of virts (and LC's). One of the things I liked about virts was that great unknown of just what you would, or were supposed to find. That, I think is some of what drives regular caching also. It may indeed be the best argument that could be put forth for why virts deserve to be considered caches and keeping the existing virts listed on the Geocaching site.

 

All that being said, the chance for a surprise category here on Waymarking sounds pretty interesting to me. Overall I'm pretty happy with this new thing and am eagerly looking forward to seeing it fully implemented.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I know... so far no one has been able to suggest the following

 

1... A replacement for Virtuals and their cousins (This is a requirement as Jeremy believes there is a problem and this site is his to run)

 

2... An effective method to ensure that Virtuals stay as a WOW while removing the Reviewer Stress (Since the old method definitely didn't work)

 

I don't profess to know the answers, or the reasons for why Jeremy wanted this change made.

 

I just see a system in place that wasn't working for a set of reasons that I understand.

 

It escapes me that people are still trying to hang on to Virtuals and their cousins. I know they love them, so do I. But it doesn't matter. Jeremy wants it differently. It's time to accept that it isn't going to go back to the way it was before the big clamp down on Virtuals and the moratorium on Locationless.

 

Going back is no longer an option, so let's see alternatives if you don't like Waymarking... but don't expect that Jeremy is going to flush Waymarking any time soon... cause he devoted a lot of time to making this for the community. I'm betting he did his market research too.

 

Waymarking might be the "New Coke" that some people act like it is... and even if it is.... "Coke Classic" is right around the corner

 

:( The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Searching for a WAYMARK is, pardon the pun, virtually identical to searching for a Virtual not-really-a-Cache.

 

No one yet has illustrated a difference, but many have illustrated how Waymarking is an improvement.

 

:laughing:  The Blue Quasar

Here is a difference:

 

As a manager of several waymark categories, I've just topped the 150 mark for waymarks listed in my categories. I recall denying four submissions, one for being a duplicate and three for not fitting the category parameters.

 

I can also say with some degree of confidence that none of those 150 interesting locations would have been listed as a virtual cache.

 

So the difference is, you can actually FIND a fresh waymark. New waymarks are easy and new virtual caches are hard. Waymarks can sail through at a 98% approval ratio, or virtuals can squeak by at a 2% approval level. I like Waymarking better. :laughing:

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post
Searching for a WAYMARK is, pardon the pun, virtually identical to searching for a Virtual not-really-a-Cache.

 

No one yet has illustrated a difference, but many have illustrated how Waymarking is an improvement.

 

:laughing:  The Blue Quasar

Here is a difference:

Here's a difference:

 

As a virtual cache hider, I know of a great spot that I would like to make a waymark for. I want it to be a suprise when the visitor gets there so they will say "Wow! Why in the world is there a lighthouse here" and then I want them to look for the Historic Marker plaque and read why and send me the answer as proof they visited. I really don't want it to be in Lep's landlocked lighthouse category because that will spoil the suprise and I don't want it to be in Lep's Pennsylvania Historic Markers category (for one thing its not in Pennsylvania :laughing: ) because I want the person to have to look around and find answer the verification question without giving away the spoiler that there is a state historic marker here. Of course this wouldn't be approved as a virtual cache because I could easily use information from the plaque to create an offset and hide a physical cache a hundred feet away. So Waymarking may be better for people who hid virtuals where they could've hidden a physical cache :laughing:

 

As a virtual cache finder, I liked that there were very few virtuals. I would do a virtual if I was in the area and would usually think that it was worthwhile because it showed me something interesting I might not otherwise have known about. I now have to search through Waymarking categories to see if anything looks interesting. I really don't like having to do this extra work. And I will never know if I missed that particularly interesting McDonald's. Perhaps in the future there will be bookmarks and when I visit Pittsburgh I can look for Lep's Top 5% most interesting waymarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...