Virtual Caches

[+mini cacher 0]

Waymarks can sail through at a 98% approval ratio

Yes... and the sewer pipe out in front of my house has a 100% approval ratio...

[tozainamboku 5]

Waymarks can sail through at a 98% approval ratio

Yes... and the sewer pipe out in front of my house has a 100% approval ratio...

I think that was exactly Leprechauns point. If you've ever had the sewer pipe out in front of your house back up, you would know how much it stinks

[+geonickel 0]

If this question has been answered, I apologize -- I haven't been able to find it (which may just mean I'm blind!):

 

Will current virtuals (and their cousins) stay on geocaching.com at least until the method for generating downloadable files is on Waymarking.com?

 

I agree with many of the objections to Waymarking.com, but I am waiting for final judgment until after I see the PQ interface.

 

My biggest objection is that there seems to be no way to separate commercial waymarks (like the McDonald's example) from others.

 

As I look through the directory, I see at least three categories under Places where commercial entities might be: Buildings; Business / Commerce; and Lodging (there may be others). If there could be some way to filter commercial locactions, I could accept that there may be results returned that wouldn't always interest me -- just as the numerous urban microcaches in my area don't always interest me. That's just part of the game.

 

I have an idea or two that might be worth considering:

• Require all commercial waypoints to be placed in a subcategory of Places | Business/commerce. Using this option, when the user defines parameters for the PQ, there should be an option to "include" categories or "exclude" (sub)categories (which I hope will be part of the interface anyway)
  
• Another option would be to have a "commercial flag" that is set (or not) when the category (perhaps at the waymark level, depending on the category) is entered. For example, if I own a category of "2-story McDonald's locations", I would set the commerical flag on the category. If I had a category of "Stone buildings built since 1965," and someone posted a McDonald's that happened to be in such a building, the commercial flag could be set for the waymark, and I could approve the listing. Users could then choose to include or exclude categories or waymarks with the commercial flag.
  

I'm not sure either of these is a perfect solution (among other things, there's probably a better term than "commercial"), but maybe they will help someone else discover a better idea.

 

(Note: any typographical errors or logical inconsistencies in this post will be blamed on my not getting enough sleep last night -- the night I stayed up way too late is the morning my wife woke me up very early to tell me she's in labor! (We're still at home -- no new baby yet) I hope someone can see through any errors to my intent. )

 

w4$

[+_BBQ_ 0]

Well, today is the first time that I've visited the Waymarking.com website. I'm very disappointed that the virtuals are leaving GC.com. I just logged my first bunch of virtuals on a day long tour of the Washington DC mall and I can't emphasize how much fun it was.

 

I did some quick checking on the Waymarking.com site to see how I would have done the same thing here and found the site sorely lacking.

 

Even though there is no physical cache to be found with virtuals, there is still usually a hunt for information to be sent in verification of the find. All I see on Waymarking is primarily a bunch of useless nonsense that isn't well organized. Not to mention that very little of it involves leaving anything to the conclusion of the hunt. Virtual caches don't give out all the information ahead of time. Everything I looked at today told me everything about the location. I like the surprise ending.

 

My gut tells me that this site is going to turn into a massively unpopular spew of cheap advertising for things no one is interested in. The difficulty in posting Virtuals on GC helps to ensure that they are actually interesting points to see. The logging and stats also serve to emphasize the experience of the find. I don't see that happening here.

 

So, I'll add my "Please don't move virtuals from GC" to the mix and conclude by saying that I don't need another phone book or another awkward search engine on the web. There are plenty of both already.

[Jeremy 4]

I'm glad you stopped by

[+_BBQ_ 0]

Well, today is the first time that I've visited the Waymarking.com website. I'm very disappointed that the virtuals are leaving GC.com. I just logged my first bunch of virtuals on a day long tour of the Washington DC mall and I can't emphasize how much fun it was.

 

I did some quick checking on the Waymarking.com site to see how I would have done the same thing here and found the site sorely lacking.

 

Even though there is no physical cache to be found with virtuals, there is still usually a hunt for information to be sent in verification of the find. All I see on Waymarking is primarily a bunch of useless nonsense that isn't well organized. Not to mention that very little of it involves leaving anything to the conclusion of the hunt. Virtual caches don't give out all the information ahead of time. Everything I looked at today told me everything about the location. I like the surprise ending.

 

My gut tells me that this site is going to turn into a massively unpopular spew of cheap advertising for things no one is interested in. The difficulty in posting Virtuals on GC helps to ensure that they are actually interesting points to see. The logging and stats also serve to emphasize the experience of the find. I don't see that happening here.

 

So, I'll add my "Please don't move virtuals from GC" to the mix and conclude by saying that I don't need another phone book or another awkward search engine on the web. There are plenty of both already.

I'm not knocking the hard work that has obviously been put into this. I agree that this is a great place for Locationless caches.

 

But don't overstep the bounds by bringing over everything that doesn't have an ammo can at the end. Virtuals and the webcam caches that I've seen do not seem to fit here.

[Jeremy 4]

This is the fun part.

 

First, there *is* a webcam category.

 

Second, what is a virtual again? No one has found a good definition of one except for what would be listed as a "surprise" category on Waymarking. And that will have to be maintained by someone. You maybe?

[ju66l3r 0]

The "surprise" style category need not even be so obvious as being simply called "surprise".

 

In the Category suggestion forum, I generated the idea for a waymark that I think maintains a lot of potential surprise (and it wasn't even what I necessarily designed it for).

 

The idea is to have a waymark that brings you to a position that enables you to take an interesting picture of another waymark on the site. Unless you open someone's photo(s) then you'd never know exactly what is so interesting about the resulting photo/point-of-view that's being suggested. (it could be like taking a picture of Mt Rushmore from underneath...or a picture of the Washington Monument above someone's head like a dunce cap) You won't know until you get there and follow directions.

 

In other words, I think it's all in the presentation here at WM.com. Right now, most of the easiest categories to create and/or fill are very simple. They require you to want to list a monument...or brewpub...or McDonalds...or Octagon Building....or whatever. The entries are very simple descriptions of the locations (this brewpub sells good IPA, but their reds are lacking).

 

Imagine a sculpture waymark that says something like this instead:

 

---------

The Dark Side of the National Cathedral (coords somewhere in DC)

From the coords, you'll be searching for a sculpture nearby. This sculpture is located at the northwest corner of the nave, through the double wooden doors of Lincoln Bay (behind the statue of Abraham Lincoln). Go down the ramp, and step into the parking lot. Then, turn around and look back up at the tower closest to you. This is almost impossible to see without the assistance of binoculars. Waaaaay up, almost at the top of the tower is a gablet, or small peaked roof, located between the two huge louvered arches. At the bottom of each slope of this roof is a carved grotesque. Look on the north, or right-hand side.

---------

 

If you also wanted to force validation info on it, you could require a photo of the finder acting like the sculpture they are searching for.

 

Maybe people are just enthralled with the fact that they can finally list everything they always wanted to tell others about and so there's little thought to dressing the waymarks up into a mystery. Maybe it's that most people who think the mystery of virtuals is going to be lost here don't remember all of the virtuals that say "Go see the Lincoln Memorial. Email me the fifth word above his head." Maybe it's just that with so few virtuals being accepted at GC.com for so long now, all the really ingenious mystery creators are really out of practice for lack of wanting to beat their head against the approvers' decisions.

 

I don't think there's anything about WM.com as a website (even *without* a blatant "Boo! Surprise!" category) that forces the mystery gone. There are very few virtuals that don't tell you even the most basic category of what you're going to discover at the coordinates (or puzzled coordinates)...especially since they *required* validation (unlike here necessarily) and that required telling the finder that they would need to find the sculpture/monument/plaque/whatever-have-you to get info for an e-mail to the hider.

 

PS - The answer to the sculpture waymark above is a bust of Darth Vader as a grotesque on the National Cathedral in DC.

Edited November 1, 2005 by ju66l3r

[tozainamboku 5]

This is the fun part.

 

First, there *is* a webcam category.

 

Second, what is a virtual again? No one has found a good definition of one except for what would be listed as a "surprise" category on Waymarking. And that will have to be maintained by someone. You maybe?

Jeremy,

 

I wish you would stop being so smarmy with your "No one has found a good definition of a virtual". I believe several people, including myself, have given some pretty good definitions as to what makes a good virtual as opposed to a run of the mill waymark. However, I think the issues can be addressed within Waymarking better than they can in geocaching. It is clear that requiring the volunteer approvers to determine if a virtual fit the guidelines, particularly the "Wow" part, wasn't going to work. I think we could have a mechanism in Waymarking that could work. Here are some alternatives:

 

1. A group of volunteers to manage the Wow!! category. Since they volunteered for this task, it is assumed that they have thick enough skin to handle the complaints. In addition, in many cases they can suggest a different category for waymarks that don't quite have Wow!!, so a submission could still get listed as a waymark even if it is not a Wow!! waymark.

 

2. A voting mechanism. Waymarks are conditionally listed as Wow!! waymarks. Visitors can vote up or down if the waymark is worthy of listing in this category. If the waymark falls below a minimum, it is automatically archived.

 

3. Meta-category/bookmark list. Waymarks in other categories could be nominated to go into a list of Wow!! waymarks. When a waymark gets a certain number of votes it gets added to this list. This still has the problem in that the waymark has to be put into some category in the first place, eliminating virtuals where a category doesn't exist or where the waymarker doesn't want to use an existing category because it would be a spoiler.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 1]

The "surprise" style category need not even be so obvious as being simply called "surprise".

 

In the Category suggestion forum, I generated the idea for a waymark that I think maintains a lot of potential surprise (and it wasn't even what I necessarily designed it for).

 

The idea is to have a waymark that brings you to a position that enables you to take an interesting picture of another waymark on the site.  Unless you open someone's photo(s) then you'd never know exactly what is so interesting about the resulting photo/point-of-view that's being suggested. (it could be like taking a picture of Mt Rushmore from underneath...or a picture of the Washington Monument above someone's head like a dunce cap)  You won't know until you get there and follow directions.

 

In other words, I think it's all in the presentation here at WM.com.  Right now, most of the easiest categories to create and/or fill are very simple.  They require you to want to list a monument...or brewpub...or McDonalds...or Octagon Building....or whatever.  The entries are very simple descriptions of the locations (this brewpub sells good IPA, but their reds are lacking).

 

Imagine a sculpture waymark that says something like this instead:

 

---------

The Dark Side of the National Cathedral (coords somewhere in DC)

From the coords, you'll be searching for a sculpture nearby.  This sculpture is located at the northwest corner of the nave, through the double wooden doors of Lincoln Bay (behind the statue of Abraham Lincoln). Go down the ramp, and step into the parking lot. Then, turn around and look back up at the tower closest to you. This is almost impossible to see without the assistance of binoculars. Waaaaay up, almost at the top of the tower is a gablet, or small peaked roof, located between the two huge louvered arches. At the bottom of each slope of this roof is a carved grotesque. Look on the north, or right-hand side.

---------

 

If you also wanted to force validation info on it, you could require a photo of the finder acting like the sculpture they are searching for.

 

Maybe people are just enthralled with the fact that they can finally list everything they always wanted to tell others about and so there's little thought to dressing the waymarks up into a mystery.  Maybe it's that most people who think the mystery of virtuals is going to be lost here don't remember all of the virtuals that say "Go see the Lincoln Memorial.  Email me the fifth word above his head."  Maybe it's just that with so few virtuals being accepted at GC.com for so long now, all the really ingenious mystery creators are really out of practice for lack of wanting to beat their head against the approvers' decisions. 

 

I don't think there's anything about WM.com as a website (even *without* a blatant "Boo! Surprise!" category) that forces the mystery gone.  There are very few virtuals that don't tell you even the most basic category of what you're going to discover at the coordinates (or puzzled coordinates)...especially since they *required* validation (unlike here necessarily) and that required telling the finder that they would need to find the sculpture/monument/plaque/whatever-have-you to get info for an e-mail to the hider.

 

PS - The answer to the sculpture waymark above is a bust of Darth Vader as a grotesque on the National Cathedral in DC.

Part of the trouble is that the category managers want proof or it isnt approved. They want to see a photo, which you cant delete later on, or they want a desription so they know it meets their criteria. Kinda hard to have any surprises that way.

 

That virtual/ waymark you described sounds cool. I wish I could see that.

Edited November 1, 2005 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[ju66l3r 0]

Part of the trouble is that the category managers want proof or it isnt approved. They want to see a photo, which you cant delete later on, or they want a desription so they know it meets their criteria. Kinda hard to have any surprises that way.

None of that has to go into your waymark description (the same way GC.com approvers have to know all positions of a multi or the answer to a puzzle prior).

 

As a finder of a virtual cache (which requires proof at GC.com), you've always had to provide it outside the cache page via e-mail. What makes this situation any different?

 

If proof is required for the category manager (and that's not the case in all categories), then a pre-emptive e-mail of the waymark proof would easily do.

 

If you're thinking of this as a locationless situation (most want the proof in log), then as a *virtual* and a locationless log, the image should simply be marked "SPOILER!" when you give it a name. Anyone wishing for a virtual with a mystery won't click the image. The category manager will have their locationless proof.

 

I don't see proof of waymark (ala locationless caching) on the creation of the waymark as being a meaningful way to give away the surprise (ala virtual caching).

 

The site could even be altered to allow the hiding of a proof image similar to "approver seen only notes".

[+Brian_R 0]

This is the fun part.

 

First, there *is* a webcam category.

 

Second, what is a virtual again? No one has found a good definition of one except for what would be listed as a "surprise" category on Waymarking. And that will have to be maintained by someone. You maybe?

After I read this, and the rest of the great definitions / explanations of virtuals here, I was wondering why you're still having a problem. So I figured you must have done at least someof the types of caches that are now going to be a cornerstone of Waymarking.com, knowing that you're very busy maintaining the site, etc so I didn't expect a lot of finds. So I go look at you geocaching.com profile, which can be seen here.

I see 2 virtual cache finds, and 1 webcam find. I for one really "got" virtuals when I did a bunch in DC as _BBQ_ did. Maybe the best way for you to understand what we mean is to take a trip to the Mall in DC and try some.

 

Now, with that out of the way, I think an easy way to help make any waymark a "surprise" is to not only have a category(Restaurant, Monument, Lighthouse, Sports Arena, etc.), but a waymark type as well (Commercial, Locationless, Webcam, Non-Commercial, Virtual). So I would have a waymark for "Primanti Bros., Oakland" It would be in the category "Restaurants" but the waymark type would be "Commercial". I could have another waymark for "Lost War Memoral" and the waymark type would be "Virtual" or "Non-Commercial". This would set up the groundwork for a PQ based on waymark type, rather than category, which could help keep the "adventure" or "surprise" factor that what made Virtuals popular in the first place.

 

Hopefully the userbase together as a whole can find something to keep everyone relatively satisfied.

[+Brian_R 0]

This is the fun part.

 

First, there *is* a webcam category.

 

Second, what is a virtual again? No one has found a good definition of one except for what would be listed as a "surprise" category on Waymarking. And that will have to be maintained by someone. You maybe?

After I read this, and the rest of the great definitions / explanations of virtuals here, I was wondering why you're still having a problem. So I figured you must have done at least someof the types of caches that are now going to be a cornerstone of Waymarking.com, knowing that you're very busy maintaining the site, etc so I didn't expect a lot of finds. So I go look at you geocaching.com profile, which can be seen here.

I see 2 virtual cache finds, and 1 webcam find. I for one really "got" virtuals when I did a bunch in DC as _BBQ_ did. Maybe the best way for you to understand what we mean is to take a trip to the Mall in DC and try some.

 

Now, with that out of the way, I think an easy way to help make any waymark a "surprise" is to not only have a category(Restaurant, Monument, Lighthouse, Sports Arena, etc.), but a waymark type as well (Commercial, Locationless, Webcam, Non-Commercial, Virtual). So I would have a waymark for "Primanti Bros., Oakland" It would be in the category "Restaurants" but the waymark type would be "Commercial". I could have another waymark for "Lost War Memoral" and the waymark type would be "Virtual" or "Non-Commercial". This would set up the groundwork for a PQ based on waymark type, rather than category, which could help keep the "adventure" or "surprise" factor that what made Virtuals popular in the first place.

 

Hopefully the userbase together as a whole can find something to keep everyone relatively satisfied.

Let me just footnote my previous post, by I'm just trying to help, and maybe I'm not understanding Jeremy's initial POV. My post boiled down to if all the "sides" of the issue don't understand the other, then how can we expect to get something that will work in the end?

[Jeremy 4]

After I read this, and the rest of the great definitions / explanations of virtuals here,

Please cut and paste a solid definition of what a virtual cache is.

 

I was wondering why you're still having a problem.  So I figured you must have done at least someof the types of caches that are now going to be a cornerstone of Waymarking.com, knowing that you're very busy maintaining the site, etc so I didn't expect a lot of finds.  So I go look at you geocaching.com profile, which can be seen here.

I see 2 virtual cache finds, and 1 webcam find.  I for one really "got" virtuals when I did a bunch in DC as _BBQ_ did.  Maybe the best way for you to understand what we mean is to take a trip to the Mall in DC and try some.

 

I lived outside Washington DC for most of my life and have visited almost all of the "virtuals" listed. I still have no idea what a virtual is but I have a firm grasp of what a cache is.

 

I have visited plenty of virtuals in the 5 years I've gone geocaching. I hardly ever log them.

 

This would set up the groundwork for a PQ based on waymark type, rather than category, which could help keep the "adventure" or "surprise" factor that what made Virtuals popular in the first place.

 

? What's wrong with Places -> Surprise! as a category? Your writeup was unnecessary, IMO. I'm not sure what standard you'll define for what a surprise is though. Surprise! It's a Krispy Kreme. It's a tree! It's a glass sculpture!

 

Hopefully the userbase together as a whole can find something to keep everyone relatively satisfied.

 

Doubtful.

[ju66l3r 0]

Please cut and paste a solid definition of what a virtual cache is.

I've always been rather partial to mine.

 

------------------------------

 

Virtual cache:

 

There are two kinds of virtual caches. The first kind is a particular spot that would be perfect for inclusion in a more traditional cache hunt but is currently in an area that restricts geocaching (e.g., NPS land). These virtuals can be considered "stake points" for future geocaches if restrictions were to be lifted. The second kind of virtual cache is to highlight something out of the ordinary even in a place where a normal geocache might fit. The purpose is to bring attention to some of the more subtle landmarks and sublime experiences or facts for your area. Often a number of these smaller points of interest can be strung together to tell a story about your locality. Because of the subjectivity involved, your submission for this type of cache must meet a number of requirements:

 

1) Is your submission unique? Is it peculiar to your specific location? (i.e., no animal carcasses or tennis shoes in the woods)

 

2) Can someone solve your validation information without actually going to the site? (if so, then you can not be approved)

 

3) Whether interested in the topic or not, will the seeker have gained a particular insight, knowledge, or appreciation from having completed your cache?

 

Remember that not every virtual is approved because the system can not currently maintain the difference between virtual hides and traditional hides. To preserve more area and system resources for the physical placement of caches, you may be asked to use your virtual as the beginning of an offset cache instead. The final decision is for the approver to determine and the dismissal of your virtual will require you to consider improving any one of the above criteria before it will be considered again.

 

-------------------

 

I think "Wow" may better be summarized as the ability to impress someone with their find even if they were not initially interested in the topic. Of course, the way it is phrased does not mean that *everyone* needs to come away with an appreciation for what they've been shown (just like park'n'cache traditionals don't instill some sort of appreciation for me to do them either)...but the subject or way in which the virtual is accomplished should give the seeker at the very minimum a trivia fact to quote to someone a day later.

 

I think that is a more pragmatic approach to defining a virtual than "wow". Finding a historical marker denoting the flanking point of General Hammersham in the Battle of Gettysburg....doesn't instill the person with anything. Finding every historical marker that follows the Union army's advance on the Confederacy over a 3 mile distance....instills at the minimum an appreciation for how far the soldiers had to go in the few days that the Battle took. And so on...

 

(taken from discussions on improving virtual cache guidelines to better explain "Wow!" and "Why your virtual probably won't get accepted")

[+Brian_R 0]

Please cut and paste a solid definition of what a virtual cache is.

ju66l3r's definition is definitely a solid one.

 

I lived outside Washington DC for most of my life and have visited almost all of the "virtuals" listed. I still have no idea what a virtual is but I have a firm grasp of what a cache is.

 

I have visited plenty of virtuals in the 5 years I've gone geocaching. I hardly ever log them.

The reason I used DC as an example is based on Virtual Cache GCK12J. It's something that everyone knows, but the actual cache is something that very few / if anybody knows about. This cache "turned the bulb on" for me with regard to Virtuals.

 

? What's wrong with Places -> Surprise! as a category? Your writeup was unnecessary, IMO. I'm not sure what standard you'll define for what a surprise is though. Surprise! It's a Krispy Kreme. It's a tree! It's a glass sculpture!

 

And this lies the fundamental problem with Waymarking. One Mark, One Category just won't cut it. If I have a waymark for the McDonalds that invented the "Big Mac" and there was a historical marker at this McDonalds, in the current system I could either log it as a McDonalds, or a Historical Marker, or really screw things up, and have 2 waymarks on the SAME SPOT pointing to two different things, two logs, and twice the mark management, versus having one mark and tagged to two categories. The "Surprise" Category is an opt-in, and then that mark can't be used for a regular category in your system.

 

There's two solutions: Allow marks to be in multiple "categories" or "tags" (aka del.icio.us), which opens up the can of fulfilling the requirements to log for each category or tag, or add a secondary identifier, just like at geocaching.com that signifies the waymark type, which I can then filter regardless of category, in case I don't want to look for the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile, or if I only want to look for "The Amazing Travelling Thingamabob".

 

Hopefully the userbase together as a whole can find something to keep everyone relatively satisfied.

 

Doubtful.

 

If all parties involved stay closed minded about it, I agree. But I've seen some great ideas to fix the issues brought up about the current Waymark framework, but nothing seems to happen to them, which would be a shame. People are trying to help, but I'm not sure if there anything done on the other end, positive or otherwise, to address those issues or ideas to resolve them.

[Jeremy 4]

Please cut and paste a solid definition of what a virtual cache is.

ju66l3r's definition is definitely a solid one.

No it really isn't. It's a drawn out and complicated one which also happens to be weird as it can partly rely on geocaching.com to indicate what a virtual cache is.

 

I lived outside Washington DC for most of my life and have visited almost all of the "virtuals" listed. I still have no idea what a virtual is but I have a firm grasp of what a cache is.

 

I have visited plenty of virtuals in the 5 years I've gone geocaching. I hardly ever log them.

The reason I used DC as an example is based on Virtual Cache GCK12J. It's something that everyone knows, but the actual cache is something that very few / if anybody knows about. This cache "turned the bulb on" for me with regard to Virtuals.

 

My fault. I thought you were trying to "call me out" and say that I didn't know what I'm talking about in regard to virtual caches. I apologize if I'm incorrectly seeing this post as backpedaling. It is, however, a difference of opinion as to what you and I think how effective virtuals have been so far in their definition. However since I have practical experience as well as a large number of reviewers on the subjective nature of virtuals we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

? What's wrong with Places -> Surprise! as a category? Your writeup was unnecessary, IMO. I'm not sure what standard you'll define for what a surprise is though. Surprise! It's a Krispy Kreme. It's a tree! It's a glass sculpture!

 

And this lies the fundamental problem with Waymarking. One Mark, One Category just won't cut it. If I have a waymark for the McDonalds that invented the "Big Mac" and there was a historical marker at this McDonalds, in the current system I could either log it as a McDonalds, or a Historical Marker, or really screw things up, and have 2 waymarks on the SAME SPOT pointing to two different things, two logs, and twice the mark management, versus having one mark and tagged to two categories.

 

Wow. Spot on! In fact two waymark categories can contain the same object! The difference, of course, being the theme and additional variables that each category can have. The perspective and information can be vastly different about the same object based on the theme.

 

Our task is to add the feature to associate two waymarks together so there is an easy way to tab through the different information about that location. Now that is pretty cool.

 

The "Surprise" Category is an opt-in, and then that mark can't be used for a regular category in your system.

 

Now this one I don't get. If it is its own category you can still create surprise waymarks and as long as someone doesn't start posting the coordinates into the root directory and finding the answer via some other category, they can still be surprised when they get there. Looking into a crystal ball, however, I think the integration of ratings for waymarks and categories will raise up particularly interesting locations that may not be a surprise when you get there but may entice you to visit the location because it is listed. It's our job to make this more interesting as we add new features.

 

There's two solutions:  Allow marks to be in multiple "categories" or "tags" (aka del.icio.us), which opens up the can of fulfilling the requirements to log for each category or tag, or add a secondary identifier, just like at geocaching.com that signifies the waymark type, which I can then filter regardless of category, in case I don't want to look for the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile, or if I only want to look for "The Amazing Travelling Thingamabob".

 

Just go directly to the category and search from there. You can even permanently bookmark the surprise category and never see the other categories.

 

Actually through category management you can add tags now. That is currently used on the directory search page.

 

Hopefully the userbase together as a whole can find something to keep everyone relatively satisfied.

 

Doubtful.

 

If all parties involved stay closed minded about it, I agree. But I've seen some great ideas to fix the issues brought up about the current Waymark framework, but nothing seems to happen to them, which would be a shame. People are trying to help, but I'm not sure if there anything done on the other end, positive or otherwise, to address those issues or ideas to resolve them.

 

Actually I was referring to the "as a whole" satisfaction dealie. You'll never satisfy everyone. Also it may be that we are taking ideas into account when working on things like group maintainence, new category suggestions, etc. However there are some fundemental issues with virtuals that will not be solved due to the lack of a good definition for them. Maybe there will be a virtual category once we accept new categories and you guys can have fun trying to figure out whether one will be accepted while another won't. I would, however, say that you'll have a large number of reviewers getting their kicks as they watch the politics unfold.

 

(edit: darn quotes)

Edited November 4, 2005 by Jeremy

[tozainamboku 5]

Maybe there will be a virtual category once we accept new categories and you guys can have fun trying to figure out whether one will be accepted while another won't. I would, however, say that you'll have a large number of reviewers getting their kicks as they watch the politics unfold.

This is precisely why my Wow!!! category automatically rejects waymarks submitted by Groundspeak reviewers. I didn't want it to get political

 

The more I think about it, it makes more sense to use some thing like bookmark lists. If you find a waymark that makes you go "Wow!!!" add it to your bookmark list: My Wow!!! Waymarks and share them with others who want to get their virtual cache fix without having to search through categories they thought they had no interest in.

 

This may also be a better solution for another category I suggested "Hiking Destinations". It may work to allow people to gather waymarks that require a significant hike to get to and put them in a bookmark list.

[Jeremy 4]

This is precisely why my Wow!!! category automatically rejects waymarks submitted by Groundspeak reviewers. I didn't want it to get political

 

Yes. I noticed the irony.

 

The more I think about it, it makes more sense to use some thing like bookmark lists.

 

We're going to add the idea of customized rewards that folks can give to other geocachers. It makes more sense to do that though lists are certainly nice ways to point out neat waymarks.

[+Corp Of Discovery 11]

My definition: A good virtual cache is like pornography, hard to define but I know what it is when I see one.

 

And also like pornography, it can be fun searching for them til you find one.

Edited November 5, 2005 by Corp Of Discovery

[ju66l3r 0]

Please cut and paste a solid definition of what a virtual cache is.

ju66l3r's definition is definitely a solid one.

No it really isn't. It's a drawn out and complicated one which also happens to be weird as it can partly rely on geocaching.com to indicate what a virtual cache is.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you already had the answer in your head, but feigned ignorance in order to trap those responding. Next time, I'll let you play your word games alone.

 

How's this for uncomplicated and unrelying on GC.com:

 

The same thing as a geocache, but not.

[Jeremy 4]

How's this for uncomplicated and unrelying on GC.com:

 

The same thing as a geocache, but not.

It's as poor and vague as any other attempted definition, I guess. It still relies on geocaching to apply a definition so it is probably worse.

[+cache_venturers 0]

I've been reading through the various posts and looking through the site over the last few hours. At first I really disagreed with moving the Virtuals from Geocaching, or I should have said disallowing new virtuals. I also liked the new site. Now I've changed my opinion on both.

 

Waymarking for Virtual caches is starting to make sense, but I do not like the organization of how the data is presented. Maybe it's just my understanding of how the data is organized. I have not tried submitting anything for approval so what I'm going to propose may be in the submittal process already.

 

Like most, I like Geocaching the way it is... errrr... or was, with virtuals. Also, it was the simplicity of the site and the sites (data) organization which spearheaded Geocaching to where it is today. I think Waymarking (virtual caches) can be equally successful if and when a useful search is made available. Also, the fields in the database must exist to allow us to create criteria meeting our view of the game.

 

I may have missed this, but I was trying to find a static set of categories which all other categories fit and for each category a single static layer of sub-categories. From this I should be able to build a search which would allow me to select a number of major categories and get a list of virtual caches which would be somewhat random in subject and at the same time, approximately, match my interest (like virtual caching today).

 

I quickly came up with 11 Major categories for examples, I’m not suggesting exactly these. But for argument sake I came up with: Geological Features, Man Made Structures, Outdoors, History, Puzzles, Art, Vehicles, Helping Hand, Educational, Odds and Ends, and Commercial.

 

Taking my example of categories and selecting the first 5, allowing all sub-categories, and have all within 10 miles of my location, I would have a nice cross-section of virtual caches (i.e. Waymarkers) that would most likely fit the way I like to play the game.

 

An example of sub-category would be commercial, I came up with sample sub-categories of: food, alcohol, entertainment, stores. So if I’m looking for great food and a game on the tellie, I know that by searching on category: commercial; with sub-categories: food AND alcohol plus search the keyword microbrew and within 3 miles from where I’m staying, I might have some good suggestions.

 

Because of my traveling, I also have to be able to load the Waymarkers into GSAK (or whatever program for handling both Waymarkers and Geocaching) so when I happen to find the time, I can look for either a Waymarker or Geocache right then.

 

There may be overlap in categories, but I think there are ways to deal with that. Allow something to be in two categories. For example, a musium may be both art and history.

 

So without good searching tools, and without being able to have my pocket queries co-existing in the same caching management system, then Waymarkers are not that appealing.

 

Oh.. one other point. My suggestion is an add-on to the direction you are already going. Also, the major categories and sub-categories could be based on a set of pre-defined keywords in 1 to 4 fields. Currently the flexibility of Waymarkers is there, but from what I've seen, the flexibility of searching is lagging way behind.

Edited November 6, 2005 by cache_venturers

[ju66l3r 0]

How's this for uncomplicated and unrelying on GC.com:

 

The same thing as a geocache, but not.

It's as poor and vague as any other attempted definition, I guess. It still relies on geocaching to apply a definition so it is probably worse.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

By the way, you have shifted the terms of your request. Now you require the definition not rely on "geocaching" when before it was "Geocaching.com". When you're done tip-toeing around your preconceived notions, feel free to give us the definition that you continue to measure every other suggestion with, since it's clear that nothing will rise to the gold standard you have setup for yourself.

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

How's this for uncomplicated and unrelying on GC.com:

 

The same thing as a geocache, but not.

It's as poor and vague as any other attempted definition, I guess. It still relies on geocaching to apply a definition so it is probably worse.

Seems fairly simple to define a virtual cache without referencing geocaching.

 

A virtual cache is a single location somewhere on the earth. The location is marked using a coordinate system (latitude and longitude, normally) and is, usually, calculated semi-accurately with a GPS receiver. There is nothing at the location other than the point of interest that the virtual cache creater thinks you will find interesting. The description will usually not tell you what the point of interest is at the location, so that the finding of it will be a surprise.

Edited November 6, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[Jeremy 4]

I'm not even sure who you guys are trying to convince anymore. If anything it justifies why virtuals are so subjective and poorly defined.

 

A POI? Heh. How subjective is that? I'm sure if I have to pee a restroom could be a point of interest. And hmm, where could a public restroom fit? Oh yeah... Waymarking.

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

I'm not even sure who you guys are trying to convince anymore. If anything it justifies why virtuals are so subjective and poorly defined.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I don't care about Waymarking. I just thought it would be fun to define a virtual cache without referencing geocaching.

 

Waymarking is your broken toy to try to fix. Though mostly you try to defend it as the great idea you still think it to be.

 

There are more than enough virtual caches that are now grandfathered on geocaching.com that if I need a vc fix, I can go do one of those.

 

I'm not hung up on virtual caches like the rest of these people are. And as such, whereas I think Waymarking is the suxxor, it doesn't threaten my geocaching pasttime. I can live without new virtual caches being approved on gc.com.

Edited November 6, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+Nazgul 0]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, apologies if it's not....

 

Jeremy, has a decision been made regarding existing virtuals (and webcams and earthcaches) on the geocaching site? Last I recall reading, and forgive me if I don't have it quite right, is that you were undecided about whether or not those caches would be archived and locked after the end of the year, or grandfathered on the geocaching site. (I really hope it is the latter.)

 

If no decision has been made, do you have a timetable for making the decision and where would I need to watch to see it?

 

Thanks!

[+Team Fishhead 0]

i understand that LC have become a monster on server space with 50 logs a day each with half a dozen pictures but that doesn't seem to be the case with virtuals. virtuals seem to get the same attention as regular caches. if the problem is that 98% of them don't get approved (i read that in an earlier post) i suggest that that may not be a problem, by keeping the number of virtuals low the quality remains high. i have found most virtuals to be interesting and have never left one feeling it was a waste of my time. with that said i just wish that they applied the same standard to traditional caches after all how many altoids tins in the lamppost hides can one town have. Don't get me wrong i like traditional caches, in fact i love them, but i also like virtuals. i just like caching. I have found that i have had to search harder for the answers on some virtuals than i have with finding most traditionals. What i like the most is having them all on one search page. it makes it easier to plot out my caching day, i can see that between 2 traditional caches is a virtual that i can hit, if i have to go to another page, i won't. if geocaching (in the broad sense) becomes too labor intensive it will lose its charm. i recognize that the wheels are already in motion on this change and therefore bellyaching about it isn't going to change anything in the short term. I just hope that the already existing virtuals will remain on GC and the issue of new virtuals will be reexamined in the future or steps will be made to futher integrate the two site so that virtuals can still be part of the game (stats kept). I would also like to thank GS for introducing me to geocaching and providing me with the tools needed to do it.

[Tahosa and Sons 1]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, apologies if it's not....

 

Jeremy, has a decision been made regarding existing virtuals (and webcams and earthcaches) on the geocaching site? Last I recall reading, and forgive me if I don't have it quite right, is that you were undecided about whether or not those caches would be archived and locked after the end of the year, or grandfathered on the geocaching site. (I really hope it is the latter.)

 

If no decision has been made, do you have a timetable for making the decision and where would I need to watch to see it?

 

Thanks!

The old Virtuals have been Grandfathered..

Now I have to get used to this waymark thing. And I'm trying to keep links on my Virtual Cache pages that relate to a Waymark and on My Waymarks to the Granpa Virtuals. I'm glad that I was able to create some nice Virtuals over the last four years so those 21 Virtuals will have to suffice. As time goes on I'm wondering if my older Virtuals will get more finds because of the curiosity that new cachers might have wondering what is was like when Grandpa was younger.

[+Nazgul 0]

The old Virtuals have been Grandfathered.. 

Awesome.

[+Dew Crew 0]

Waymarking seems to me to be a little too vague.(parks ect.) But if virtuals are moving to the world of Waymarking, then why not have all the waymarks you find show up on your geocaching profile page? Makes sense to me.

[+Dew Crew 0]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this, apologies if it's not....

 

Jeremy, has a decision been made regarding existing virtuals (and webcams and earthcaches) on the geocaching site? Last I recall reading, and forgive me if I don't have it quite right, is that you were undecided about whether or not those caches would be archived and locked after the end of the year, or grandfathered on the geocaching site. (I really hope it is the latter.)

 

If no decision has been made, do you have a timetable for making the decision and where would I need to watch to see it?

 

Thanks!

The old Virtuals have been Grandfathered..

Now I have to get used to this waymark thing. And I'm trying to keep links on my Virtual Cache pages that relate to a Waymark and on My Waymarks to the Granpa Virtuals. I'm glad that I was able to create some nice Virtuals over the last four years so those 21 Virtuals will have to suffice. As time goes on I'm wondering if my older Virtuals will get more finds because of the curiosity that new cachers might have wondering what is was like when Grandpa was younger.

What???????????? No more earthcaches or WEBCAMS!! ugh!

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

My biggest objection is that there seems to be no way to separate commercial waymarks (like the McDonald's example) from others.

Of course not. And there likely never will be an easy method of separating the commercial from the non-commercial. If Groundspeak starts accepting corporate lists of Waypoints (e.g. all the Wendy's locations around the world), those corporate sponsors aren't going to be too thrilled knowing that waymarkers can opt out of their waymarks.

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

Second, what is a virtual again? No one has found a good definition of one except for what would be listed as a "surprise" category on Waymarking. And that will have to be maintained by someone. You maybe?

I'm sure no matter what anyone posts as a definition, you will never be satisfied. Or at least you'll continue to state public dissatisfaction no matter what your feelings may be privately. Why? Because apparently this litany concerning a virtual cache definition is your only defense for Waymarking at the moment.

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

I wish you would stop being so smarmy with your "No one has found a good definition of a virtual". I believe several people, including myself, have given some pretty good definitions as to what makes a good virtual as opposed to a run of the mill waymark.

Ah, someone else has noticed the "last line of defense."

 

I'm curious why Jeremy is so deadset against a "Wow!" category? Personally, I'm not a fan of it myself, but from the point of view of whether it will do a disservice to the site, I can't see how. Waymarks can exist in multiple categories, so it's not like "Wow!" will be taking away from any of the other categories in the database. I'd imagine that every "Wow!" should already be in another category to begin with.

 

Hell, that could be one of the prerequisites for "Wow!", that a waypoint, before being added to "Wow!" already has to exist in another category and a link to those listing(s) supplied in the waypoint description.

[+budd-rdc 0]

I interpreted Jeremy's comment differently. The fact that many Virtuals are "difficult to define" means that they don't belong in Waymarking, and therefore needs to stay in Geocaching.com.

 

Even if new Virtuals are not being approved, I'm quite happy with the current policy of grandfathering them.

[+Dew Crew 0]

Do you consider a webcam a POI? It takes some skill to find the webcam. Unlike most waymarks which you just gotta find the area.

[Jeremy 4]

I'm curious why Jeremy is so deadset against a "Wow!" category?

I'm not. I'm not sure where you got that impression. I actually said that a wow category would be a more fitting category than the generic virtual, which is more or less "anything," or a POI as indicated by others. The fact that a POI is not interesting to some but interesting to others defines the subjective nature of the current virtual cache type.

[Jeremy 4]

Do you consider a webcam a POI? It takes some skill to find the webcam. Unlike most waymarks which you just gotta find the area.

A POI doesn't "require skill" to find.

[+The Blue Quasar 18]

Only because I am feeling like I want to reply....

 

VIRTUAL GEOCACHE:1. An Oxymoron that attempts to describe a physical location that lacks a physical component beyond that which a non-GPS user can find. 2. A location that denies the option of a logbook. 3. Any GPS identified point on the Earth that substititutes "found it" for "was here". 4. A location that the work to set up was done by others and claimed someone else (see plagerism).

 

I like Virtuals.

 

I will like them in exactly the same way when they are renamed Waymarks.

 

Only I will be able to enjoy many more of them.

 

Nickle's worth of free advice???? Save yourself the arguing... Big-J has made up his mind. It's been this way for years... no one in that time has convinced him to change, it is VERY unlikely that will change now.

 

It would be like getting all of the religious leaders in the world to suddenly believe that the Greeks were right and Zeus and the gang are really in charge.

 

I am all for seeing the division of True Geocaches and Waymarks. But let me log finds under one account like true Statistics.

 

I am still hoping for my Groundspeak Portal for all my gaming requirements!

 

The Blue Quasar

[Tahosa and Sons 1]

A POI doesn't "require skill" to find.

Some do.

[+Team GPSaxophone 2]

A POI doesn't "require skill" to find.

Some do.

The POI doesn't require any skill to find. Solving the puzzle/multicache does