Virtual Caches

[+Land Snoopers]

I got this email from an other cacher that recently enjoyed one of my caches.

"Did you know that geocaching.com is archiving all virtual caches soon? what will become of this very cool virtual?"I know it has been very difficult to get a virt approved but I have a handfull of historic caches in Joshua Tree National park. That would be a shame. I have allways liked Virts more for green & historical reasons and the contact was enhanced with other cachers.

[+Airmapper]

I've heard they are being moved to Waymarking, which as a Premium Member you have access to. Look on that website and maybe you can find if they will just be transfered to there.

[Tahosa and Sons]

I've heard many a disparing comment about the possible move of Virtuals from Cachers that have found several of my historical virtuals. I wish they would just have the ????'s to tell us what they are going to do. It would be a shame to see about a third of my caches removed to some other place.

 

I wonder if the people of the FROG have ever put out a poll about the changes just to see what the response will be. Or maybe they just don't care, its not an ammo box with a log.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Well, I've just fruitlessly searched the Geocaching Announcements forums for an answer. My memory of the thread at the time Waymarking was first rolled out was an absolute statement by Jeremy that locationless would be archived on Jan 1 06. All locationless owners received an email inviting them to move now and own the Waymarking category. The discussion on virtuals was, as I recall, somewhat vaguer. I think the long term intent is to move virtuals to Waymarking, and certainly after Jan 1 anyone submitting a virtual is going to be directed there. But I haven't seen any hard and fast statements yet that the existing virtuals won't be grandfathered. I keep hoping the existing locationless end up being grandfathered.

[CoyoteRed]

While I don't think the decision is set in stone, but I'm thinking TPTB are going to move all non-physical caches to Waymarking.com where they will be better accomodated. The physicals will stay here.

 

The primary reason is for the future. A complete split will cause less confusion down the road. Just think about the grandfathered caches that are no longer approved and the confusion they cause for some newbies. A clean split will be better in the long run.

[+Lil Devil]

I think the long term intent is to move virtuals to Waymarking, and certainly after Jan 1 anyone submitting a virtual is going to be directed there.

I certainly hope it's a lot sooner than that

[+fizzymagic]

While "officially" virtuals are still being approved, in fact no virts have been approved in the US since early August.

 

That may provide some calibration about how seriously to take official pronouncements on this matter.

[+Moose Mob]

The burning question here is whether the virtuyals will be moved and archived? Or will they be grandfathered?

[H to the Bizzle!]

The burning question here is whether the virtuyals will be moved and archived? Or will they be grandfathered?

 

 

I'm hoping for the latter.

[Jeremy]

When Waymarking goes "live" (meaning not just for premium members), no new virtuals will be created. We haven't decided what to do with virtuals but most likely nothing will be done until January 1 when locationless listings will be archived. Whether they are archived or grandfathered is yet to be decided. However, reviewers will be taking a closer look at the existing virtuals and whether the owners are maintaining the listings.

[+Quiggle]

While "officially" virtuals are still being approved, in fact no virts have been approved in the US since early August.

 

That may provide some calibration about how seriously to take official pronouncements on this matter.

Not true. I know of at least one that has been listed, within the last two weeks.

 

GCQN4P, listed October 18.

 

(plus the others Mopar found! )

Edited November 1, 2005 by Quiggle

[+Mopar]

While "officially" virtuals are still being approved, in fact no virts have been approved in the US since early August.

placed: Oct. 22, 2005 Virtual cache - Hico History by The McFadin Family (GCR29J) Arkansas, USA

 

placed: Sept. 21, 2005 Virtual cache - Do you feel stupid yet? by DaisyChain (GCQN4P) District of Columbia, USA

 

placed: Oct. 1, 2005 Virtual cache - Bellingrath Virtual by onefastsol (GCQ7PB) Alabama, USA

 

placed: Oct. 3, 2005 Virtual cache - Mena Wildcats Pathfinder Club by rlawry (GCQV0V) Arkansas, USA

 

placed: Sept. 5, 2005 Virtual cache - I Don't Know's on Third by Jimmus & SpikesMom (GC845F) Georgia, USA

Edited November 1, 2005 by Mopar

[+TeamAO]

If it's a good virtual, in a place that cannot support a cache, it's a good "cache". Now I refer to cache, because after a few weeks of months, you don't remember the box, or what was inside it. You remember the experience, when I think of a good "cache", I think of a good experience.

 

I would like to see existing virtuals be grandfathered, because they are not many virtuals in my area, but the ones that there are, they have historical value, and have the "experience" part of the cache as well.

[+LaPaglia]

While "officially" virtuals are still being approved, in fact no virts have been approved in the US since early August.

 

That may provide some calibration about how seriously to take official pronouncements on this matter.

Quoted from Mopars post.

placed: Oct. 22, 2005 Virtual cache - Hico History by The McFadin Family (GCR29J) Arkansas, USA

 

placed: Sept. 21, 2005 Virtual cache - Do you feel stupid yet? by DaisyChain (GCQN4P) District of Columbia, USA

 

placed: Oct. 1, 2005 Virtual cache - Bellingrath Virtual by onefastsol (GCQ7PB) Alabama, USA

 

placed: Oct. 3, 2005 Virtual cache - Mena Wildcats Pathfinder Club by rlawry (GCQV0V) Arkansas, USA

 

placed: Sept. 5, 2005 Virtual cache - I Don't Know's on Third by Jimmus & SpikesMom (GC845F) Georgia, USA

 

Fizzy, can we get a corrected post from you on this????

[Jeremy]

Let. It. Go.

[+MisterNixter]

We really enjoy the virtuals. They have brought us to a lot of interesting places. I would hate to see them go away.

[Jeremy]

Yeah. What a bummer that there will be a whole site dedicated to them.

[+fizzymagic]

Fizzy, can we get a corrected post from you on this????

Yeah. I was wrong. Bad PQ settings.

 

Sheesh. And to think I upbraid other people for posting nonsense. I am gonna have to wash my mouth out with soap tonight. Yuck.

 

That should be a good calibration for how seriously to take anything I say!

Edited November 1, 2005 by fizzymagic

[nobby.nobbs]

unfortunately buried with loads of rubbsih as well though jeremy. please consider grandfathering existing virtuals.

[+The Leprechauns]

unfortunately buried with loads of rubbsih as well though jeremy. please consider grandfathering existing virtuals.

Including the many existing ones that are rubbish, with no way to screen them out to get to the many good ones that I've enjoyed?

[nobby.nobbs]

i could go on but this would be way off topic. enough said that better the devil you know.

[+mini cacher]

PLEASE!!! DO WHAT EVER YOU ARE GOING TO DO. I WANT THIS TOPIC TO DIE ALREADY! ARRRGGGGHHHHH! MAKE THE VOICES STOP!

 

..... waiting......

 

 

.... waiting........

 

 

...... ok the meds kicked in.......

 

 

I think at this point anyone who thinks Waymarking is a good replacement for virtuals will always think that. And anyone who thinks it is not will always think that. This is like getting a vaccine notice from the vet 6 months after your cat died. Nice thought but the reminder stings.

[+Renegade Knight]

If Waymarking sucks, it doens't matter if you think it doesn't (and vice versa). Time will tell the real story. Right now I plan on logging one that is close by just to kick the tires. I'm entirly undecided on Waymarking though early indications are that I'll focus on the main site and not divide my attention.

[+budd-rdc]

I've lobbied for grandfathering of Virtuals on GC.com before, so naturally, I'll lobby for that again.

 

Most virtuals I've visited in my home state (California), Oregon, and Washington have been pretty good so far. Ones in Japan have been excellent. There were some ho-hum ones in Utah. I beg to differ with the claim that most of them are lame.

 

I'll risk stepping on some toes for saying this: is it possible lameness of virtuals has relation with each region's approver? (Virtuals don't list themselves)

 

I'll vouch for my local approvers for the lack of lameness in my area, and one of them is starting to clean up the unmaintained ones. I much prefer this process to continue, and keep the virtuals on GC.com as long as possible, instead of rushing them to Waymarking on some artificial deadline. People can always list Waymarks at current Vrtual locations on their own, and the "numbers people" might enjoy the 2-for-1's.

 

It'd be a darn shame to prevent future cachers from enjoying the awesome ones I've enjoyed.

[+BigFurryMonster]

We really enjoy the virtuals. They have brought us to a lot of interesting places. I would hate to see them go away.

They won't go away for good. They'll just be moved to Waymarking.

[CoyoteRed]

I think at this point anyone who thinks Waymarking is a good replacement for virtuals will always think that. And anyone who thinks it is not will always think that.

Except for the fact only PMs can make that judgement call right now.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Well its November First and I thought the Way What Ever It IS?? was supposed to be active. Or should I just let it Go and cry in my Beer for the Lost Virtuals.

[+MountainMudbug]

Yeah. What a bummer that there will be a whole site dedicated to them.

I tried to look at the site but can't get into it, whereas I am gc.com nearly everday. It just isn't the same, the whole process (from what I've seen in its beta mode) is much more convuluted and confusing (proposing categories, who owns this, who is in charge of that, category owners or committees, where will this fit, sub categories, sub-sub categories, yadda yadda). Perhaps I am too sensitive to change.

 

It is not what I was expecting as a "replacement" for virtuals, feels more like a mutant offspring I perceive that it fits locationless better (such as it is).

 

My two cents. I'm not bashing the site for those who enjoy or who created it (flame-suit on in advance), it just doesn't float my boat.

[+mini cacher]

I think at this point anyone who thinks Waymarking is a good replacement for virtuals will always think that.  And anyone who thinks it is not will always think that.

Except for the fact only PMs can make that judgement call right now.

I did say "at this point".