The New Guidlines/websites

[+slinger91]

I Just read the new guidelines for caches. And I must say removing locationless caches and even webcam caches doesn't bother me. But virtuals... I'm no big fan of them by any means, but i think they have a place here. I took a trip back east(NY-ME) in May. Of the 30+ caches I found it was nice to hit the occasional virtual to break things up, and learn some local history. I realize that virtuals will have a new name and a new website, but i believe in one-stop caching. The last thing I think we need is spreading things out all over the web. We are up to 3 sites now? The only benefit I can see is marketing for money making advertising. I miss the old days.

[+W7WT]

Hi Frank. I just have one Virtual Cache at Hurricane Ridge in the Olympic National Park. I certainly hope that it will be Grandfathered. I now have over 1000 finds and your very first cache near Lebam is the most enjoyable that I have done. Thanks

Dick, W7WT (take notice which cache I picked for my avatar)

 

Just read the new guidelines. I am happy that existing Virtuals have been Grandfathered. Sorry that new ones will be over in never-never land. I also enjoyed the Locationless caches. Took me a long time to nail down that Yellow Jeep. I kept seeing them going the other way.

Edited November 4, 2005 by W7WT

[Max PDOP]

I'm glad they are grandfathering my virtuals. I have gotten hundreds of visitors, all of whom seemed appreciative of the locations I picked. I think the virtuals are more rewarding than the McDonald's toys hidden in the woods.

[+Shop99er]

I have to agree with Frank. It's much nicer to have one place to go for my caching needs.

 

Is there any reason why this has been done? Or was this change for the sake of change? I don't recall anyone really shouting for this. On the contrary, there has been months of shouting to re-open the virtuals and locationless. Now, we lose them and earthcaches to this Waymarking thing.

 

Phooey!!

[Bjornian]

I was going to have a nice easy virtual near my college campus but instead I am going to have to make it an offset, multi-stage mystery puzzle cache because of the rules of campus. I doubt anyone will find the cache.

[tossedsalad]

As far as I know there is still only one caching site. It is just missing virtuals now.

 

 

But then it is not our site. It belongs to someone else. We just get to visit.

[+Jamie Z]

I miss the old days.

You've been around long enough to know that the "old days" didn't include virtuals, either.

 

When I started caching, there wasn't a virtual within 100 miles of me. It was a year or so before I even saw the first one pop up, and for a long time it was the only one.

 

I think by removing non-physical listings, the site is going back to the old days.

 

Jamie

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There are "virtually" no virtuals that couldn't have a logsheet tucked away nearby.

 

Tourists only take pictures. Geocachers sign logs.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Its good that the Virtuals were grandfathered!!

 

And at least I can say I was fortunate to have my creative endeavours made into Virtuals back in the good old days. Four were hid in '01 with more to follow as time marched on. And one excellent Virtual was incorporated into the creation of a 5 x 5 in '05 so they have not gone, just faded away.

 

As to the Waymarking thing its too early in the game to make any comments.

[+Jeep_Dog]

There are "virtually" no virtuals that couldn't have a logsheet tucked away nearby.

 

Tourists only take pictures. Geocachers sign logs.

Good point! Finding a log and signing in is probably the defining point of a geocacher, I suppose. I have done 8 virtuals, each and every one of them was rewarding, and I enjoyed the daylights out of visiting them! However, were they caches? Nope. It is that whole "pesky" physical log book thing.

 

Oh, and update on your quote. The way things are going over at Waymarking, your quote should read:

 

"Tourists and waymarkers only take pictures. Geocachers sign logs."

[Tahosa and Sons]

There are "virtually" no virtuals that couldn't have a logsheet tucked away nearby.

 

Tourists only take pictures. Geocachers sign logs.

Waymarking will have one hidden benefit. At least we shouldn't have any pesky Blue Smurfs over there. Now that I've reached the stage in life where my teeth have gone, I can enjoy my cheetos and beer in peace.

 

Maybe just maybe we will find the Sax over there they have a catagorie for Smurfs over there.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Tahosa and Sons

[+briansnat]

Is there any reason why this has been done?

 

Because they aren't geocaches

 

Now, we lose them and earthcaches to this Waymarking thing

 

They are not lost. They are in fact back, stronger than ever Waymaking.com. In reality locationlesss caches haven't been allowed for nearly 3 years and new virtuals were very, very hard to get approved. You can now submit them 'till your heart's content at Waymarking. The site is pretty nifty.

[CoyoteRed]

I would be extremely disappointed (and looks like I'm going to be) that virts will still be around to block real caches. Folks will be even more tenacious on hanging on to them simply because a grandfathered cache has more value.

[+Deneye]

I have to agree with Frank. It's much nicer to have one place to go for my caching needs.

maybe in time pocket queries will cover all the sites together..as a bonus member feature...?

[+Yamahammer]

I guess I'm a pro-Waypoints guy! (Say it isn't so!!!) I've not dug into it too deep but what little I've probed around in there, it seems workable. I don't see what the big deal is. I can only chalk it up to 'ch-ch-changes.' People don't like them.

 

 

Edit: I wrote 'don't' twice.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Yamahammer

[Tahosa and Sons]

They are not lost.  They are in fact back, stronger than ever Waymaking.com.  In reality locationlesss caches  haven't been allowed for nearly 3 years and new virtuals were very, very hard to get approved.  You can now submit them 'till your heart's content at Waymarking.  The site is pretty nifty.

You might be right Brian.

 

Changes are a way of life that we must learn to live with. Several years ago I was alone in the hills with nothing but nature, my maps and compasses, then along came Geocaching. Well it was a change, a change for the good. I was able to share some of my favorite places with complete strangers who became friends known as Cachers.

 

Now we have this Waymarking thing which will take some adjustments to get used to but it allready has a Waymark that I offer as a challenge for the Sax to find.

 

Are you up to it Sir Smurf.

[+oldnavy59]

dont you have to be a premium member to use the Waymarking site?

[CoyoteRed]

dont you have to be a premium member to use the Waymarking site?

Not any more.

[SCP-173]

dont you have to be a premium member to use the Waymarking site?

Not any more.

I thought you couldn't create a new category unless you're a premium member.

[CoyoteRed]

dont you have to be a premium member to use the Waymarking site?

Not any more.

I thought you couldn't create a new category unless you're a premium member.

That I don't know anything about.

[+CO Admin]

I would be extremely disappointed (and looks like I'm going to be) that virts will still be around to block real caches. Folks will be even more tenacious on hanging on to them simply because a grandfathered cache has more value.

CR you are going to love this!

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

Grandfathered Virtsand Webcams are no longer part of the cache saturation guidelines. You may place a physical cache with no concern regarding its distance from a grandfathered Virtual cache.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There are "virtually" no virtuals that couldn't have a logsheet tucked away nearby.

 

Tourists only take pictures. Geocachers sign logs.

Waymarking will have one hidden benefit. At least we shouldn't have any pesky Blue Smurfs over there. Now that I've reached the stage in life where my teeth have gone, I can enjoy my cheetos and beer in peace.

 

Maybe just maybe we will find the Sax over there they have a catagorie for Smurfs over there.

I'm not into freaky things

 

My categories:

 

[+tozainamboku]

dont you have to be a premium member to use the Waymarking site?

Not any more.

I thought you couldn't create a new category unless you're a premium member.

Right now only TPTB can create new categories. The procedure for creating new catetorgies is still being worked on. It may be that you will have to be a premium member to create or manage a Waymarking category. Before no one could create a locationless while the moratorium was in effect, now only TPTB can create a Waymarking category now, in the future premium members (at least) will be able to create new Waymarking categories. Before virtuals were hard to get approved, now waymarks can be created by anyone if they can find a Waymarking category that fits and they can meet the category manager's requirements, in the future there will be more categories and hopefully some of them will address the differences between a run of the mill waymark and what used to be that really great virtual.

[+Sagefox]

I was going to have a nice easy virtual near my college campus but instead I am going to have to make it an offset, multi-stage mystery puzzle cache because of the rules of campus.

My experience with virtual caching is that far too many were just an easy way out of placing and maintaining a physical cache that could have been placed nearby. (I'm not passing judgment on your attempted college virtual)

 

I hope not to be misinterpreted. I have been to many very interesting virtual sites that provided fun visual, historic or humorous information. Some virtual owners were consistently good at that.

 

I doubt anyone will find the cache.

 

If you hide it – they will come! You might well lose some business from out-of-town cachers but if your multi-step cache truly provides a "wow" factor then finders will be pleased. If the wow is weak or missing then you will have mostly short find logs and ones that politely try to find something interesting to say.

[CoyoteRed]

Grandfathered Virtsand Webcams are no longer part of the cache saturation guidelines.

This is fantastic news!

[+Haicoole]

As the setter of the deLorme Challenge, I have started seeing immitators, and variations on the theme, and I am flattered and over joied to see them.

With the rise of so many lampost caches, and "in the bushes at my work" caches that I really could do without, I would like to propose a new cache type that would perk our creativity: Compilation Caches.

The guidelines for Compilation Caches would requirement finding and signing a series of physical cachesit would require finding of at least 50 of a certain type of caches (on every page of a certain deLorme map, or all the counties of a state, or all 50 states, or one on each continent)...(ok maybe one on each contenent that does not contain the south pole). I would hope that the requirements would aim at about a year's effort to achieve by any normal human. (OK so we are not normal, and possibly the word human might not apply at times.)

[+Wander Lost]

The current puzzle/unknown cache type covers this concept quite well. I don't think we need a new cache type.

[+Prime Suspect]

As the setter of the deLorme Challenge, I have started seeing immitators, and variations on the theme, and I am flattered and over joied to see them.

With the rise of so many lampost caches, and "in the bushes at my work" caches that I really could do without, I would like to propose a new cache type that would perk our creativity: Compilation Caches.

The guidelines for Compilation Caches would requirement finding and signing a series of physical cachesit would require finding of at least 50 of a certain type of caches (on every page of a certain deLorme map, or all the counties of a state, or all 50 states, or one on each continent)...(ok maybe one on each contenent that does not contain the south pole). I would hope that the requirements would aim at about a year's effort to achieve by any normal human. (OK so we are not normal, and possibly the word human might not apply at times.)

It's not that new or different. It's just another cache with a logging restriction.

[+Mopar]

I Just read the new guidelines for caches. And I must say removing locationless caches and even webcam caches doesn't bother me. But virtuals... I'm no big fan of them by any means, but i think they have a place here. I took a trip back east(NY-ME) in May. Of the 30+ caches I found it was nice to hit the occasional virtual to break things up, and learn some local history. I realize that virtuals will have a new name and a new website, but i believe in one-stop caching. The last thing I think we need is spreading things out all over the web. We are up to 3 sites now? The only benefit I can see is marketing for money making advertising. I miss the old days.

Gee, for someone who has been around since "the old days", I would have expected you already knew a very important reason for moving virtuals to a totally different site, and it has nothing to do with advertising. Heck, the advertising remark is one of the dumbest things I've read in the forums in a long time. If advertising was the reason, why the hell make a new website? Why start from scratch with an unknown site and an unknown marketing term, when GC.com already has the name recognition and all-important search engine rankings. Type in just about any sort of GPS or treasure hunting term into a search engine and Geocaching.com is one of the first links you see. If it was all about the advertising, they could just do it on GC.com and make a heck of a lot more money.

No, the obvious reason for moving virtuals off-site is to protect the core of geocaching; which is finding a container and signing a log. Like it or not, that's how this game started, that's what got most of us interested, and that's what most of us hide and find. Over the years there have been lots and lots examples posted of landmangers wanting to only allow virtuals. From a land manager's perspective (And I should know, I am one), unless they have prior experience with geocaching, given a choice between physical caches and virtuals they are going to go with virtuals hands down. It's the obvious (to them) solution. Let someone hide a box of who-knows-what somewhere off-trail, or let someone read a park sign?

Someone goes to a landmanger for permission to hide a cache, and the manger says "I see geocaching has these things called virtuals, and they are just as good as an ammo box, so we only want people to hide virtuals."

By removing virtuals from the site, they are effectively removed from negotiations with land managers. The only options now are allow a popular low impact game that generally gets great press and has a good reputation, or ban it outright. There is no easy way out third option for virts only.

If GC.com allowed unrestricted virts like in your "old days", it wouldnt be long before the rest of us were wishing for the good old days when we could actually search for a box in the woods, instead of just words on a plaque.

[+dogbreathcanada]

I guess I'm a pro-Waypoints guy! (Say it isn't so!!!) I've not dug into it too deep but what little I've probed around in there, it seems workable. I don't see what the big deal is. I can only chalk it up to 'ch-ch-changes.' People don't like them.

 

 

Edit: I wrote 'don't' twice.

No. It's the popularity filter over at Waymarking.com: dumbest. idea. ever. Even dumber since it's tied to premium and non-premium accounts.

[Jeremy]

No. It's the popularity filter over at Waymarking.com: dumbest. idea. ever. Even dumber since it's tied to premium and non-premium accounts.

Thanks for your honest feedback! How would you fix it?

[+dogbreathcanada]

No. It's the popularity filter over at Waymarking.com:  dumbest. idea. ever. Even dumber since it's tied to premium and non-premium accounts.

Thanks for your honest feedback! How would you fix it?

Remove it. Entirely.

 

The entire Waymarking site (especially for non-Premium members) is driven by a filter that is difficult to grasp for the common end-user (How many questions are you inundated with daily from users on the popularity filter?). It's driven on the popularity of caches as decided by the mass hive mind.

 

If I'm a new user with only an interest in hiking the great outdoors, but the majority of Waymarking members prefer urban Waymarking, and they rate categories based on that ... well, as a new user I'm not going to see a number of categories that would interest me. I might not even realize that they're buried in the system somewhere, because the popularity filter is hiding them from me.

 

I realize the rationale behind the popularity filter ... you were looking for a way to entice new members to upgrade to the premium membership. But the popularity filter has so far proven incomprehensible to the majority of new users.

 

Want to entice new members into paying ... then use the GC.com model. Implement bookmarks and pocket queries.

[Jeremy]

Why would we use the popularity filter to increase premium memberships? It is filtering out the worst voted ones.

 

Actually, I self mod. It's off-topic to the current discussion. If you wish to provide some constructive feedback the Waymarking forums are available.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Jeremy

[+slinger91]

Heck, the advertising remark is one of the dumbest things I've read in the forums in a long time.

Ok. dumb...that's fine. I take it back. It just seems to me, that geocaching has grown into something more and more commercial over time. And these new websites seem a little bit like overkill. Like I said in my earlier post, I am not a big fan of virts, but if done right I think they have a place here. As far as cache saturation goes, I think it's going to be, if not already a problem. I would support limiting or slowing new cache growth, no matter the type or size. It's kind of like our version of "Urban Sprawl".

[+dogbreathcanada]

Why would we use the popularity filter to increase premium memberships? It is filtering out the worst voted ones.

Well, you don't allow non-Premium members to alter their popularity filter index, so it's obviously a carrot you're using to entice people into a premium membership.

[+chstress53]

Vargseld?

 

This is the instructions on owning a Catagory Currently taken from the FAQ

 

How do I start my own category? How do I manage it?

 

1. You must be a Premium Member

2. Post a category proposal in the discussion forums.

3. Have your category published to the directory by Groundspeak (some revision may be required)

4. Once your category is published, you’ll be given tools to manage the category on Waymarking.com

 

We expect the process of category creation to change with time, but in the beginning the categories will be carefully chosen by Groundspeak with the guidance of the growing Waymarking community via the discussion forums.

 

{ Wait for them to email you asking if you are interested in becoming owner of the catagory you proposed. If you say yes, GC.com assists with this step., do npt pester them, they will email you as they seem to be very busy creating what I think is a very cool site., ) I speak from experience as that is how I became a Catagory owner of a Catagory I proposed just recently. I have noticed that if cachers discussions are positive and there are several of them that have been created this way that proposal soon becomes a Catagory.

Edited November 6, 2005 by chstress53

[+mtn-man]

Actually, I self mod. It's off-topic to the current discussion. If you wish to provide some constructive feedback the Waymarking forums are available.

For particulars regarding Waymarking, it is best to go to the Waymarking forums.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?c=9

 

 

Back on topic... I like the new site division. The biggest plus is the fact that reviewers are no longer responsible for the subjectivity factor regarding webcams and virtual submissions. It has indeed helped to clarify the guidelines, which is also good. As with anything, it will take some getting used to. I have enjoyed having a Waymarking category or two and have creating some waymarks. I also have an idea for a new geocache as well. I hope to surprise some people in my local area soon with new cache based on an old idea, for example.

 

I give the changes a yea.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I Just read the new guidelines for caches. And I must say removing locationless caches and even webcam caches doesn't bother me. But virtuals... I'm no big fan of them by any means, but i think they have a place here. I took a trip back east(NY-ME) in May. Of the 30+ caches I found it was nice to hit the occasional virtual to break things up, and learn some local history. I realize that virtuals will have a new name and a new website, but i believe in one-stop caching. The last thing I think we need is spreading things out all over the web. We are up to 3 sites now?

I agree with slinger. One stop geocaching is the way to go. Some virtuals were badly maintained, as were some locationless caches. I found some locationless caches to be very challenging, and some virtuals to be very interesting. And some were not. The same can be said about 'regular' caches. Three? Four? Seven different websites to find what I used to be able to find here? No, thanks. I might as well go to terrachaching or one of those other imposter sites.

What I do find curious is that the moderators have gone completely off-topic. OMG!

[+Sir Robin]

I really dislike the new guidelines.

Finding virtualls has been a great way of learning about things in an area that I am visiting or even local things I didn't know about.

Someone mentioned that there are virtually no virtuals that could not have a log placed somewhere nearby, this would be great and I agree that you should always make the effort. The problem here is permission, particularlly at historical sites. We all know every micro has been placed with permission.

 

These were also great for handicapped cachers, so kudos to administrators for that move.

 

The locationless caches bother me even more, locationless where a great way for people to once again(like virtuals) find and share things in their area for others to visit. I really liked the one where you found statues performing normal activities.

 

I have visited the other sites a few times and am not interested in having to log in and use a different site. Particularly when you cannot do a search for all waymarks from your home coordinates.

 

At a time when there are a lot of complaints about not enough hiding they have now knocked a few hide options off the list.

 

I guess someone important had a bad day and decided to many people were having fun for one low price (which will likely change the day the other sites get enough membership). I would glady have paid a few more dollars to keep things the same or to even expand the options, too bad we were not asked.

[+The Leprechauns]

I really dislike the new guidelines.

Finding virtualls has been a great way of learning about things in an area that I am visiting or even local things I didn't know about.

So did it not bother you that something north of 90% of all virtual submissions in the past two years never got published? And are you not happy that there have been hundreds of new spots published in just the past few months of beta testing for Waymarking? I'm puzzled.

 

    Someone mentioned that there are virtually no virtuals that could not have a log placed somewhere nearby, this would be great and I agree that you should always make the effort.  The problem here is permission, particularlly at historical sites.  We all know every micro has been placed with permission.

 

I agree; I've been frustrated in trying to show off points of historical interest in downtown Pittsburgh. Several are at a state park where you need a permit to hide a geocache. I've been able to place more than a half dozen waymarks to highlight what I wanted to share!

 

These were also great for handicapped cachers, so kudos to administrators for that move.

 

Yes, I agree, opening the gates to new submissions of accessible points of interest is great for those with mobility limitations.

 

The locationless caches bother me even more, locationless where a great way for people to once again(like virtuals) find and share things in their area for others to visit.  I really liked the one where you found statues performing normal activities.

 

I see you haven't logged any locationless caches. I logged a few when I first started, but quickly lost interest because (1) they didn't feel like "geocaches," (2) there was a scramble to claim the only available locations in my city -- a problem addressed by the Waymarking site design, and (3) no new ones have been listed since early 2003. Now we have the equivalent of dozens of new locationless caches being listed! There is lots of new stuff out there to log now.

 

I have visited the other sites a few times and am not interested in having to log in and use a different site.  Particularly when you cannot do a search for all waymarks from your home coordinates.

This comment puzzles me because Waymarking allows you to search not only from your home coordinates, but also from alternate coordinates. I've got one set up for my work location, too. This is superior to Geocaching.com and I hope that the improvement will migrate over to the main site. Doing that search from my alternate work coordinates, I can quickly see that there are 15 waymarks from 5 different categories, all within 10 miles of my office. Reading the details for them -- historic markers, fountains, etc. -- I can pretty much guarantee that none of these spots would have been published as a virtual cache. So that is 15 new things available to log.

 

At  a time when there are a lot of complaints about not enough hiding they have now knocked a few hide options off the list.

 

I guess someone important had a bad day and decided to many people were having fun for one low price (which will likely change the day the other sites get enough membership).  I would glady have paid a few more dollars to keep things the same or to even expand the options, too bad we were not asked.

 

You'd pay more money to continue the moratorium on locationless caches, and the practice of archiving 90%+ of virtual caches? Perhaps TPTB missed a revenue opportunity here.

 

I notice that you are new to the forums. The community has been "asked" for input through repeated and heated threads about locationless and virtual caches over the years. They make for interesting reading.

[+nfa]

I think the recent updates to the guidelines improve their clarity significantly.

 

I never had any interest in "locationless caches", didn't see them as caches in any sense of the word, and so won't miss them at all.

 

While I have enjoyed the few "virtual caches" that I did, I appreciate (and essentially agree with) the argument that they are not caches, just waypoints. I like caches being limited to containers with logs and trade-items.

 

j

[+Sir Robin]

Wow, someone really likes Waymarking and completely missed several points.

(not listing all of his quotes way to many of them he knows who he is)

 

Not publishing subissions is exactly what I was talking about when I said I would pay more for more options, add other categories to one site instead of additional sites.

 

Waymarking does not allow you to search for all waymarks from your home coordinates it allows you to get all of a particular category from your home coordinates great if you already knew what your were looking for instead of trying to find something interesting to do. I found this out because I was going to give it a try, so I did a search and I did not get a list of waymarks I got a list of categories.

The quote from the waymark page on the right hand side is:

 

We do not allow waymark searches from the directory home. You must first select a subcategory.

 

About the handicapped comment, you said they are not approving caches this limits opportunities, like I said before adding categories not changing sites would provide opportunities.

 

I have read the forums, (other account) so I know they have talked about virtuals and locationless for a long time, but all I ever saw was that they were elimintating them so why would I bother posting one.

 

Plenty of locationless have been posted since 2003, possibly no new categories but new posts which was the great thing about locationless when someone added a new post to a category, you had something you could go find.

 

I didn't mean anything negative about Waymarking I just saw no reason for it to be a spin off in the first place.

[+The Leprechauns]

Waymarking does not allow you to search for all waymarks from your home coordinates it allows you to get all of a particular category from your home coordinates great if you already knew what your were looking for instead of trying to find something interesting to do. I found this out because I was going to give it a try, so I did a search and I did not get a list of waymarks I got a list of categories.

The quote from the waymark page on the right hand side is:

 

We do not allow waymark searches from the directory home. You must first select a subcategory.

You need to move down one box from the box you are quoting from. From the directory page, go to the location filter box and select a location filter like your home coordinates, and run a search. Click on the categories that got returned -- IF you have an interest in that category -- and you'll see all the waymarks within the specified distance (10, 50 or 100 miles). If you're not interested in the "McDonalds" category, don't click on it. If you're interested in "Fountains" and "Insect Sculptures," click on those two.

 

I don't believe you're using the search features to their full potential. If you need assistance, post to a thread on that subject in the Waymarking forum, or start one of your own. But please don't say that it isn't possible to search for all waymarks in all categories from a given set of coordinates, because that is not a true statement.

[+tozainamboku]

I really dislike the new guidelines.

Finding virtualls has been a great way of learning about things in an area that I am visiting or even local things I didn't know about.

So did it not bother you that something north of 90% of all virtual submissions in the past two years never got published? And are you not happy that there have been hundreds of new spots published in just the past few months of beta testing for Waymarking? I'm puzzled.

Looking for Virtual caches meant that I could be really suprised to find a neat location that I would never have looked for otherwise. Waymarking assumes I want to find something that interests me. I have no idea what might interest me and having someone else decide if someplace had enough "Wow" factor was nice. I certainly can understand that someone who had to decide if a virtual had the "wow" factor and had to put up with complaints from those who had a virtual rejected would be happy not to have to make subjective judgements anymore. Congratulations on being the owner of the Waymarking category that spawned the first "waymark-cide". I guess having an "objective" requirement for what fits in your category really helped

 

    Someone mentioned that there are virtually no virtuals that could not have a log placed somewhere nearby, this would be great and I agree that you should always make the effort.  The problem here is permission, particularlly at historical sites.  We all know every micro has been placed with permission.

I agree; I've been frustrated in trying to show off points of historical interest in downtown Pittsburgh. Several are at a state park where you need a permit to hide a geocache. I've been able to place more than a half dozen waymarks to highlight what I wanted to share!

I also agree. I never understood why people objected to making an offset cache instead of a virtual. You would still see the historic sight and then go off to a nearby park or lampost to sign the log . They were a few places where changing a virtual to the first waypoint in a multi would be unreasonable. For example, my virtual requires at least a 3 mile hike (one way). There is now a physical cache only .3 miles from my virtual, but it is at least 1 mile further along the trail and, unless I provide trail maps, it would be hard to get to just using a GPSr. For those that hid virtuals because they were just too lazy to hide an offset, Waymarking is the answer.

 

These were also great for handicapped cachers, so kudos to administrators for that move.

 

Yes, I agree, opening the gates to new submissions of accessible points of interest is great for those with mobility limitations.

"Groundspeak hates handicapped children?" Maybe a lot of virtuals were 1/1. It seems that there are still plenty of 1/1 caches (of course many of these are rated wrong). Waymarking has no way of indicating which waymarks are handicapped accessible. Perhaps every category sould have a terrain variable? However, it does seem that there will be far more accessible waymarks and many Waymarking categories where handicapped individuals can participate.

 

The locationless caches bother me even more, locationless where a great way for people to once again(like virtuals) find and share things in their area for others to visit.  I really liked the one where you found statues performing normal activities.

 

I see you haven't logged any locationless caches. I logged a few when I first started, but quickly lost interest because (1) they didn't feel like "geocaches," (2) there was a scramble to claim the only available locations in my city -- a problem addressed by the Waymarking site design, and (3) no new ones have been listed since early 2003. Now we have the equivalent of dozens of new locationless caches being listed! There is lots of new stuff out there to log now.

I have never logged a locationless. To me most were not even geocaching. I did consider some of the coordinate play locationless geocaching, because they entailed figuring out some coordinates that I could put into my GPSr and go find. But the scavenger hunt variety never interested me. But, I can see myself reporting waymarks if I find and interesting place I want to share and it falls in one of the these categories. Of course, if I can hide a cache there I might just create a geocache and forget about the waymark.

 

I have visited the other sites a few times and am not interested in having to log in and use a different site.  Particularly when you cannot do a search for all waymarks from your home coordinates.

This comment puzzles me because Waymarking allows you to search not only from your home coordinates, but also from alternate coordinates. I've got one set up for my work location, too. This is superior to Geocaching.com and I hope that the improvement will migrate over to the main site. Doing that search from my alternate work coordinates, I can quickly see that there are 15 waymarks from 5 different categories, all within 10 miles of my office. Reading the details for them -- historic markers, fountains, etc. -- I can pretty much guarantee that none of these spots would have been published as a virtual cache. So that is 15 new things available to log.

The search features on Waymarking.com are a bit confusing. I think that they will improve based on input from those using the site. I'm pretty confident that eventually every cache page will have a link to show nearby waymarks (just like the link to show nearby benchmarks). Jeremy has also indicated that once the Waymarking code matures, geocaches will migrate over to use the same code base. At that time, I hope that there will be ways to get a list of both geocaches and waymarks together.

 

At  a time when there are a lot of complaints about not enough hiding they have now knocked a few hide options off the list.

 

I guess someone important had a bad day and decided to many people were having fun for one low price (which will likely change the day the other sites get enough membership).  I would glady have paid a few more dollars to keep things the same or to even expand the options, too bad we were not asked.

 

You'd pay more money to continue the moratorium on locationless caches, and the practice of archiving 90%+ of virtual caches? Perhaps TPTB missed a revenue opportunity here.

 

I notice that you are new to the forums. The community has been "asked" for input through repeated and heated threads about locationless and virtual caches over the years. They make for interesting reading.

Let's not rush to judgement that there will be a separate membership for Waymarking.com. It's call a Groundspeak Premium Membership and I think that it will stay that way for the foreseeable future. As Lep pointed out above, Waymarking provides a lot of options for new locations that you can report or visit beyond what was on Geocaching.com. It solves the serious problems with locationless. And while I am not satisfied with what happens to virtual caches, I see the opportunities of Waymarking far outweighing the disadvantages. You have to take the bitter with the sweet.

[+Sir Robin]

The topic was whether you liked the changes or not, I do not. I am very happy for those of you that do.

 

Do we need 5/5 websites and micro websites? No, you just don't go to the ones you don't like. I liked the the types of caches they have moved to the other sites, I prefer a good large cache in the woods.

 

I liked being able to see all of my options for caches of various types with one search, I thought this was convenient, clearly I was mistaken going to a seperate website and starting your search over is the way to go.

 

Sorry for ruffling feathers before, feel free to get the last word in.

[+Miragee]

I really dislike the new guidelines.

Finding virtuals has been a great way of learning about things in an area that I am visiting or even local things I didn't know about.    . . .

 

. . . I liked being able to see all of my options for caches of various types with one search, I thought this was convenient, . . .

I agree. I guess I will never understand why Virtuals had to be moved from this site.

 

I can understand moving Locationless caches and Web Cams, but good Virtuals, past and future, that showed off something unique, or of historical interest, should have remained on this site, IMHO.

 

If I am going to travel somewhere, I have enough planning to do for caches along the way. With my slow dialup Internet connection, I can't see myself spending time browsing around for something on a different site . . .

 

Now if I had a specific interest, like fountains or McDonalds "restaurants," maybe Waymarking would make sense, but I don't. I just want to see unique, unusual,historical, or geological features while I am traveling and caching . . .

 

Having all those things included in one PQ was very convenient.

[+Jeep_Dog]

I can understand moving Locationless caches and Web Cams, but good Virtuals, past and future, that showed off something unique, or of historical interest, should have remained on this site, IMHO.

I am hoping that these type of interesting caches get turned into offeset or pure multi-caches. For example, Mount Rushmore could have a first stage multi in the Scupltor's gallery (get the date that Borglum did such and such from the timeline display), then another point on the backside at the Profile point of interest (get the number of such-and-such), another point right at the memorial boundary to the National Forest along 244 to the west (a nature interpretive sign is there), and then a final located in a million possible hiding spots in the National Forest. Setting something like this up is quite easy, and I had the coordinates/details all noted in a quick tour of that memorial... alas, I do not live there, and no "vacation" caches, so we will just have to wait for a Black Hills geocacher to set one up (hint, hint).

 

Now, there is definately a problem and a "black hole" of caches in a memorial dense place that covers a lot of terrain, such as D.C. True, a series of multis could be devised here, too, but I am not sure I would want to get the "final" in some of the outlying areas of D.C. So, sadly, perhaps strike the U.S. capitol from what is in my opinion a new national pastime. Then again, Bush sponsors baseball games on the Whitehouse lawn, perhaps we could arrange for an event cache there?

 

So, to summarize, I feel your pain and dismay. Yet, I think we are a clever enough group of folks to overcome the new organization of nifty points our GPSr can take us and make even better & more exciting geocaches. We just have to think outside the box (er... outside the memorial/NP boundaries)...

Edited November 7, 2005 by Jeep_Dog

[+briansnat]

I just want to see unique, unusual,historical, or geological features while I am traveling and caching .

 

Great news. You can still do that as long as your fellow geocachers continue to place geocaches near unique, unusual,historical, or geological features. I know many in my area do and I've discovered some very interesting spots thanks to them.

[+winged fox]

I must say that a "virtual" even it may not seem to be a cache to some is an excellent way to direct a cachers attention to a spot of history or unusual interest that might otherwise be overlooked.

The CATEGORIES in Waymarking do nothing to alert a geocacher that there is something unusual, in the area, unless the searcher already has an interest in a Waymarking category they will not be looking for it.

I am aware that Groundspeak is interested in growth and that means beaming their promotional efforts toward the younger people with money to spend. That is a fact of life and the old and feeble will have to accept that.

I like virtuals if they can be justified. I don't really care for the Micro and sub Micro "caches". In my estimation a "cache" should contain something of value that a person is hiding and an item removed should be replaced with a similar item.

Of course there is the remote possibility that I could be wrong. I am so physically old that I don't do the 5 star terrain listings.

I would like to suggest that posters check their spelling before sending the post.

[+Miragee]

I just want to see unique, unusual, historical, or geological features while I am traveling and caching .

Great news. You can still do that as long as your fellow geocachers continue to place geocaches near unique, unusual, historical, or geological features. I know many in my area do and I've discovered some very interesting spots thanks to them.

True, but one of my favorite Virtuals here, "SD Historical 1890," is in a crowded neighborhood.

 

I had to do quite a bit of walking around (and read an article) to get the answers to the questions. In that part of town, I don't know where a final cache could have been placed.

 

Since parking is at a premium in city locations such as this one, having to drive to another place to find a physical cache might be a real deterrent.

 

I don't know why the rules for Virtuals couldn't have been tightened so only quality Virtuals, such as this one, would qualify for listing on GC.com . . .