Okay, So I'm Confused...

[+Cachin' Kidlets]

Here's the deal... My family loved searching out interesting virtual caches to find while we were on vacation. Usually they took us to interesting, out-of-the-way places. (We also enjoy finding regular caches, too, by the way!)

 

The virtual caches that we found were all different... some were interesting rock formations... some were historical markers... some were interesting items... Very few of them were in the same category, yet they were all interesting.

 

We're going on vacation in a month, taking I65 from Michigan to Florida, and it's my job to come up with some interesting places to visit.

 

Have I completely missed a map by state section? (I don't need to know all the virtuals in Tennessee, only the ones close to I65.)

 

Do I have to wade through the pages of McDonalds restaurants that offer wireless internet?

 

Can someone help me out? The more I try to find something interesting, the more discouraged I get.

 

Thanks,

 

Melissa from Cachin' Kidlets

[+chstress53]

YOU SEEM TO BE CONFUSED This site has waymarks not virtuals, Virtuals can still be downloaded as before from gc.com They are all grandfathered in at GC.com. They did not go away. wAYMARKS ARE LIKE THE LOCATIONLESS CACHES THAT ARE THE ONLY CACHES TO HAVE BEEN ARCHIVED FROM GC.COM pLEASE GO TO gc.COM AND LOAD IN ALL THE VIRTUALS AS YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST tHEY ARE STILL THERE FOR THE FINDING. yOU JUST CAN NOT CREATE NEW ONES ON THAT SITE. tHIS Waymarking SITE IS FOR LOCATIONLESS CACHES.

[+Cachin' Kidlets]

Thanks for setting me straight, but I do have one more question. Where will people go to create new virtuals? I was told it would fall under Waymarking. Is that incorrect?

 

Thanks again,

 

Melissa from Cachin' Kidlets

[+cache_test_dummies]

Where will people go to create new virtuals?  I was told it would fall under Waymarking.  Is that incorrect?

What we used to know as Virtual Caches on GC.com are the equivalent of a Waymark on WM.com. So when you post a new waymark for an existing category on Waymarking.com, you are (in essence) creating a virtual.

 

Think of it this way:

 

What was on GC.com -----> What is on WM.com

Locationless cache -----> Waymark category

Virtual cache -----> Waymark

Log a virtual -----> Visit a Waymark

[+JDandDD]

What we used to know as Virtual Caches on GC.com are the equivalent of a Waymark on WM.com. So when you post a new waymark for an existing category on Waymarking.com, you are (in essence) creating a virtual.

Sorry, don't agree with you on the virtual side. One of the biggest problems I've noticed is that there have always been definitional problems with locationaless and virtuals.

 

Locationaless was completely the wrong word. They were no more locationless than waymarks. The proper term would have been multi-location and I can agree calling them waymarks and a separate site.

 

Virtuals, in the definition, are specific spots in which you can't place a traditional cache. National, state and provincial parks and historic sites are perfect for those.

 

To me, waymarks are things liek MacDonaldds, mailboxes, drive-in theatres etc., while virtuals are made for the parks where you can' t normally cache.

 

There have been statements that virtuals aren't acceptable because they don't fit the purpose of geocaching. But then I ask how puzzle caches are seen as the purpose of geocaching. Solving some riddle, finding the masonic code, solving a physics problem, what has that got to do with the original purpose of geocaching.

 

Finally, benchmarks still appear to be accceptable in caching and they are virtuals and what exactly separates them from national, state, or provinicial historic plaques.

 

My point is that the problem has always been definitional and that should have been worked on.

 

JDandDD

[+cache_test_dummies]

What we used to know as Virtual Caches on GC.com are the equivalent of a Waymark on WM.com. So when you post a new waymark for an existing category on Waymarking.com, you are (in essence) creating a virtual.

Sorry, don't agree with you on the virtual side.

If you look at my post, you should see that I was reponding to the following question:

 

Where will people go to create new virtuals? I was told it would fall under Waymarking.

In my response to that question, I attempted to explain the old GC.com 'locationless' and 'virtual' caches in terms of how these concepts are represented on Waymarking.com.

 

You say you disagree with my answer to the question "Where will people go to create new virtuals"? I don't mind that you disagree with my answer, but as you have disagreed, where would you suggest people go to create new virtuals?

 

If your point is that GC.com virtuals are not exactly the same as Waymarks, I agree. There are many differences between the two. There are also many similarities. But with respect to Cachin' Kidlets' question about where to go to create new virtuals, I stand by my answer.

[+JDandDD]

Looks like I copied too much in the original quote. What I was disagreeing with was this:

 

What we used to know as Virtual Caches on GC.com are the equivalent of a Waymark on WM.com

 

I don't think they are equivalent and that may be my interpretation of the word. From your reply to my post I think we are pretty much on the same train of thought regarding virtuals on gc.

 

You are correct that right now they can only be created on Waymarking. I don't think that virtuals are being treated correctly and should remain on gc. My point is that they could exist with proper definition.

 

An example is available in Niagara Falls. The Falls themselves are an example of a waymark. Not only are they part of a larger defiiniton of Falls as a group, but they can be viewed from multiple locations. However, anyone who has done the cache Niagara Falls Virtual (GCABA1) knows that it is a plaque in a very specific location where it is impossible to place a traditional cache anywhere nearby and its possible to be right on the coordinates and not see it.

 

So I'm advocating not stopping the debate on virtuals but rather looking at the definitions and WOW factor isn't it but it should be possible. Probably I lost cause but someone has to champion lost causes.

 

Yes, your answer stands and I wasn't disagreeing with that and sorry it was taken that way.

 

JDanDD

[+tozainamboku]

What we used to know as Virtual Caches on GC.com are the equivalent of a Waymark on WM.com

 

I don't think they are equivalent and that may be my interpretation of the word. From your reply to my post I think we are pretty much on the same train of thought regarding virtuals on gc.

 

I agree that waymark does not equal virtual cache. A waymark is any location that fits under a Waymarking category. Virtual caches had specfic requirements - including:

• that there be a specific item at the GPS location (not just a view, a trail, a beach, or a waterfall);
  
• that the location be novel, of interest to other players, and have an historic, community, or geocaching quality to set it apart from an everday object; and
  
• that there be specific questions that could be answered only by a visit to that location.
  

Additionally, virtual caches didn't necessarilly have to fall under one of the existing Waymarking categories.

 

Because of this, I had proposed a Wow!!! Waymarking category. TPTB did not take kindly to this proposal. Part of the reason for not accepting new virtual caches was that the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers were spending too much time on virtual caches in determining if they met the wow factor part of the guideline. The Wow!! category would just move this decision to the managers of the Wow!! category. Can you imagine the complaints that would fill up these forums when I turn down Wow!! waymarks because I don't think they are unique? If there are any suggestions on how to implement a Wow!! category that addresses the subjectivity issue I would like to hear them. I would really like to find a workable solution for virtual caches within the Waymarking framework.

Edited January 9, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I thought one of the moderators mentioned that a wow or surprise category was being considered. I happen to think it is a great idea. I would love to have some waymarks fall into that category. That is where I will have the fun. I hope a seperate puzzle category is also considered.

[+vree]

i have to agree that trying to fit the terminology and understanding of geocaching into the new Waymarking game is somewhat confusing. i think it'd be easier if we weren't taking the baggage of familiarity with geocaching! clean slate, old habits die hard, and all that jazz.

 

please let me know if i am understanding this correctly. waymark categories list... well, categories. pretty simple. within those categories are waymarks. it almost feels like you are logging a locationless cache when you are creating a waymark. in reality, when you create a waymark, you are creating the "equivalent" of a cache. people will see this waymark and log it (small aside: is it bad form, then, to log your own waymark?).

 

so... it's almost like waymark categories are locationless cache equivalents, but when you create a waymark, other people go to log it afterwards as if it was a virtual.

 

i am aware that Waymarking is not geocaching, i am just trying to make sure i understand Waymarking and using the former terminology of gc.com just gives us a common point of reference. or confuses the heck out of us...

[+cache_test_dummies]

please let me know if i am understanding this correctly. waymark categories list... well, categories. pretty simple. within those categories are waymarks. it almost feels like you are logging a locationless cache when you are creating a waymark. in reality, when you create a waymark, you are creating the "equivalent" of a cache. people will see this waymark and log it (small aside: is it bad form, then, to log your own waymark?).

 

so... it's almost like waymark categories are locationless cache equivalents, but when you create a waymark, other people go to log it afterwards as if it was a virtual.

Yes, you have it right.

[+vree]

thanks, CTD.