No More Virtuals?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Separating cache types is now going to start territorial wars

 

How? Now someone can place a cache at a site and also make it a waymark if they like. You could't put a real cache next to a virtual before, but you can do that now

 

.. After all the whole game is bases of "FINDING a LOCATION"....

 

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES. Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Then I guess we can look forward to the removal of EVENTS and PUZZLES, too. After all, it's about finding a box, not about having a party or solving a Sudoku or some other such nonsense to get to the box.

[+robert]

I might be wrong, but I don't think that virtual legs of multi-caches that end in an actual cache container are banned. That would mean that, in a way, virtuals could still be done at gc.com. They just have to ultimately end in a physical container somwhere or another.

Correct!

 

This would be a problem in the NPS but in most all other cases, would be fine. There's one near here that's fairly new that does that. Whistle Stop. Haven't done it yet but looking at the page it looks pretty cool.

 

[+JimmyEv]

I might be wrong, but I don't think that virtual legs of multi-caches that end in an actual cache container are banned.  That would mean that, in a way, virtuals could still be done at gc.com.  They just have to ultimately end in a physical container somwhere or another.

Correct!

 

This would be a problem in the NPS but in most all other cases, would be fine. There's one near here that's fairly new that does that. Whistle Stop. Haven't done it yet but looking at the page it looks pretty cool.

 

Why would this be a problem on NPS land, other than the fact that in some cases you'd have to go pretty far before you can place a physical container? I was thinking along the lines of using serial numbers from the oil drilling equipment scattered about a national wildlife refuge as the legs for a multi culminating in a container in a near-by state wildlife management area.

[+TrailGators]

I have no intentions of going to THE WAYMAKING web site.... To me waymaking is like a multipoint scavenger hunt or a poker run ( automotive event) where you need to hit multiple points to achieve success....

 

You seem to have a misconception about Waymarking. Waymarking is simply virtual and locationless caches under another name. Any one who enjoys locationless and virtual caches should enjoy Waymarking - unleess its all about the smileys.

You have a point about the smilies! But to many that have been caching a long time those smilies are their investment into the game....I still don't understand why GC didn't let qualifying virtuals and earthcaches count on both sites? A little cross-pollination could be a good thing for both sites!

Edited January 11, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Dew Crew]

I have no intentions of going to THE WAYMAKING web site.... To me waymaking is like a multipoint scavenger hunt or a poker run ( automotive event) where you need to hit multiple points to achieve success....

 

You seem to have a misconception about Waymarking. Waymarking is simply virtual and locationless caches under another name. Any one who enjoys locationless and virtual caches should enjoy Waymarking - unleess its all about the smileys.

You have a point about the smilies! But to many that have been caching a long time those smilies are their investment into the game....I still don't understand why GC didn't let qualifying virtuals and earthcaches count on both sites? A little cross-pollination could be a good thing for both sites!

They're working on making stats reflect on both sites, but it isn't a priority issue right now. The main thing is getting efficient catagory management up. But I am glad that they at least kept virtuals, earthcaches, and webcams grandfathered.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Dew Crew

[+TrailGators]

I have no intentions of going to THE WAYMAKING web site.... To me waymaking is like a multipoint scavenger hunt or a poker run ( automotive event) where you need to hit multiple points to achieve success....

You seem to have a misconception about Waymarking. Waymarking is simply virtual and locationless caches under another name. Any one who enjoys locationless and virtual caches should enjoy Waymarking - unleess its all about the smileys.

You have a point about the smilies! But to many that have been caching a long time those smilies are their investment into the game....I still don't understand why GC didn't let qualifying virtuals and earthcaches count on both sites? A little cross-pollination could be a good thing for both sites!

They're working on making stats reflect on both sites, but it isn't a priority issue right now. The main thing is getting efficient catagory management up. But I am glad that they at least kept virtuals, earthcaches, and webcams grandfathered.

I'd like to see virtuals, earthcaches, and webcams allowed back! I've done some awesome virtuals and earthcaches! Webcams are fun on a group outings! I really enjoy the variety of cache types when I'm caching!

[+briansnat]

hen I guess we can look forward to the removal of EVENTS and PUZZLES, too. After all, it's about finding a box, not about having a party or solving a Sudoku or some other such nonsense to get to the box.

 

Most puzzle caches I've found had a box at the end.

[+JDandDD]

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES.  Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Well, if its all about going back to its roots and its about a container, why does geocaching include benchmarks. They're not a box in fact they are exactly like virtuals, a specific spot to be found with the GPS and you know what you are going to find when you go out the door. Given this logic, we should conclude that event caches, CITO events and puzzle caches should be removed as well because they are not part of the roots of the game.

 

The logic of going back to roots is always a flawed strategy. To remain viable and current almost every activity and sport has to adapt over time. If we stayed with roots of the game football players would wear leather helmets and the game rules would be more like rugby (no forward passes for instance), baseball would be played with gloves barely the size of your hand and only during the day and with no leadoffs and stealing. The same could be said for every sport.

 

But everything changes and so should geocaching. The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them. Why do you think sports change their rules every year. They have to modify rules, add new ones etc. to tweak the game as the game changes. They don't prevent the game from changing. Geocaching should tweak its game not split it into parts.

 

Similarly, people whine 'I have to filter out virtuals'. Well, I have to filter out Walmart micros but so what, I don't like them I don't do them. My dislike is no real reason to deny other people these caches if they enjoy them. However, with virtuals it became, 'some of us don't like them so nobody should have them.' I agree that Waymarking keeps them alive but it just doesn't integrate the game at all.

 

Everything that tries to resist change ultimately becomes irrelevant and splitting a game into parts rather than working on rules/methods to appropriately integrate new ideas and components is to fragment the sport irreparably and that ultimately leads to irrelevancy. You can see the start of the fragmentation process in the amount of dissent about Waymarking, not a good omen.

 

JDandDD

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Why? If virtuals, benchmarking, etc. are all "non-caches", then why don't we just have a sub-category on gc.com? Why a different website? Why not just a different search category?. When we travel anywhere, we find everything available at one spot right now. Why break everything up? Just give us a decent search system where you can turn on and off what you want to show up in your search and then everyone can be happy. Virtuals aren't my favorite, but I've learned a lot about the areas I'm caching in by checking them out.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES.  Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Well, if its all about going back to its roots and its about a container, why does geocaching include benchmarks. They're not a box in fact they are exactly like virtuals, a specific spot to be found with the GPS and you know what you are going to find when you go out the door. Given this logic, we should conclude that event caches, CITO events and puzzle caches should be removed as well because they are not part of the roots of the game.

 

The logic of going back to roots is always a flawed strategy. To remain viable and current almost every activity and sport has to adapt over time. If we stayed with roots of the game football players would wear leather helmets and the game rules would be more like rugby (no forward passes for instance), baseball would be played with gloves barely the size of your hand and only during the day and with no leadoffs and stealing. The same could be said for every sport.

 

But everything changes and so should geocaching. The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them. Why do you think sports change their rules every year. They have to modify rules, add new ones etc. to tweak the game as the game changes. They don't prevent the game from changing. Geocaching should tweak its game not split it into parts.

 

Similarly, people whine 'I have to filter out virtuals'. Well, I have to filter out Walmart micros but so what, I don't like them I don't do them. My dislike is no real reason to deny other people these caches if they enjoy them. However, with virtuals it became, 'some of us don't like them so nobody should have them.' I agree that Waymarking keeps them alive but it just doesn't integrate the game at all.

 

Everything that tries to resist change ultimately becomes irrelevant and splitting a game into parts rather than working on rules/methods to appropriately integrate new ideas and components is to fragment the sport irreparably and that ultimately leads to irrelevancy. You can see the start of the fragmentation process in the amount of dissent about Waymarking, not a good omen.

 

JDandDD

Benchmarks have never been included with geocaches. They are "something else" you can locate with a GPS. Virtuals fit that description too, since they aren't caches either. Now the site is setup so geocaching.com handles geocaches, and Waymarking.com handles the non-geocaching aspects. Benchmarks are still in a category of their own, but last I checked they haven't been a hot topic like virts and locationless, so there isn't any hurry to move them to another site.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES.  Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Well, if its all about going back to its roots and its about a container, why does geocaching include benchmarks. They're not a box in fact they are exactly like virtuals, a specific spot to be found with the GPS and you know what you are going to find when you go out the door. Given this logic, we should conclude that event caches, CITO events and puzzle caches should be removed as well because they are not part of the roots of the game.

 

The logic of going back to roots is always a flawed strategy. To remain viable and current almost every activity and sport has to adapt over time. If we stayed with roots of the game football players would wear leather helmets and the game rules would be more like rugby (no forward passes for instance), baseball would be played with gloves barely the size of your hand and only during the day and with no leadoffs and stealing. The same could be said for every sport.

 

But everything changes and so should geocaching. The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them. Why do you think sports change their rules every year. They have to modify rules, add new ones etc. to tweak the game as the game changes. They don't prevent the game from changing. Geocaching should tweak its game not split it into parts.

 

Similarly, people whine 'I have to filter out virtuals'. Well, I have to filter out Walmart micros but so what, I don't like them I don't do them. My dislike is no real reason to deny other people these caches if they enjoy them. However, with virtuals it became, 'some of us don't like them so nobody should have them.' I agree that Waymarking keeps them alive but it just doesn't integrate the game at all.

 

Everything that tries to resist change ultimately becomes irrelevant and splitting a game into parts rather than working on rules/methods to appropriately integrate new ideas and components is to fragment the sport irreparably and that ultimately leads to irrelevancy. You can see the start of the fragmentation process in the amount of dissent about Waymarking, not a good omen.

 

JDandDD

Extremely well put, JDandDD. That's what I was trying to say above, in my post about puzzles and events, but you've done it so much more eloquently.

 

The fact of the matter is, as someone said before, Geocaching.com is run by an oligarchy, for better or for worse, and it is that oligarchy that determines policy, features, rules, etc - not the user community. Furthermore, despite the fact that it is an amusing diversion for MOST people, Groundspeak is a BUSINESS for those actually IN the oligarchy, and I'm sure all the changes that go down do so because they make good business sense in the grand scheme of things.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES.  Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Well, if its all about going back to its roots and its about a container, why does geocaching include benchmarks. They're not a box in fact they are exactly like virtuals, a specific spot to be found with the GPS and you know what you are going to find when you go out the door. Given this logic, we should conclude that event caches, CITO events and puzzle caches should be removed as well because they are not part of the roots of the game.

 

The logic of going back to roots is always a flawed strategy. To remain viable and current almost every activity and sport has to adapt over time. If we stayed with roots of the game football players would wear leather helmets and the game rules would be more like rugby (no forward passes for instance), baseball would be played with gloves barely the size of your hand and only during the day and with no leadoffs and stealing. The same could be said for every sport.

 

But everything changes and so should geocaching. The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them. Why do you think sports change their rules every year. They have to modify rules, add new ones etc. to tweak the game as the game changes. They don't prevent the game from changing. Geocaching should tweak its game not split it into parts.

 

Similarly, people whine 'I have to filter out virtuals'. Well, I have to filter out Walmart micros but so what, I don't like them I don't do them. My dislike is no real reason to deny other people these caches if they enjoy them. However, with virtuals it became, 'some of us don't like them so nobody should have them.' I agree that Waymarking keeps them alive but it just doesn't integrate the game at all.

 

Everything that tries to resist change ultimately becomes irrelevant and splitting a game into parts rather than working on rules/methods to appropriately integrate new ideas and components is to fragment the sport irreparably and that ultimately leads to irrelevancy. You can see the start of the fragmentation process in the amount of dissent about Waymarking, not a good omen.

 

JDandDD

Benchmarks have never been included with geocaches.

The ability to find them is "included" in the GC.com main site. Recovered benchmarks are "included" on your profile page.

 

So yeah, I think it's fair to say they're "included".

 

It's interesting how we're "getting back to the roots" by getting rid of virts and locationless, while at the same time adding zillions of new trackable geocoins every time you turn your head.

[+briansnat]

Why?   If virtuals, benchmarking, etc.  are all "non-caches", then why don't we just have a sub-category on gc.com?  Why a different website?  Why not just a different search category?.  When we travel anywhere, we find everything available at one spot right now.  Why break everything up?  Just give us a decent search system where you can turn on and off what you want to show up in your search and then everyone can be happy.  Virtuals aren't my favorite, but I've learned a lot about the areas I'm caching in by checking them out. 

 

Because this site wasn't designed to handle locationess caches and they caused problems. It was easier to build a new site from the ground up than to try to retrofit the existing site.

 

Virtuals were moved over there because they seemed like a better fit. They aren't geocaches.

 

Personally I don't see the big deal. I have Waymarking bookmarked and it takes me a blink of the eye to be over there. My premium membership, logon name and password are all good over there, so there is no issue at all switching between sites.

Edited January 13, 2006 by briansnat

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Why?   If virtuals, benchmarking, etc.  are all "non-caches", then why don't we just have a sub-category on gc.com?  Why a different website?  Why not just a different search category?.  When we travel anywhere, we find everything available at one spot right now.  Why break everything up?  Just give us a decent search system where you can turn on and off what you want to show up in your search and then everyone can be happy.  Virtuals aren't my favorite, but I've learned a lot about the areas I'm caching in by checking them out. 

 

Because this site wasn't designed to handle locationess caches and they caused problems. It was easier to build a new site from the ground up than to try to retrofit the existing site.

 

Virtuals were moved over there because they seemed like a better fit. They aren't geocaches.

 

Personally I don't see the big deal. I have Waymarking bookmarked and it takes me a blink of the eye to be over there. My premium membership, logon name and password are all good over there, so there is no issue at all switching between sites.

Brian, maybe some of the angst would go away if you wrote a quick tutorial on the proper way to query all geocaches AND Waymarking locations within a particular area, or, say, within a 10 mile radius of where you are or will be.

 

I think the problem is that everyone seems to think that to look for both while they're out and about, they need to carry two lists from two different sites.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES.  Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Well, if its all about going back to its roots and its about a container, why does geocaching include benchmarks. They're not a box in fact they are exactly like virtuals, a specific spot to be found with the GPS and you know what you are going to find when you go out the door. Given this logic, we should conclude that event caches, CITO events and puzzle caches should be removed as well because they are not part of the roots of the game.

 

The logic of going back to roots is always a flawed strategy. To remain viable and current almost every activity and sport has to adapt over time. If we stayed with roots of the game football players would wear leather helmets and the game rules would be more like rugby (no forward passes for instance), baseball would be played with gloves barely the size of your hand and only during the day and with no leadoffs and stealing. The same could be said for every sport.

 

But everything changes and so should geocaching. The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them. Why do you think sports change their rules every year. They have to modify rules, add new ones etc. to tweak the game as the game changes. They don't prevent the game from changing. Geocaching should tweak its game not split it into parts.

 

Similarly, people whine 'I have to filter out virtuals'. Well, I have to filter out Walmart micros but so what, I don't like them I don't do them. My dislike is no real reason to deny other people these caches if they enjoy them. However, with virtuals it became, 'some of us don't like them so nobody should have them.' I agree that Waymarking keeps them alive but it just doesn't integrate the game at all.

 

Everything that tries to resist change ultimately becomes irrelevant and splitting a game into parts rather than working on rules/methods to appropriately integrate new ideas and components is to fragment the sport irreparably and that ultimately leads to irrelevancy. You can see the start of the fragmentation process in the amount of dissent about Waymarking, not a good omen.

 

JDandDD

Benchmarks have never been included with geocaches.

The ability to find them is "included" in the GC.com main site. Recovered benchmarks are "included" on your profile page.

 

So yeah, I think it's fair to say they're "included".

 

It's interesting how we're "getting back to the roots" by getting rid of virts and locationless, while at the same time adding zillions of new trackable geocoins every time you turn your head.

I've found a couple of benchmarks. It didn't affect my find count.

[+Moose Mob]

This thread is getting a bit too "angsty". Please calm down.

[+tozainamboku]

This thread is getting a bit too "angsty".  Please calm down.

 

I do get a little peaved by the puritans that say "Virtuals were never geocaches". I believe that properly done virtuals were every bit as much a geocache as a physical box. The problem was there were many virtuals that were in fact nothing more than waymarks. If there wasn't a verification question whose answer was found at the location, the virtual became just a site that you visited. To me, the point of geocaching is that you must both go to a location and find something when you get there (note that somemany caches are difficulty 1).

 

On the other hand, I agree that locationless never seemed like geocaches to me. It was an interesting thing you could do with a GPS - go to some location that fit the description and record the coordinates - but it seemed like it should always have had its own site.

 

I accept that there were issues with having virtuals on the geocaching web site. In order not to get swamped with too many virtuals guidelines were developed to ensure that virtual caches were unique or extrordinary. This was a subjective judgment that was left to the volunteer approvers. Most every virtual was turned down because it couldn't pass this "wowness" test. Some people appealed to this forum to get their virtual listed. Others appealed directly to Groundspeak. The time spent on virtuals - most of which, in fact, weren't very "wow" - detracted from time that could have been spent approving and placing physical caches. It was suggested that the "wow" criteria be removed. This would probably result in a surge in the number of virtuals, at least in some areas. Even if you retained the requirement that a virtual only be allowed if there was no way to place a physical cache - there would still be too much effort for the volunteers to verify that you could not place a cache or use the location as part of an offset to physical cache.

 

Waymarking seems to provide some way to handle these problems - and I think it does this to everyone's advantage. The people who want to share a location where they cannot or do not want to hide a cache can now create a waymark. No need to meet and subjective "wowness" criteria. No need to prove you can't put a physical cache there. Instead of the volunteer cache approver, you deal with a category manager who already has an interest in the locations listed in his category. You may still be turned down. There may not be a category yet. But there's a much greater chance of getting a waymark approved than there was getting a virtual. On the other hand, the puritans don't have to see these new waymarks because they are not on the geocaching site. Waymarks (and now grandfathered virtuals) no longer block physical cache from being place nearby.

 

The biggest complaint is that if you want to include the new waymarks in your geocaching outing you need to look at two websites. Additionally, the user interface on Waymarking makes it hard to filter to get just the interesting waymarks in an area. Personally, I think instead of whining about having to use Waymarking for new virtuals, people should be requesting features that will make that site more useful. Waymarking is still a work in progress. There are some planned feature that haven't be released yet. And there an opportunity for the user community to suggest what new features.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES.  Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Well, if its all about going back to its roots and its about a container, why does geocaching include benchmarks. They're not a box in fact they are exactly like virtuals, a specific spot to be found with the GPS and you know what you are going to find when you go out the door. Given this logic, we should conclude that event caches, CITO events and puzzle caches should be removed as well because they are not part of the roots of the game.

 

The logic of going back to roots is always a flawed strategy. To remain viable and current almost every activity and sport has to adapt over time. If we stayed with roots of the game football players would wear leather helmets and the game rules would be more like rugby (no forward passes for instance), baseball would be played with gloves barely the size of your hand and only during the day and with no leadoffs and stealing. The same could be said for every sport.

 

But everything changes and so should geocaching. The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them. Why do you think sports change their rules every year. They have to modify rules, add new ones etc. to tweak the game as the game changes. They don't prevent the game from changing. Geocaching should tweak its game not split it into parts.

 

Similarly, people whine 'I have to filter out virtuals'. Well, I have to filter out Walmart micros but so what, I don't like them I don't do them. My dislike is no real reason to deny other people these caches if they enjoy them. However, with virtuals it became, 'some of us don't like them so nobody should have them.' I agree that Waymarking keeps them alive but it just doesn't integrate the game at all.

 

Everything that tries to resist change ultimately becomes irrelevant and splitting a game into parts rather than working on rules/methods to appropriately integrate new ideas and components is to fragment the sport irreparably and that ultimately leads to irrelevancy. You can see the start of the fragmentation process in the amount of dissent about Waymarking, not a good omen.

 

JDandDD

Benchmarks have never been included with geocaches.

The ability to find them is "included" in the GC.com main site. Recovered benchmarks are "included" on your profile page.

 

So yeah, I think it's fair to say they're "included".

 

It's interesting how we're "getting back to the roots" by getting rid of virts and locationless, while at the same time adding zillions of new trackable geocoins every time you turn your head.

I've found a couple of benchmarks. It didn't affect my find count.

Saxy, did I say they affected your find count? I said they

are "included" on your profile page.

 

Don't believe me? Here's a picture for you:

 

Again, I think that pretty much means they are "included" on my profile page? Do you still want to argue the point?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

This thread is getting a bit too "angsty".  Please calm down.

 

I do get a little peaved by the puritans that say "Virtuals were never geocaches". I believe that properly done virtuals were every bit as much a geocache as a physical box. The problem was there were many virtuals that were in fact nothing more than waymarks. If there wasn't a verification question whose answer was found at the location, the virtual became just a site that you visited. To me, the point of geocaching is that you must both go to a location and find something when you get there (note that somemany caches are difficulty 1).

Exactly. I've seen and heard of virtuals where "finding" the item of interest required to satisfy the logging requirements was more difficult and took more hunting around than finding a 1/1 box.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Thanks ParrotRob, that is actually what I was thinking. I don't even mind the two lists bit, I just wish I had a single profile instead of two different profiles on two different sites. Wait a sec... how hard would it be to keep your stat sheet identical on both sites? Groundspeak already carries over everything else about you, why not include that info as well?

[+VegasCacheHounds]

It seems to me, that no matter what, TPTB will never be able to please everyone. No matter what they do, someone will BP&M about it.

 

People complained, a lot of them, about the way it was. There were many problems with Locationless and Virtual caches, and there was no easy way to solve these problems. Any way you looked at it, a line would have to be drawn, and no matter where that line was to be drawn there was going to be those that disagreed.

 

Heck, even if you decided that Virtuals were caches, and left them on this site you'd have a large group that would complain that either A.) this din't fix the problems with virts or B.) that Locationless caches are caches to and deserve to stay on this site.

 

No matter what, TPTB had to make a choice, which they did. Its done. Deal with it. No matter what arguements you come up with, I seriously doubt that Virtuals are going to be brought back. They was I look at it, you have two choices....accept it or move on. There are other geocaching sites, and I believe that at least two of them accept virts, and one has locationless cahces too, so go play there if you must have these features to enjoy caching.

Edited January 13, 2006 by VegasCacheHounds

[CoyoteRed]

The problem was there were many virtuals that were in fact nothing more than waymarks.

You've hit the nail right on the head.

 

There are elements of the hobby that promote laziness to its detriment. Because it is easy to abuse some of these elements the abuse becomes rampant. Once the abuse becomes rampant there are calls for control much to the chagrin of the group which likes to take advantage of said element.

 

You can apply this to most arguments heard here in these forums.

[+ZingerHead]

Waymarking sucks, but I'll get over it.

 

Geocaching will not die from these changes. If Waymarking will make life easier for the reviewers, then that's a good thing.

 

Land managers are unlikely to be more inclined to allow physical caches just because there is no virtual alternative.

 

We can always make multis with interesting points of interest as intermediate stages (thus preserving the very BEST of virtual caching) with a lame Wal-Mart micro final stage, since those are worthy of the title "geocache".

 

Groundspeak is not a democracy, but we can gripe anyway if it makes us feel better.

 

Are we done here?

[+JDandDD]

Geocaching will not die from these changes. If Waymarking will make life easier for the reviewers, then that's a good thing.

I sincerely hope you are correct zingerhead and that this is not a damaging thing. I enjoy this sport too much to want to see it go away and enough to try to give input from my experience.

 

I have over a few decades been involved in helping several groups get started. Some succeed but many fail and usually for the reasons I see here. Decisions are made that cause more dissension than they solve and from reading these forums there is a lot of dissension.

 

Any group that I have been involved with that split its activities eventually failed as the groups splintered. The working toward a common goal and a common good is usually what binds people together and break that and you usually break the backbone of the group.

 

Groundspeak is not a democracy, but we can gripe anyway if it makes us feel better.

 

Yes, I agree it is not a democracy, but then neither is any sport. That does not mean that those in charge do not have to keep an ear to the ground and make decisions that meet with the approval of the their members and their fans. In this sport we are both members and fans.

 

Make too many decisions that are perceived as unreponsive or perceived to be poor (not the best for the group) then you lose the backing of your members. Note I said perceived, because how decision making is perceived is far more important than how it is actually done. It may in actuality be done totally correctly but if it is not perceived as such then it will be greeted negatively.

 

There is an axiom in the military (also politics and business management) that those who don't want to be lead won't be. Dissension is always a sign that that is ocurring.

 

What I'm really saying is that the decision to do Waymarking is being met with enough dissension to be of concern. The problem does not exist with locationaless it would appear, but virtuals. I am concerned that sticking too hard to that decision could have greater negative consequences (like I have seen before) than good that it creates and that is not a good thing.

 

JDandDD

[CoyoteRed]

So what would happen if everyone who even mildly dislikes virtuals' migration to Waymarking.com quit?

 

Do you see the end of geocaching?

[+JDandDD]

So what would happen if everyone who even mildly dislikes virtuals' migration to Waymarking.com quit?

 

Do you see the end of geocaching?

Nope. That's not what happens. What usually happens is that someone sees an opportunity to do things differently than the originating group and rather insiduously takes over. As people have said this is a business and businesses that make wrong business decisions start to lose their customer base. Take a look at GM for evidence of that.

 

What is a likely scenario is that if there is enough dissension another site, maybe not even created yet could undo what is happening here. Frankly, I think that geocaching.com as a site has got so many things right that it would be a shame to see any decline in it. But what I'm saying is, that is a danger of assuming that your members will just follow what ever you do.

 

JDandDD

[+Mopar]

So what would happen if everyone who even mildly dislikes virtuals' migration to Waymarking.com quit?

 

Do you see the end of geocaching?

Nope. That's not what happens. What usually happens is that someone sees an opportunity to do things differently than the originating group and rather insiduously takes over. As people have said this is a business and businesses that make wrong business decisions start to lose their customer base. Take a look at GM for evidence of that.

 

What is a likely scenario is that if there is enough dissension another site, maybe not even created yet could undo what is happening here. Frankly, I think that geocaching.com as a site has got so many things right that it would be a shame to see any decline in it. But what I'm saying is, that is a danger of assuming that your members will just follow what ever you do.

 

JDandDD

Ya mean another site, like Waymarking.com?

 

who's on first? Third base!

[+Allen_L]

Ya mean another site, like Waymarking.com?

 

who's on first? Third base!

I think they mean another site that combines virtual and physical geocaches.

 

Also it should be

 

who's on first? I don't know! Third base!

[CoyoteRed]

...it would be a shame to see any decline in it.

Some see the migration of virtuals as a decline...

 

...others see it as a vast improvement.

[+TrailGators]

We can always make multis with interesting points of interest as intermediate stages (thus preserving the very BEST of virtual caching) with a lame Wal-Mart micro final stage, since those are worthy of the title "geocache".

I have virtual that is six miles from my house. It is in a beautiful park on a mountain top with spectacular views. It was a traditional cache and then they banned caches in that park so the admin agreed to let me convert it to a virtual since it was such a great spot! However, what is interesting to me is that it was visited 18 times in the first year. But since I converted it to a virtual it has only visited twice in two+ years. However, I bet if I stuck a micro up there, the number of visits would significantly increase. So the evidence is that most people don't like virtuals. For some reason, it is very important them to sign their names on even a tiny logbook! To me the awesome hike and finding the spot with the amazing views justifies doing the cache! Plus when you get back, you get to log your adventure with photos on the website where everyone can read it......and you get a smiley! So my point is that I don't understand why it is so important for people to sign a tiny piece of paper, but that's the way it is.....

Edited January 13, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Dew Crew]

Actually the basis of this sport was originally to find CACHES.  Locationless and virtuals were introuduced later. Geocaching.com just decided to get back to the roots.

Well, if its all about going back to its roots and its about a container, why does geocaching include benchmarks. They're not a box in fact they are exactly like virtuals, a specific spot to be found with the GPS and you know what you are going to find when you go out the door. Given this logic, we should conclude that event caches, CITO events and puzzle caches should be removed as well because they are not part of the roots of the game.

 

The logic of going back to roots is always a flawed strategy. To remain viable and current almost every activity and sport has to adapt over time. If we stayed with roots of the game football players would wear leather helmets and the game rules would be more like rugby (no forward passes for instance), baseball would be played with gloves barely the size of your hand and only during the day and with no leadoffs and stealing. The same could be said for every sport.

 

But everything changes and so should geocaching. The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them. Why do you think sports change their rules every year. They have to modify rules, add new ones etc. to tweak the game as the game changes. They don't prevent the game from changing. Geocaching should tweak its game not split it into parts.

 

Similarly, people whine 'I have to filter out virtuals'. Well, I have to filter out Walmart micros but so what, I don't like them I don't do them. My dislike is no real reason to deny other people these caches if they enjoy them. However, with virtuals it became, 'some of us don't like them so nobody should have them.' I agree that Waymarking keeps them alive but it just doesn't integrate the game at all.

 

Everything that tries to resist change ultimately becomes irrelevant and splitting a game into parts rather than working on rules/methods to appropriately integrate new ideas and components is to fragment the sport irreparably and that ultimately leads to irrelevancy. You can see the start of the fragmentation process in the amount of dissent about Waymarking, not a good omen.

 

JDandDD

Benchmarks have never been included with geocaches.

The ability to find them is "included" in the GC.com main site. Recovered benchmarks are "included" on your profile page.

 

So yeah, I think it's fair to say they're "included".

 

It's interesting how we're "getting back to the roots" by getting rid of virts and locationless, while at the same time adding zillions of new trackable geocoins every time you turn your head.

I've found a couple of benchmarks. It didn't affect my find count.

Saxy, did I say they affected your find count? I said they

are "included" on your profile page.

 

Don't believe me? Here's a picture for you:

 

Again, I think that pretty much means they are "included" on my profile page? Do you still want to argue the point?

Like I said, the stats are eventually going to be combined from both sites.

[+Dew Crew]

The fact that there was a problem with the definition of virtuals is not a reason to get rid of them.

Nobody ever got rid of them. They just moved them and gave it more options and made it easier to find certain types of virtuals.

[+vaetanone]

I am reasonably certain that NPS Land Managers policy on Geo Caches stem NOT from "leaving a box" but from their desire not to concentrate off trail traffic into any one area. This is reasonable given the number of visitors they deal with. I don't have any particular ax to grind here except to say that some virtuals I've been to where you needed to "find" something at the site and report it to the owner beats the devil out of lifting the metal base on yet another light post in a shopping center parking lot or looking under another guard rail surrounded by traffic. I can't yet say if I will deal with another site to find virtuals, but probably not. I can say if another site exists or springs up that has many caches of both types listed, I would migrate to it.

[+TrailGators]

I am reasonably certain that NPS Land Managers policy on Geo Caches stem NOT from "leaving a box" but from their desire not to concentrate off trail traffic into any one area. This is reasonable given the number of visitors they deal with. I don't have any particular ax to grind here except to say that some virtuals I've been to where you needed to "find" something at the site and report it to the owner beats the devil out of lifting the metal base on yet another light post in a shopping center parking lot or looking under another guard rail surrounded by traffic. I can't yet say if I will deal with another site to find virtuals, but probably not. I can say if another site exists or springs up that has many caches of both types listed, I would migrate to it.

You don't like light post caches in parking lots?

Is there a category for light posts in Waymarking yet?

[+ZingerHead]

I have virtual that is six miles from my house. It is in a beautiful park on a mountain top with spectacular views. It was a traditional cache and then they banned caches in that park so the admin agreed to let me convert it to a virtual since it was such a great spot! However, what is interesting to me is that it was visited 18 times in the first year. But since I converted it to a virtual it has only visited twice in two+ years. However, I bet if I stuck a micro up there, the number of visits would significantly increase. So the evidence is that most people don't like virtuals. For some reason, it is very important them to sign their names on even a tiny logbook! To me the awesome hike and finding the spot with the amazing views justifies doing the cache! Plus when you get back, you get to log your adventure with photos on the website where everyone can read it......and you get a smiley! So my point is that I don't understand why it is so important for people to sign a tiny piece of paper, but that's the way it is.....

That's been my experience also. I "hid" a virtual along the Appalachian Trail in CT - it's NPS land, so no physical cache is allowed. There is a terrific view as your reward for a 2 mile round trip hike. And it gets very very little traffic. That's why I think the loss of virtual and locationless caches isn't going to spell the end of geocaching - I think many, possibly a majority, considered virtuals less "cache-worthy" than traditionals. But this summer I was in Acadia National Park in Maine, home to some of the most amazing scenery this side of the Mississippi. Again, NPS land. There are a handful of virtuals there that we visited - places we would otherwise not have seen. This is my sole gripe with the loss of virtual caches - it walls off some truly spectacular areas from further cache placement.

 

And before some Groundspeak minion comes along and playfully tells me I can find all the virtuals I want on NPS land at Waymarking.com let me say that I just don't want to visit another website. I like this one. I like the way things were. I don't like these changes, however well intentioned. I will get over it. But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

[+TrailGators]

But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

Ditto!

[+Miragee]

But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

Ditto!

Ditto, ditto.

[+briansnat]

And before some Groundspeak minion comes along and playfully tells me I can find all the virtuals I want on NPS land at Waymarking.com let me say that I just don't want to visit another website. I like this one. I like the way things were. I don't like these changes, however well intentioned. I will get over it. But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

 

You're in luck! There are thousands of virtual caches still listed on this website.i

[+Team GPSaxophone]

But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

Ditto!

Ditto, ditto.

Well that's great, because now there are only geocaches to find here, and not virtuals or locationless

[+ZingerHead]

Well that's great, because now there are only geocaches to find here, and not virtuals or locationless

Thank you, minion.

[+TrailGators]

Well that's great, because now there are only geocaches to find here, and not virtuals or locationless

Thank you, minion.

[+tozainamboku]

I am reasonably certain that NPS Land Managers policy on Geo Caches stem NOT from "leaving a box" but from their desire not to concentrate off trail traffic into any one area.  This is reasonable given the number of visitors they deal with.    I don't have any particular ax to grind here except to say that some virtuals I've been to where you needed to "find" something at the site and report it to the owner beats the devil out of lifting the metal base on yet another light post in a shopping center parking lot or looking under another guard rail surrounded by traffic.  I can't yet say if I will deal with another site to find virtuals, but probably not.  I can say if another site exists or springs up that has many caches of both types listed, I would migrate to it.

You don't like light post caches in parking lots?

Is there a category for light posts in Waymarking yet?

I proposed it in August when Waymarking first was opened to Premium Members.

[Jeremy]

Well that's great, because now there are only geocaches to find here, and not virtuals or locationless

Thank you, minion.

Your remarks are a personal attack so please stop. Besides, your argument can be negatively impacted by a childish remark and therefore dismissed by others.

 

/moderate

[+tozainamboku]

I hope this thread gets locked soon because I about to violate the forum guidelines. I don't know who ticks me off more - the geocaching "puritans" who seem like they're ready to soil their pants because the locationless and virtuals that were corrupting their sport have now be banished to another site, or the locationless and virtual afficianados that can't seem to realize that locationless and virtuals will be more free to develop in the ways they have wished for in their new home.

 

To the "puritans" - let others play their games so long as its not hurting you. Waymarks and grandfathered virtuals no longer block a physical cache in the area. Even if waymarks were to appear in geocache queries you could ignore them just like you ignore virtuals today.

 

To the locationless/virtual hunters - locationless probably had to move because they really didn't fit the schema of the geocaching database. Virtuals, webcams, and earthcaches probably could've stayed (and thats why some are grandfathered) but they probably also fit the approval process of waymarks better. I truly believe that these will be happier as waymarks (even with the mundane McDonalds and Starbucks waymarks). Instead of whining about two websites, suggest ways to improve Waymarking and have it interface with geocaching.com so you can continue to play.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

Ditto!

Ditto, ditto.

Well that's great, because now there are only geocaches to find here, and not virtuals or locationless

Well, close, Saxy. Only geocaches... and events... and benchmarks... and coins...

 

But don't let that get in the way of the party line, though.

[+TrailGators]

But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

Ditto!

Ditto, ditto.

Well that's great, because now there are only geocaches to find here, and not virtuals or locationless

There are still grandfathered virtuals, earthcaches and webcams on GC.com. But why does it seem like you'd even be against having even the cream of the crop waymarks (virtuals and earthcaches) allowed in as new geocaches? That is really the cruxt of the discussion here.....What is the big deal about a container? I could site hundreds of banal containers that couldn't hold a candle to many virtuals and earthcaches I've found. I'd be very interested in hearing this!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

But please don't tell me to go to Waymarking.com. I am a geocacher. Not a waymarker.

Ditto!

Ditto, ditto.

Well that's great, because now there are only geocaches to find here, and not virtuals or locationless

There are still grandfathered virtuals, earthcaches and webcams on GC.com. But why does it seem like you'd even be against having even the cream of the crop waymarks (virtuals and earthcaches) allowed in as new geocaches? That is really the cruxt of the discussion here.....What is the big deal about a container? I could site hundreds of banal containers that couldn't hold a candle to many virtuals and earthcaches I've found. I'd be very interested in hearing this!

Why the container? I'll tell you: That's what started this whole game in the first place! It was about hiding something for others to find after SA was turned off. The game didn't start because someone wanted to highlight some interesting object (or location) that only very few people knew about. Virtuals started that way only after geocaching was born. It's "another game" that can be played with a GPS, but it isn't geocaching. Some would even call that sightseeing with a GPS but virtuals are not geocaches even if they do have space on the site. Since there is enough interest in this other game, they haven't been eliminated, but given a new home that can better serve this different game. It's up to the people that like this other game to make it as successful as geocaching has been.

 

Virtuals aren't coming back to geocaching.com, get used to it. If you like finding things other than hidden containers with your GPS, you have a brand new site to play on. It isn't completed yet, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It means that they still need suggestions from the users as to how to make it work. Now is your chance to get in on the ground floor. I've done that; I manage four categories on Waymarking.com even though I'm not a fan of virtuals. That's right, I don't like virtuals, but I'm still willing to give the new site a chance.

[+TrailGators]

Why the container? I'll tell you: That's what started this whole game in the first place!

[snip]

I manage four categories on Waymarking.com even though I'm not a fan of virtuals. That's right, I don't like virtuals, but I'm still willing to give the new site a chance.

Then what's your opinion on the guard-rail and light post caches? That's not how "it all started" either...

 

If you don't like virtuals then why did you find 37 of them? They couldn't have been all that bad.....

Edited January 14, 2006 by TrailGators

[+silverquill]

NEWBIE OBSERVATIONS

 

I'm one of the multitude, apparently, of new geocachers who finally got a GPSr for Christmas! What a thrill it was to venture out to find my first cache -- a micro actually found by my 84 year-old mother who gave me the Garmin. Then my little nephews scrambled down the bank near a flooded river to find an ammo can. And, my graduate-school daughter made her first find, a FTF on an Oregon sand dune, and later a micro on her college campus. (I found a few, too).

 

So, looking from the outside in gives me some different perspectives. I'm not even sure I understand the difference between locationless and virtual caches, but they didn't interest me much from what I was able to read. A treasure hunt needs a treasure!

 

Finding benchmarks has an appeal -- at least something actually to find and record.

 

Then I stumbled on the Waymarking thread. I find the whole concept fascinating! Not geocaching, not geodashing, but another way to use my GPSr and have interesting trips and see interesting things. I'm fascinated by waterfalls, so I find that category a lot of fun, for instance. And, I'm waiting for the covered bridges category to be created; they are special places here in New England.

 

Maybe I'm missing the point, but it almost seems to me that the principal goal of Waymarking is to create the waymarks and post them more than it is to visit already established Waymarks. For instance, I might go out of my way to create a Waymark for a fire house (I did today, in fact), but wouldn't load the waymark for one already created just to visit it and log it. That might be the case with something I'm more interested in, though, such as waterfalls or covered bridges -- but, creating them would still probably be more fun.

 

As I look at the category structure and proposals, it is easy to see that this approach to Waymarking has a lot of potential, from the inane to the truly valuable and adventuresome. There should be something here for everyone, and I think it is a great complement to the traditional, physical, treasure hunting geocaching sport!

 

All of the debate about the appropriateness of migrating virtual and locationless caches to Waymarking and creating a separate site/system seems to range from pettiness to thoughtful, constructive suggestions. To a newcomer, who lacks the historical view and has no vested interests, most of it just seems irrelevant. I look forward to geocaching (hiding and finding) and to Waymarking, maybe some benchmarking. I've no interest in turf wars and such -- I just want to enjoy this new hobby in all of its diversity. Waymarking will certainly be a part of this! If it is not someone's cup of tea, there is plenty of the rest to go around. There may even be some who will be ardent Waymarkers with little interest in grubbing around for ammo cans and film containers. Imagine that!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Why the container? I'll tell you: That's what started this whole game in the first place!

[snip]

I manage four categories on Waymarking.com even though I'm not a fan of virtuals. That's right, I don't like virtuals, but I'm still willing to give the new site a chance.

Then what's your opinion on the off-ramp and light post caches? That's not how "it all started" either...

 

If you don't like virtuals then why did you find 37 of them? They couldn't have been all that bad.....

Off ramps and light posts still hold a hidden container. Part of the appeal of this game is the hiding things that most muggles will never see.

 

Yes, I did find some virtuals. Enough, in fact, to make an informed opinion about them. All those finds were before the "ignore" feature was added to the site. The only way to clear my nearest cache page was to go find them. You should see my find map of Arizona. At one time, I had the entire stretch of I-40 cleared of caches in that state. In order to do that, I had to log the virtuals too.