Where's The Virtual Choice?

March 4, 2006

Hi - I'm new to these forums. I'm checking to find out if anyone knows how to designate a cache as virtual? I'm setting one up and when I go to the form field where you choose what type of cache you want to list, I don't see the virtual choice. Do you request this designation when you submit it to the reviewer? It's mid night in Wisconsin so I'm hittin' the hay! I'll check back in tomorrow. Thanks for the help in advance!

wheeldoctor

La Crosse, WI.

March 4, 2006

Hi - I'm new to these forums. I'm checking to find out if anyone knows how to designate a cache as virtual? I'm setting one up and when I go to the form field where you choose what type of cache you want to list, I don't see the virtual choice. Do you request this designation when you submit it to the reviewer? It's mid night in Wisconsin so I'm hittin' the hay! I'll check back in tomorrow. Thanks for the help in advance!

wheeldoctor

La Crosse, WI.

Virtuals no longer exist on geocaching.com, they have been moved to Waymarking.com. Those virtuals that existed when the switchover occured, which I believe was January of this year, remain here as grandfathered caches.

3.8k · March 4, 2006

Virtuals no longer exist on geocaching.com, they have been moved to Waymarking.com. Those virtuals that existed when the switchover occured, which I believe was January of this year, remain here as grandfathered caches.

close.

virts do still exist on geocaching.com however it was when the guidelines changed in early november that they stopped accepting new ones. prior to that you were lucky to get one listed, it had to be really cool. AFAIK none were "moved" to Waymarking, that was locationless caches which hadn't been listed on the site for (maybe) 2 years. those were the caches that were archived and locked in january.

Edited March 4, 2006 by robert

March 4, 2006

Virtuals no longer exist on geocaching.com, they have been moved to Waymarking.com. Those virtuals that existed when the switchover occured, which I believe was January of this year, remain here as grandfathered caches.

close.

virts do still exist on geocaching.com however it was when the guidelines changed in early november that they stopped accepting new ones. prior to that you were lucky to get one listed, it had to be really cool. AFAIK none were "moved" to Waymarking, that was locationless caches which hadn't been listed on the site for (maybe) 2 years. those were the caches that were archived and locked in january.

I stand corrected

9.4k · March 4, 2006

Hi - I'm new to these forums. I'm checking to find out if anyone knows how to designate a cache as virtual? I'm setting one up and when I go to the form field where you choose what type of cache you want to list, I don't see the virtual choice. Do you request this designation when you submit it to the reviewer? It's mid night in Wisconsin so I'm hittin' the hay! I'll check back in tomorrow. Thanks for the help in advance!

wheeldoctor

La Crosse, WI.

Virtuals are no longer published on this site. You'll need to submit it on Waymarking.com (another Groundspeak website). You might want to check out the Waymarking Forums to find out more.

8k · March 4, 2006

So you know of a really wonderful place you would like to share with other people. It's novel and of special historic, community, or geocaching interest that sets it apart from everyday objects. There is a specific object there that can be used as target of GPS coordinates, not just a view or a park. There are one or more specific questions that can only be answered by someone visiting the place (i.e., not by spending an afternoon searching on the web). And you couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache. If you can meet all these requirements, you used to be able to submit it as a virtual cache. But no more.

So you know of a really wonderful place you would like to share with other people. It isinteresting enough that a category exists for it on Waymarking.com. (Maybe it's a McDonald's Restaurant - well that is only one category - there are some better ones) It doesn't matter whether or not you can hide a physical cache there or even if there already is a physical cache there. Questions to confirm a visit are not required but you can still have them if you'd like. What you have is a waymark and those are listed on Waymarking.com.

38.2k · March 5, 2006

....And you couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache. If you can meet all these requirements, you used to be able to submit it as a virtual cache. But no more.

I've yet to see a virtual location that can't be used as a starting point as an offset for a real cache.

March 6, 2006

....And you couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache. If you can meet all these requirements, you used to be able to submit it as a virtual cache. But no more.

I've yet to see a virtual location that can't be used as a starting point as an offset for a real cache.

March 7, 2006

....And you couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache. If you can meet all these requirements, you used to be able to submit it as a virtual cache. But no more.

I've yet to see a virtual location that can't be used as a starting point as an offset for a real cache.

The reason I couldn't place a real cache there is because it's about 250 miles from my home which makes a tough way to manage the cache. If you're ever in the Rhinelander, WI. area? check out co-ordinates N 45° 38.270 W 089° 24.496. You won't be disappointed!

I will be posting on the other website. Thanks for the advice!

Jerry

Edited March 7, 2006 by wheeldoctor

9.4k · March 7, 2006

....And you couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache. If you can meet all these requirements, you used to be able to submit it as a virtual cache. But no more.

I've yet to see a virtual location that can't be used as a starting point as an offset for a real cache.

The reason I couldn't place a real cache there is because it's about 250 miles from my home which makes a tough way to manage the cache. If you're ever in the Rhinelander, WI. area? check out co-ordinates N 45° 38.270 W 089° 24.496. You won't be disappointed!

I will be posting on the other website. Thanks for the advice!

Jerry

If you can't maintain the cache then you have no business placing it. And yes, virtuals require maintenance too.

3.8k · March 7, 2006

The reason I couldn't place a real cache there is because it's about 250 miles from my home which makes a tough way to manage the cache. If you're ever in the Rhinelander, WI. area? check out co-ordinates N 45° 38.270 W 089° 24.496. You won't be disappointed!

The guidelines said "Guidelines that Apply to all Cache Types" right above "Maintenance" so you may not have been able to get a virt through anyway.

:anicute:

March 7, 2006

What maintenance is needed on a virtual? All I plan on doing is tell people about a beautiful landmark/and historic event that goes along with it. :anicute:

8k · March 7, 2006

What maintenance is needed on a virtual? All I plan on doing is tell people about a beautiful landmark/and historic event that goes along with it.

As new virtuals are not allowed it's really a moot point. However, I thought about changing:

And you couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache.

to:

And someone couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache.

Using virtuals as an excuse for a vacation cache was never a good idea. First of all, even a virtual may need to be maintained - that building could get torn down or the sign stolen, even "The Old Man In The Mountain" crumbled - You need to be able to check on the integrity of the virtual from time to time especially if problems are reported. Secondly, you may be blocking a local person from placing a physical cache nearby. This wouldn't be fair to the locals.

March 7, 2006

I see in the cache guidelines it states, "The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements". I can handle that.

I'm pretty sure a county courthouse with a glass dome containing 2,400 pieces of stained glass will not be torn down anytime soon to address your concern there. It was restored with help from the US Dept. of the Interior and private donations. I don't think the sign announcing that fact amoung other facts would be torn down anytime soon either. This building is on the National Register of Historic Sites.

Secondly, there's plenty of space in the area for another cache. BTW I wasn't on vacation. I was lucky to run across the building because I had a meeting there. :anicute:

Edited March 7, 2006 by wheeldoctor

8.9k · March 7, 2006

I see in the cache guidelines it states, "The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements". I can handle that.

I'm pretty sure a county courthouse with a glass dome containing 2,400 pieces of stained glass will not be torn down anytime soon to address your concern there. It was restored with help from the US Dept. of the Interior and private donations. I don't think the sign announcing that fact amoung other facts would be torn down anytime soon either. This building is on the National Register of Historic Sites.

Again - it's all moot, but if there was a plaque that had the data that you requested ("What's the fourth word in the second line") and you thought it was "Floccinaucinihilipilification" and people started e-mailing you with the word "it", you'd be hard-pressed to go back to the plaque and check on the fact that they've changed it with a new one, wouldn't you?

Secondly, there's plenty of space in the area for another cache. BTW I wasn't on vacation. I was lucky to run across the building because I had a meeting there.

That's semantics. By "vacation" the guidelines are talking about caches "outside your home caching area" - whether it's on vacation, a business trip, or a family trip to your mother-in-law's house.

2.1k · March 7, 2006

....And you couldn't place a physical cache there or use the location a starting location for an offset to a physical cache. If you can meet all these requirements, you used to be able to submit it as a virtual cache. But no more.

I've yet to see a virtual location that can't be used as a starting point as an offset for a real cache.

The reason I couldn't place a real cache there is because it's about 250 miles from my home which makes a tough way to manage the cache. If you're ever in the Rhinelander, WI. area? check out co-ordinates N 45° 38.270 W 089° 24.496. You won't be disappointed!

I will be posting on the other website. Thanks for the advice!

Jerry

In the early days of geocaching we absolutely needed people to place caches far from their home base (vacation caches). Otherwise we would have had some very long drives between caches. 1500 miles of Interstate 5 were peppered with "I Hate I-5" vacation caches as was the Mohave desert and that helped tide us over until locals could fill the gap.

Now vacation caches are no longer necessary. Having placed too many caches too far from our home base I know that its better to let the locals place and maintain the caches.

I think the maintenance needs of a virtual cache, though, are highly overrated in these discussions. The incidence of a featured item or the proof question object going missing is very uncommon. If it happens then the owner would find out immediately because attempting finders posted Notes, DNF's or gave different answers. An owner could then simply adjust the questions or archive the cache. No big deal.

But I do agree with locationless and virtual caches moving over to Waymarking. Now we are back to our "roots" and it seems better that way.

5.3k · March 7, 2006

What maintenance is needed on a virtual? All I plan on doing is tell people about a beautiful landmark/and historic event that goes along with it.

Virtual caches do not, except in very unusual circumstances, require maintenance. This whole trope was a pathetic after-the-fact effort to justify an arbitrary policy about so-called "vacation" virtual caches.

But since virtual caches have been subsumed into Lamemarking, it's a completely irrelevant point.

March 7, 2006

Virtual caches do not, except in very unusual circumstances, require maintenance.

I agree with you, but it is worth mentioning the unusual circumstances, more from a WTF standpoint than anything else.

I placed Lest We Forget, a virtual marking the largest mural in New Hampshire. Wouldn't you know it, the new owner of the building painted over it! I'm still not even sure why, his restaurant is presumably open now, the work on the building is done, and the wall is still just plain beige...

Shame, we had about 100 people at another nearby restaurant for an event. If the mural was there, we might have chosen the restaurant with the virtual!

Paul

March 7, 2006

Rhinelander, WI

Ahh... Rhinelander. $2.48 for an 8 pack of bottles.

Not half bad if you put 'em in the freezer for a little while. Then you can fill the empties with homebrew.

Sorry. College flashback. I haven't thought about Rhinelander in a coon's age.

5.3k · March 7, 2006

Virtual caches do not, except in very unusual circumstances, require maintenance.
I placed Lest We Forget, a virtual marking the largest mural in New Hampshire. Wouldn't you know it, the new owner of the building painted over it!

While quite interesting, this is not an example of maintenance being required; it is an example of the cache needing to be archived.

It would have been "maintenance" if you had gone and removed the paint. This semantic point is not trivial. Maintenance requires that you actually be there, while archiving the cache can be done quite well from a distance.

I don't know how this issue will be dealt with at Lamemarking.

Edited March 7, 2006 by fizzymagic

March 7, 2006

I read the FAQ at Waymarking and still have a question.

If I log waymarks (virtuals, locationless, etc) there, do they show in my main Geocaching user stats?

thx

March 7, 2006

Nope!

March 7, 2006

Nope.

Edited March 7, 2006 by AllenLacy

5.2k · March 7, 2006

If I log waymarks (virtuals, locationless, etc) there, do they show in my main Geocaching user stats?

Not at this time.

In the future it's rumored that another tab will be added to your profile to show Waymarking stats, but I haven't seen anything definitive.

March 8, 2006

For a simple question as to "where's the virtual choice?" I am very surprised as to how much discussion the topic generated. The majority of the discussion tells me that most geo's are not in favor of them which is fine by me. It's not critical that a landmark such as a courthouse with a dome that looks like the Tasmahal's be made a virt. Besides virts really don't give you a sense of accomplishment like when you start your own from scratch; your own idea on where/how to hide it, getting the permission if needed, filling the cache with trading items, and watching the hits roll in on the website. The trad. $ leads to wanting to start another one up, and another and another! I'm working on my second one right now. It would've be my 3rd if the virt would've been listed....NOT! **chuckle** :laughing:

March 8, 2006

It would have been "maintenance" if you had gone and removed the paint. This semantic point is not trivial. Maintenance requires that you actually be there, while archiving the cache can be done quite well from a distance.

Once reported, I did go and visit the site to confirm the destruction... Then I went home and archived it.

Paul

March 9, 2006

While quite interesting, this is not an example of maintenance being required; it is an example of the cache needing to be archived.

It would have been "maintenance" if you had gone and removed the paint. This semantic point is not trivial. Maintenance requires that you actually be there, while archiving the cache can be done quite well from a distance.

No doubt there are numerous examples of virtual caches that could have escaped being archived if the owner lived near enough to revise the cache page to reflect current conditions. Whether or not someone will argue the worthiness of any particular example is another matter.

I offer this one for consideration - a virtual along the Missouri River, downstream of a dam. The owner wanted folks to climb down into the canyon to find a particular sign (there was nothing special about the sign; he just wanted to bring folks to this stretch of the river and look at the dam). When we went to the vicinity the entire canyon below the dam was marked 'off-limits, no trespassing' due to the potential danger of being downstream of a dam that on occasion releases lots of water with very little notice. We contacted the owner, even sent coordinates for the overlook on the cliff rim above, but no change was made to the listing and some folks continued to trespass to get to the sign. The cache was eventually archived because of this.

While a virtual cache often requires less maintenance than a physical one, they are not exempt from periodic visits from the owner.

Edited March 9, 2006 by yumitori

March 10, 2006

Hi - I'm new to these forums. I'm checking to find out if anyone knows how to designate a cache as virtual?

wheeldoctor

La Crosse, WI.

I recently found out there is no longer a way to submit a Virtual Cache to

geocaching.com. This apparently is due to some virtuals not really being

worthwhile. I personally feel it is a shame to lose that part of the

Groundspeak site.

I would like to suggest that virtuals can only be submitted by premium,

paying members of Groundspeak and that some ground rules are needed to be

able to submit a virtual. Yes a virtual cache is subjective but that is true of

a traditional cache as well. Some traditional caches are not very

worthwhile either...such as a micro cache that I recently found with nothing but a

log paper inside of it. I added some items just to improve the cache a bit.

Virtuals are great fun and places you didn't know existed can be

discovered. Also, they are good for certain times of year when the woods may be too

full of ticks or chiggers to do much caching there. I personally have two virtual caches ready to be submitted and have not done so since the feature has been disabled.

As far as the _www.Waymarking.com_ site

goes...that is too open to anything and everything (not just Wow virtuals)

and is not really a true geocaching site.

Please post your opinion. You can also contact Groundspeak about the loss of the virtuals from geocaching.com by emailing them at: contact@geocaching.com

March 10, 2006

Please post your opinion. You can also contact Groundspeak about the loss of the virtuals from geocaching.com by emailing them at: contact@geocaching.com

I recently brought this up in our local forum as a poll, the results can be viewed here:

http://mogeo.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=694

21.9k · March 10, 2006

Rizzella, you posted the exact same text in the Geocaching.com forum today, and later on your thread was locked by Jeremy. Per the posted Forum Guidelines, please respect Jeremy's wishes and don't go posting the same thing in other forums. Waymarking is here to stay, in other words.

As the question about how to set up a virtual cache has been answered, I am likewise closing this thread.

Where's The Virtual Choice?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment