Jump to content

Why Aren't Virtual Caches Allowed?


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I am new to geocaching and have enjoyed finding and placing a few caches...I have turned on at least two new geocachers as well.

 

I placed a cache in a really neat spot but the reviewer archived it:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4f-c2c5c9259d78

 

I honestly did not know the DNR's wishes on caches in State Natural Areas and have no problems with the reason my cache was archived.

 

I am wondering why Virtual Caches have been phased out. My cache would be a perfect place for a Virtual Cache...even most of the local Law Enforcement Officers don't know it exists!

 

I understand that I can go to Waymarking.com but I want to stay on geocaching.com.

 

Your thoughts?

Link to comment

You could try to use the spot as a virtual waypoint in a multi-cache. Basically have no container there, but ask finders to use info from the site to figure out the coordinates to a container that is placed in a permissible area. Then people still see the site and there is a cache.

Link to comment

Yeah, there USED to be "virtual caches" but they are gone. Also, a really cool thing was "web cam" caches. Also gone. What about "benchmarking"? Is that out too? Heck, might as well get rid of puzzle and multi stage caches also. And, since this sport seems to be more popular with "muggles" than "cachers", might as well get rid of the "traditional" caches and "geocoins" too. (I know i, for one, am tired of spending money on cool coins and such just to see them ripped off, then when you ask the last person who had it, they are indignant in their responses to your question...) I know, lets just all wonder around in the woods with our gpsr's and do nothing. that would be fun.

Link to comment
Yeah, there USED to be "virtual caches" but they are gone. Also, a really cool thing was "web cam" caches. Also gone.

 

No they aren't. People who enjoyed virtuals, locationless and webcam "caches" can still enjoy them. They simply have to visit here.

 

Nothing's really changed but the name. You still use your GPS to find interesting places.

Link to comment
Yeah, there USED to be "virtual caches" but they are gone. Also, a really cool thing was "web cam" caches. Also gone.

 

No they aren't. People who enjoyed virtuals, locationless and webcam "caches" can still enjoy them. They simply have to visit here.

 

Virtuals and webcam caches can also be found here. They haven't been removed from the site (locationless have been archived in favor of Waymarking), just no new ones are being accepted.

Link to comment

I am new to geocaching and have enjoyed finding and placing a few caches...I have turned on at least two new geocachers as well.

 

I placed a cache in a really neat spot but the reviewer archived it:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4f-c2c5c9259d78

 

I honestly did not know the DNR's wishes on caches in State Natural Areas and have no problems with the reason my cache was archived.

 

I am wondering why Virtual Caches have been phased out. My cache would be a perfect place for a Virtual Cache...even most of the local Law Enforcement Officers don't know it exists!

 

I understand that I can go to Waymarking.com but I want to stay on geocaching.com.

 

Your thoughts?

 

What is you goal here? You had a place where you could not place a traditional cache because of the DNR's policy. If you still want to bring people to the area as part of geocaching, the option of a virtual cache is no longer provided. You could create a multi cache where the finder has to go to the area to get information needed to get to the physical cache not in the State Natural Area. You could also try working with DNR to develop a policy that would allow some geocaches in the State Natural Area. If you just want to share the location with other people who might find it interesting, you could use Waymarking. There are many categories at Waymarking so the chances are good you could find a category where your location fits. I see you have joined my "Wow Waymarkers" group. We are looking a creating a category that will have some features of a Virtual Cache. We hope there will soon will be a Best Kept Secrets category, for places that most local people don't know about but would find interesting to visit. Your comment that "even most of the local Law Enforcement Officers don't know it exists", makes me curious. This may turn out to be a candidate for best kept secrets. Keep looking for it. I hope to get it into peer review soon.

Link to comment
Yeah, there USED to be "virtual caches" but they are gone. Also, a really cool thing was "web cam" caches. Also gone.

 

No they aren't. People who enjoyed virtuals, locationless and webcam "caches" can still enjoy them. They simply have to visit here.

 

Virtuals and webcam caches can also be found here. They haven't been removed from the site (locationless have been archived in favor of Waymarking), just no new ones are being accepted.

 

Cool site! Thanks for the link. If they keep up the good work I see success in their future.

Link to comment

You could also try working with DNR to develop a policy that would allow some geocaches in the State Natural Area.

 

Wisconsin DNR has a specific policy of no geocaching in State Natural Areas. The Wisconsin Geocaching Association has been working very closely with the DNR in regards to geocaching, and this is one area that they have banned to geocaching. We certainly want to abide by their wishes.

 

No Geocaches Here

 

Bec

Link to comment
Virtuals and webcam caches can also be found here. They haven't been removed from the site (locationless have been archived in favor of Waymarking), just no new ones are being accepted.

 

Cool site! Thanks for the link. If they keep up the good work I see success in their future.

 

:wacko:

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

Because at various times people have said they don't like them and those type of caches aren't true to the roots of the sport. Not realizing, of course, that the original idea wasn't whether people could find a container but whether the removal of the signal restrictions meant people could now find a specific spot with a GPS. The container was somewhat irrelevant but has been used as the reason why every 'true' cache must have a container.

 

However, if one reads the history carfefully, the orginial public GPS system only allowed 100m accuracy due to Selective Availability (SA)by the US military. When SA was removed, it became possible to find things withing 10m. So, Dave Ulmer decided to put out a cache, post its coordinates on the internet, and see if the GPS could be used to find it. So proof of finding the spot is the important factor not the cache or the log. Work out the proof and you've met the original purpose. But, you have to be willing to really read the history of the sport to get that idea.

 

Traditionalists want to mis-interpret the history as 'a cache must have a container' when actually the idea was to see if the non-SA GPS system could be used to locate something at the posted coordinates (proof of finding the coors which just happened to be a container). That rigid interpretation has ruled geocaching and natural evolutions and changes in the sport have always lost out to the rigid 'container' philosophy.

 

Yes, Waymarking exists, but it is not part of caching and won't show anywhere on your stats. Also, its more locationaless than virtual (in my opinion). My opinion has always been that locationaless did not belong because they weren't a specific point so Waymarking is fine for that, but virtuals and earthcaches are specific points and are part of the caching spirit (if one doesn't take what I think is a wrongly though out justification).

 

Oh well, that argument will go on and on but the so-called traditionalists will prevail here. :laughing:

 

JDandDD

Edited by JDandDD
Link to comment

 

Traditionalists want to mis-interpret the history as 'a cache must have a container'

 

JDandDD

 

I thought the focus was more on that caches must have a log to sign. I've run across quite a few containerless caches, but they all had logs to scribble my name.

 

edit=spelling

Edited by wvcoalcat
Link to comment

Because at various times people have said they don't like them and those type of caches aren't true to the roots of the sport. Not realizing, of course, that the original idea wasn't whether people could find a container but whether the removal of the signal restrictions meant people could now find a specific spot with a GPS. The container was somewhat irrelevant but has been used as the reason why every 'true' cache must have a container.

 

However, if one reads the history carfefully, the orginial public GPS system only allowed 100m accuracy due to Selective Availability (SA)by the US military. When SA was removed, it became possible to find things withing 10m. So, Dave Ulmer decided to put out a cache, post its coordinates on the internet, and see if the GPS could be used to find it. So proof of finding the spot is the important factor not the cache or the log. Work out the proof and you've met the original purpose. But, you have to be willing to really read the history of the sport to get that idea.

 

Traditionalists want to mis-interpret the history as 'a cache must have a container' when actually the idea was to see if the non-SA GPS system could be used to locate something at the posted coordinates (proof of finding the coors which just happened to be a container). That rigid interpretation has ruled geocaching and natural evolutions and changes in the sport have always lost out to the rigid 'container' philosophy.

 

So any object smaller than let's say 1 meter across could be a geocache if you had to navigate to it using a GPS and you could post a verification that you found it? :wacko: Whatever, Dave Ulmer's motivation was in hiding the first geocache, it was a bucket with a log book and trade items. That's what started off this game. Virtuals came later as a way to play where a physical cache could not be hidden. Almost from the start, virtuals had problems. Someone could claim that a cache couldn't be hidden where in fact one could. Many virtuals were in fact places where someone hid a cache and after it got muggled a few times they changed it to a virtual. Later, a "Wow" requirement was entered to prevent too many virtuals from saturating an area. Since there is little cost involved in setting up or maintaining a virutal many cachers submitted lots of virtuals that weren't particularly interesting. There were some virtuals that served a purpose as they were truly in areas where a physical cache couldn't be placed (and where it was impratical to make them a stage in a multi with a physical container hidden elsewhere) and they were interesting places to visit. Existing virtuals are grandfathered on geocaching.com so you can still find some of these great virtuals as well as some of the lame ones.

 

Yes, Waymarking exists, but it is not part of caching and won't show anywhere on your stats. Also, its more locationaless than virtual (in my opinion). My opinion has always been that locationaless did not belong because they weren't a specific point so Waymarking is fine for that, but virtuals and earthcaches are specific points and are part of the caching spirit (if one doesn't take what I think is a wrongly though out justification).

 

Oh well, that argument will go on and on but the so-called traditionalists will prevail here. :laughing:

 

JDandDD

Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.

 

It is easy to view the process of creating a waymark as being equivalent to locationless caching. Right now, most of the people creating waymarks seem to be doing it this way. They pick a few categories they are interested in and find examples to waymark. However, some people are approaching it like creating a virtual cache. They have a location they would like to share. They look throught the list of categories to find one that fits and create a waymark. No more jumping through hoops to meet a "Wow" factor. Of course sometimes there is no category that fits. This is becoming less of a problem now that group management is functioning and there is a way to create new categories.

 

Sometimes a person may not like the idea of putting their waymark in a particular category. One thing that made many virtual caches enjoyable was the suprise you got when you found the cache. The "Wow Waymarkers" group is proposing a new category called Best Kept Secrets. It is for any location that is of interest to the general population but isn't very well known. The waymark creator will have the option of making what you will find there a mystery. Hopefully, this category will make it easier for those that hid virutals that took you to an interesting "wow" location to create a waymark that has the feel of a virtual cache. It should also allow those that want to visit/find these places by putting them into one Waymarking category. For those that miss virtuals, I invite you to become "Wow waymarkers" :wacko:

Link to comment
Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why people don't see Waymarking as an alternative. They mourn the end of locationless caches and virtuals because they say they enjoyed using their GPS to visit these interesting places and maybe learning something, perhaps a bit of history, or seeing something noteworthy. At least that's the argument in favor of virts and locationless caches that I've most often heard.

 

With Waymarking you can still do this, so if that is their goal there is no reason Waymarking can't fill the void. The rub is that they won't get a smiley for it, so they aren't interested. Proof positive that its all about the numbers and they they really don't give a clam's patootie about seeing interesting places.

Link to comment
Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.
I think you hit the nail on the head as to why people don't see Waymarking as an alternative.

While I am impressed by both your ability to read the inner thoughts of others and by your ability to make sweeping generalizations, I know for a fact that your statement is not true for a substantial number of people.

 

So could you pretty please quit making such nasty accusations about everyone who doesn't like Waymarking? Thanks very much.

Link to comment

However, if one reads the history carfefully, the orginial public GPS system only allowed 100m accuracy due to Selective Availability (SA)by the US military. When SA was removed, it became possible to find things withing 10m. So, Dave Ulmer decided to put out a cache, post its coordinates on the internet, and see if the GPS could be used to find it. So proof of finding the spot is the important factor not the cache or the log. Work out the proof and you've met the original purpose. But, you have to be willing to really read the history of the sport to get that idea.

Geocaching is about finding the hidden object (or "thing") not the spot. Dave didn't waypoint a statue or historical marker and challenge people to find it. He hid something and started this game. The game didn't catch on because the "spot" was neat. The first cache wasn't really placed in that great of a "spot". The idea was to find the "thing" that was hidden there. If you found "it" you could claim the find, not if you only found the "spot"

Link to comment

However, if one reads the history carfefully, the orginial public GPS system only allowed 100m accuracy due to Selective Availability (SA)by the US military. When SA was removed, it became possible to find things withing 10m. So, Dave Ulmer decided to put out a cache, post its coordinates on the internet, and see if the GPS could be used to find it. So proof of finding the spot is the important factor not the cache or the log. Work out the proof and you've met the original purpose. But, you have to be willing to really read the history of the sport to get that idea.

Geocaching is about finding the hidden object (or "thing") not the spot. Dave didn't waypoint a statue or historical marker and challenge people to find it. He hid something and started this game. The game didn't catch on because the "spot" was neat. The first cache wasn't really placed in that great of a "spot". The idea was to find the "thing" that was hidden there. If you found "it" you could claim the find, not if you only found the "spot"

 

Dave, Dave, Dave... Who cares? Should we adhere to his initial idea like religious fundamentalists who still think there is a literal garden of eden to be found somewhere near present day Iraq? Is Geocaching a perfect and sancrosanct creation from the infallable creator, and could not possibly be improved after it's initial creation?

 

If you want virtual caches that don't have to be forced into a "category", and if you want creative freedom in your caching, then I think we all know which site to go to... But then playing the game on any site not run by Groundspeak Incorporated is the original sin here, and ye shall be cast out of the garden for it...

 

If you want to make a virtual cache out of every McDonalds restaurant you find, go to waymaking. But you cant create a virtual there untill someone else has created a category that it fits nicely in. Hence the artificial construct of the "wow" category.

 

Free yourself from artificial constructs. Free your mind and the rest will follow.

Link to comment
Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why people don't see Waymarking as an alternative. They mourn the end of locationless caches and virtuals because they say they enjoyed using their GPS to visit these interesting places and maybe learning something, perhaps a bit of history, or seeing something noteworthy. At least that's the argument in favor of virts and locationless caches that I've most often heard.

 

With Waymarking you can still do this, so if that is their goal there is no reason Waymarking can't fill the void. The rub is that they won't get a smiley for it, so they aren't interested. Proof positive that its all about the numbers and they they really don't give a clam's patootie about seeing interesting places.

 

The numbers area funny thing...

 

While I don't really think I am in it for the numbers...the numbers to give me a sense of accomplishment. I don't have enough time to clear the caches out of my area as it is, and when I go on trips, I never have the time to get all the caches that I want to get. So, the bottom line is, I don't have time for Waymarking. If push comes to shove, and I have a choice between finding a cache, or finding something on the Waymarking site, then the cache will win out, be it an older virtual, micro, ammo can, whatever...

 

Maybe that makes me numbers obsessed, maybe not. I just like the satisfaction of adding a smiley. I do wish virtuals were still allowed though.

Link to comment

 

Dave, Dave, Dave...

 

Dave's not here... :laughing:

 

 

 

Snip... Should we adhere to his initial idea like religious fundamentalists who still think there is a literal garden of eden to be found somewhere near present day Iraq? Is Geocaching a perfect and sancrosanct creation from the infallable creator, and could not possibly be improved after it's initial creation?

 

 

 

Please don't start on this again...not here anyways.

 

Personal attacks are not allowed, and that was a direct slam on anyone who is a religious fundamentalist.

Link to comment

Why not set up the Waymarking site like the Geocaching site? If the format and process were the same or very similar I'm sure the number of participants/interest would increase.

 

I am sort of turned off after spending just a few minutes on Waymarking.com.

Edited by sundoms
Link to comment
Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.
I think you hit the nail on the head as to why people don't see Waymarking as an alternative.

While I am impressed by both your ability to read the inner thoughts of others and by your ability to make sweeping generalizations, I know for a fact that your statement is not true for a substantial number of people.

 

So could you pretty please quit making such nasty accusations about everyone who doesn't like Waymarking? Thanks very much.

 

OK. Please except Fizzymagic from my earlier remarks.

 

But then playing the game on any site not run by Groundspeak Incorporated is the original sin here, and ye shall be cast out of the garden for it...

 

What a load of horse poopies.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Dave's not here... :)

 

:) that's a blast from the past... :D

 

Snip... Should we adhere to his initial idea like religious fundamentalists who still think there is a literal garden of eden to be found somewhere near present day Iraq? Is Geocaching a perfect and sancrosanct creation from the infallable creator, and could not possibly be improved after it's initial creation?

 

Please don't start on this again...not here anyways.

 

Personal attacks are not allowed, and that was a direct slam on anyone who is a religious fundamentalist.

 

That was absolutely NOT intended to be a personal attack on anyone. Those beliefs may indeed be appropriate when it comes to religion. But "Dave" isn't God. So I believe it's an excellent analogy. No offense intended to anyone. Not even Dave.

Link to comment

I am new to geocaching and have enjoyed finding and placing a few caches...I have turned on at least two new geocachers as well.

 

I am wondering why Virtual Caches have been phased out. My cache would be a perfect place for a Virtual Cache...even most of the local Law Enforcement Officers don't know it exists!

 

I understand that I can go to Waymarking.com but I want to stay on geocaching.com.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Seems to me to be a handy way for Groundspeak to snag everyone for another premium account.

 

Marketing move.

Link to comment

I am new to geocaching and have enjoyed finding and placing a few caches...I have turned on at least two new geocachers as well.

 

I am wondering why Virtual Caches have been phased out. My cache would be a perfect place for a Virtual Cache...even most of the local Law Enforcement Officers don't know it exists!

 

I understand that I can go to Waymarking.com but I want to stay on geocaching.com.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Seems to me to be a handy way for Groundspeak to snag everyone for another premium account.

 

Marketing move.

 

Nope. Membership on one site gets you membership on the other.

Link to comment

I am new to geocaching and have enjoyed finding and placing a few caches...I have turned on at least two new geocachers as well.

 

I am wondering why Virtual Caches have been phased out. My cache would be a perfect place for a Virtual Cache...even most of the local Law Enforcement Officers don't know it exists!

 

I understand that I can go to Waymarking.com but I want to stay on geocaching.com.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Seems to me to be a handy way for Groundspeak to snag everyone for another premium account.

 

Marketing move.

 

Nope. Membership on one site gets you membership on the other.

 

I stand corrected - perhaps this fact should be advertised a little more, since there was at least one person under this impression. Good to hear.

Link to comment

...Geocaching is about finding the hidden object (or "thing") not the spot. Dave didn't waypoint a statue or historical marker and challenge people to find it. He hid something and started this game. The game didn't catch on because the "spot" was neat. The first cache wasn't really placed in that great of a "spot". The idea was to find the "thing" that was hidden there. If you found "it" you could claim the find, not if you only found the "spot"

 

Nice try. A virtual cache isn't a box but it capured the important elements of caching for most people. Some don't like them, some like them more but then everone has their favorites. The key thing is that most people sought them all out. While you may have your own defintion of what a cache is, it's not in line with the simple fact that people hunted virtual caches. Some of those people don't see that Waymarking is the same. It's lost a lot of cachers because a waymark is something other than what a virtual cache is.

 

For all intents and purposes Waymarking is intented to be the replacment of virtual caches. However since it is something else again, it doesn't do that and now virtuals as people enjoyed them are gone except for the grandfathered ones.

 

To be fair, because Waymarking is something else again it will draw people who won't like regular caching. it broadens the larger pool of people using this site.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why people don't see Waymarking as an alternative. They mourn the end of locationless caches and virtuals because they say they enjoyed using their GPS to visit these interesting places and maybe learning something, perhaps a bit of history, or seeing something noteworthy. At least that's the argument in favor of virts and locationless caches that I've most often heard.

 

With Waymarking you can still do this, so if that is their goal there is no reason Waymarking can't fill the void. The rub is that they won't get a smiley for it, so they aren't interested. Proof positive that its all about the numbers and they they really don't give a clam's patootie about seeing interesting places.

 

Brian, I felt that you explained that very well. And, I agree. Thank you!

Link to comment
Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why people don't see Waymarking as an alternative. They mourn the end of locationless caches and virtuals because they say they enjoyed using their GPS to visit these interesting places and maybe learning something, perhaps a bit of history, or seeing something noteworthy. At least that's the argument in favor of virts and locationless caches that I've most often heard.

 

With Waymarking you can still do this, so if that is their goal there is no reason Waymarking can't fill the void. The rub is that they won't get a smiley for it, so they aren't interested. Proof positive that its all about the numbers and they they really don't give a clam's patootie about seeing interesting places.

 

That's a nice generalization but for most people it's wrong. Numbers and stats are a bonus, you can do some fun things with them and you can enjoy your milestones. Alternatly you can ignore the numbers entirly. Numbers is not what got me into caching and it's not what got most of us into caching no matter what side of the numbers fence you like to sit on now that you have experience in the activity. Caching has an appeal separate from the numbers. So does Benchmarking, so does Waymarking. The reason I cache and don't waymark and don't benchmark is that caching is what appeals to me. Not the others.

 

There is a big reason Waymarking can't fill the void of virtual caches. It's lost aspects of what did make a virtual a cache instead of a waypoint. Now we have Waymarking which seems to be somewhere between waypoint.org and a real cache experience and a locationless.

 

Quite frankly the degree confluence project did a better job of capturing the essense of a virtual cache than Waymarking does now and waypoint.org ever will.

Link to comment
Yes, Waymarking exists, but it is not part of caching and won't show anywhere on your stats. Also, its more locationaless than virtual (in my opinion). My opinion has always been that locationaless did not belong because they weren't a specific point so Waymarking is fine for that, but virtuals and earthcaches are specific points and are part of the caching spirit (if one doesn't take what I think is a wrongly though out justification).

 

I agree with the part about Waymarking being more like locationless. It is, for now. As more waymarks are added to the system it will start to become more like a virtuals site, while still retaining a locationless touch.

 

Virts, LC and the other types to me were a way to add a wider variety of caches to hunt. A change of pace from just finding micros or tupperware or ammo cans during a day of caching. Waymarking just won't cut it in that way as far as I can see. Then again, maybe it will. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Sounds again like someone who got off to a bad opinion of Waymarking. At least you admit that you don't like it because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why people don't see Waymarking as an alternative. They mourn the end of locationless caches and virtuals because they say they enjoyed using their GPS to visit these interesting places and maybe learning something, perhaps a bit of history, or seeing something noteworthy. At least that's the argument in favor of virts and locationless caches that I've most often heard.

 

With Waymarking you can still do this, so if that is their goal there is no reason Waymarking can't fill the void. The rub is that they won't get a smiley for it, so they aren't interested. Proof positive that its all about the numbers and they they really don't give a clam's patootie about seeing interesting places.

Well, since the comment about geocaching stats was aimed at me, Briansnat I have to say that both you and tozainamboku are both guilty of assuming things about me. The assumption being generated is that I don't like Waymarking because there are no stats.

 

Let me state emphatically that, I have never cared about numbers or stats. Period!! I don't do this activity to get smileys, I got into and do it because it improves my fitness and my health which has been important due to medical issues. I discovered this sport at the time I needed something like this the most to help correct some problems. Health, outdoors, activity, finding interesting spots. That's why I do it. Not numbers!! So nail on the head, no admittance of not liking Waymarking because it doesn't show up in your geocaching stats. Period!! :laughing:

 

The statement about not counting on stats was SIMPLY a statement of fact as a reply to the OP of this thread.

 

What I dislike about most forums, and initially this one appeared to be different, is people making interpretations about people's motives and ideas and being dead sure they are right when in fact they are dead wrong. In the meantime, they are posting all kinds of things that make it sound that they are correct while disparaging the person that they make these comments about. Well, now that I have stated what the facts are maybe we can stop the speculation on my motives, and yes I think that those comments were unfair and inappropriate.

 

Finally, no I do not like Waymarking. But it is because, IMHO, (and feel free to disagree but one opinion is as valid as another) it isn't serving to improve the activity. It has split the activity, it has moved some excellent ideas into Waymarking where they get less notice than they deserve (virtuals, earthcaches) and the user interface is just unintuitive to the point that I do not like using it. That's personal preference of course, but I wouldn't have come to geocaching if I had been faced with an interface equivalent to Waymarking's.

 

That's it. Not numbers, its about the functionality and meaning of Waymarking.

 

JDandDD

Link to comment

Finally, no I do not like Waymarking. But it is because, IMHO, (and feel free to disagree but one opinion is as valid as another) it isn't serving to improve the activity. It has split the activity, it has moved some excellent ideas into Waymarking where they get less notice than they deserve (virtuals, earthcaches) and the user interface is just unintuitive to the point that I do not like using it. That's personal preference of course, but I wouldn't have come to geocaching if I had been faced with an interface equivalent to Waymarking's.

 

That's it. Not numbers, its about the functionality and meaning of Waymarking.

 

JDandDD

 

I'm sorry for putting words into your mouth. You did say

Yes, Waymarking exists, but it is not part of caching and won't show anywhere on your stats.

 

So it doesn't say you dislike Waymarking because it doesn't show on your stats. In your new post you do say that you do not like Waymarking because in your opinion it doesn't serve to improve the activity. It sounds like the activity which isn't being improve is geocaching. Fine. You believe that virtuals were a good variation to include in geocaching. I agree that some virtuals were a good extension. If the location truly did not support a physical cache and was interesting enough to warrant a visit then I agree virtuals were a good extension. Likewise I believe that micros are a good extension if they bring me to an interesting place or are hidden in a manner that provides a challenge to me to find. I suspect there are many different opinions as to which variation are good and which aren't. I do know that too many people wanted to place virtuals where they could have place a physical cache. I also know that too many people wanted to place virtuals at every historic plaque or public artwork or famous person's grave. You're probably right in that waymark has a difficulty in attracting people like you because the hiders of lame virtuals can now waymark every historic plaque, every public artwork, and every famous persons grave. How will you ever have the experience of finding those neat "wow" waymarks that the volunteer gate keepers of quality spent a great deal of time on? When asked by Jeremy for a definition of "wow" that could be used to justify keeping virtuals caches, you couldn't come up with one. (Maybe Jeremy had already made up his mind so you were correct in not wasting your time trying)

 

I looked at Waymarking and saw that it didn't really serve the needs of people who liked to find virtuals and in some cases of those that hid virtuals. I got input from people who liked virtuals and found that one common thread was finding places that were relatively unknown. Some people also liked to be suprised when they found the virtual, and not be told what you would find on the cache page. This did not define every great virtual out there - nor does eliminate many of the lame virtuals. But it seemed like this might be something that would get the people who complain about the absence of new virtuals on GC.com, interested in Waymarking. So I started the "Wow Waymarkers" group and we have proposed the Best Kept Secret category.

 

I agree that the user interface from Waymarking is not very good. I think bootron has done an excellent job designing a database that is flexible for supporting Waymarking. However it seems that not much thought was given to how people would use Waymarking. Even those using it primarily as a substitutue for locationless caches complain that is hard to find categories and to know what requirements there are for creating a waymark - particularly what variables they need to gather. Not much thought has been given yet to providing waymarks to people who want to visit them. There is still no way to download coordinates for waymarks.

 

Geocaching is six years old. Features were added gradually. Do not expect Waymarking to be perfect from the start. There is an opportunity to influence the path it takes and what features should be worked on. If you want to sit and mope about the fact you can no longer create a virtual on GC.com, instead of contributing to Waymarking, that is your right. You can complain on these forums until you turn blue or join HeadyBrew at that other site for all I care.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

You can complain on these forums until you turn blue or join HeadyBrew at that other site for all I care.

 

Just play where the playin's good. Locationless caches and virtuals are thriving at "that other site". What I don't understand is the animosity toward "that other site". It's not about the brand name. It's about the product. The first thing that got me to check out "that other site" was my dissilusionment here when Jeremy jumped on me for suggesting that the category structure was inherently flawed over at the Waymarking site. I've placed a few locationless there, and It's been great fun. If I wanted to place them on Waymarking, I'd have to first wade through a bazillion categories to find one it fit into. Where it would then become one waymark in a bunch of others that are categorized into NON-UNIQUE oblivion.

 

So, as a consumer in a capitolist system, I consume that product which gives me what I want. I'm tired of being criticized for that.

Link to comment

It is kind of tacky to go into Starbuck's headquarters and advertise a competitor. The same way, it seems tacky to advertise the other site here. I happen to play over at that other site, and enjoy it, but still do not see the need to try and push it here. This is Groundspeak's forums, not a generic geocaching site for all the similar geocaching websites to be promoted.

 

Edited for typos because I shouldnt be allowed to use a computer when I have a migraine.

Edited by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking
Link to comment

The way I figure it, it's better to eat with a large group of friends at a mid-priced restaurant than to dine alone in four-star luxury.

 

Any chance you can get to put them down, right lep? At any rate, your analogy is getting more and more wrong all the time. There are more caches over there than I have time to find. So I play there. (AND here).

 

BTW: you still haven't told us all what your user name is over there? or do you get someone else to do your spying for you?

Link to comment

It is kind of tacky to go into Starbuck's headquarters and advertise a competitor. The same way, it seems tacky to advertise the other site here. I happen to play over at that other site, and enjoy it, but still do not see the need to try and push it here. This is Groundspeak's forums, not a generic geocaching site for all the similar geocaching websites to be promoted.

 

Edited for typos because I shouldnt be allowed to use a computer when I have a migraine.

 

I wasnt the one who brought it up. If I play there, I'm not gonna specifically avoid talking about it. If it is directly germain to the conversation, then it's fair game.

Link to comment

The way I figure it, it's better to eat with a large group of friends at a mid-priced restaurant than to dine alone in four-star luxury.

 

Any chance you can get to put them down, right lep? At any rate, your analogy is getting more and more wrong all the time. There are more caches over there than I have time to find. So I play there. (AND here).

 

BTW: you still haven't told us all what your user name is over there? or do you get someone else to do your spying for you?

There are more than 10,000 waymarks (virtual caches) contained in 250 waymark categories (locationless caches). That's about 9,900 virtual caches that never would've seen the light of day on this listing service. I think that is a good thing. I don't think I'll ever be able to find them all!

 

The details of how I acquire information about the goings-on at other websites is no particular concern of yours. I do not have an account there. But I am blessed with many friends. :laughing:

 

To Desert Viking's point, headybrew you have every right to post about the other site here. There's no rule against it, except for the posted forum guidelines and TOU. (The TOU ought to be quite familiar to you, BTW.) But when you do post, if someone like me should disagree with you, I have an equal right to post my views in reply, and subject to the same guidelines.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment

If you want to sit and mope about the fact you can no longer create a virtual on GC.com, instead of contributing to Waymarking, that is your right. You can complain on these forums until you turn blue or join HeadyBrew at that other site for all I care.

I do not intend to engage in a fight over this, but your last paragraph here is a very good example of what I am talking about disparaging unfounded remarks. I am not sitting around moping about anything, that is your inference not my implication. You are again putting a negative connotation on me and what I am talking about and in the process implying that I am something that I am not. This kinds of discussions would be better served by respectful debate, not finding emotionally laden ways of expressing oneself like the last paragraph. Lets try to get this on an appropriate level.

 

Complaints are often constructive criticism called critique and rather than not contributing, if listened to rather than immediately dissmissed then thay are a way of contributing. If, however, they are greeted only with negative reactions then the real message is not heard. I would like to see caching in all its forms grow. I have a background of helping organizations start and also chang and improve and have seen the errors that are made. When they are made organizations either fail to grow and start to fall backwards or fail altogether. An activity must adapt to its changing environment (and all environments change) but if it doesn't, or does it poorly then it creates more problems than it solves. The vast majority of organization changes fail and more often than not because of being too rigid to listen when people point out problematice issues.

 

So, here is the not moping part. Having done this organization growth and change thing a lot, I see the same warning signs in the change processes of geocaching and the development of Waymarking as I have seen in other organizations that failed in their change processes. It shows not through me per se but through the amount of negative reaction it has created. It also shows itself in the nature and agressiveness of the defence to critique (note I did not say criticism, the two things are different) by the supporters and it shows itself in the long lasting and wide spread critique. It is clear that a schizm has been created in the geocaching community as evidenced on these boards and the continuing requests from people (other than myself note) who wonder why they can't do virtuals.

 

Groundspeak is making classic errors in the process and has laid the seeds of some real problems down the road, and that isn't very far down the road. You say wait for improvements, well unfortunately in change process, one doesn't have the luxury of time, first impressions are always the most important and those have clearly been problematic (and for some of the reasons you also point out). This process has been going on since last summer and we are way beyond the time organization change has available to it. Unfortunately, early critique was ignored and brushed off.

 

I for one would like to see both concepts succeed, but the schizm and the limited integration and the continuing hostility to any critique (again not criticism) is a very bad sign to anyone who has done the is work and hopefully it is not too late to turn things around.

 

JDandDD

Link to comment

If you want to sit and mope about the fact you can no longer create a virtual on GC.com, instead of contributing to Waymarking, that is your right. You can complain on these forums until you turn blue or join HeadyBrew at that other site for all I care.

I do not intend to engage in a fight over this, but your last paragraph here is a very good example of what I am talking about disparaging unfounded remarks. I am not sitting around moping about anything, that is your inference not my implication. You are again putting a negative connotation on me and what I am talking about and in the process implying that I am something that I am not. This kinds of discussions would be better served by respectful debate, not finding emotionally laden ways of expressing oneself like the last paragraph. Lets try to get this on an appropriate level.

 

Complaints are often constructive criticism called critique and rather than not contributing, if listened to rather than immediately dissmissed then thay are a way of contributing. If, however, they are greeted only with negative reactions then the real message is not heard. I would like to see caching in all its forms grow. I have a background of helping organizations start and also chang and improve and have seen the errors that are made. When they are made organizations either fail to grow and start to fall backwards or fail altogether. An activity must adapt to its changing environment (and all environments change) but if it doesn't, or does it poorly then it creates more problems than it solves. The vast majority of organization changes fail and more often than not because of being too rigid to listen when people point out problematice issues.

 

So, here is the not moping part. Having done this organization growth and change thing a lot, I see the same warning signs in the change processes of geocaching and the development of Waymarking as I have seen in other organizations that failed in their change processes. It shows not through me per se but through the amount of negative reaction it has created. It also shows itself in the nature and agressiveness of the defence to critique (note I did not say criticism, the two things are different) by the supporters and it shows itself in the long lasting and wide spread critique. It is clear that a schizm has been created in the geocaching community as evidenced on these boards and the continuing requests from people (other than myself note) who wonder why they can't do virtuals.

 

Groundspeak is making classic errors in the process and has laid the seeds of some real problems down the road, and that isn't very far down the road. You say wait for improvements, well unfortunately in change process, one doesn't have the luxury of time, first impressions are always the most important and those have clearly been problematic (and for some of the reasons you also point out). This process has been going on since last summer and we are way beyond the time organization change has available to it. Unfortunately, early critique was ignored and brushed off.

 

I for one would like to see both concepts succeed, but the schizm and the limited integration and the continuing hostility to any critique (again not criticism) is a very bad sign to anyone who has done the is work and hopefully it is not too late to turn things around.

 

JDandDD

 

WOW! I only wish I were eloquent enough to have said it exactly that way. I have seen this process too, at at least one place that I have worked at in the past.

 

I would only add one thing, about the "wait for improvements" part. When I hear the "wait for improvements" line, what comes across to me is "wait untill we finish doing what we're gonna do whether you or anyone else likes it or not".

Link to comment

I would only add one thing, about the "wait for improvements" part. When I hear the "wait for improvements" line, what comes across to me is "wait untill we finish doing what we're gonna do whether you or anyone else likes it or not".

Which would be a valid concern, if it were true.

 

I've been deeply involved in giving feedback on the Waymarking site since last July. I have watched the programmers make many design changes as a result of user input -- most notably, group management, a feature for which I am most grateful and which is working well for me thus far. Some of that input has come directly from me. I like it that the developers listen and are willing to tweak the site so it works better.

 

The site hasn't even been officially launched and there are already 10,000+ places to visit. That's 9,900 virtual caches that wouldn't have been listed on Geocaching.com, including *every* one of the 500+ waymarks that I've approved in the four categories I manage.

Link to comment
I've been deeply involved in giving feedback on the Waymarking site since last July. I have watched the programmers make many design changes as a result of user input...

I think it's quite important to remember that some users are more equal than others. What you consider "user input" is not available to the vast majority of us normal mortals.

 

Sorry, but that's how it is.

Link to comment

I'm not speaking just for myself or other Groundspeak volunteers. You don't need to be able to see Mopar's feet in order to suggest an improvement to the Waymarking site and see it implemented. I think that Toyzan Toizinambucko Mr. T would bear me out on this. I wish his group every success with their "Hidden Secrets" category!

Link to comment

The moping statement was partly made because I was tired when I wrote it. I knew that it was a bit of an ad hominen attack. But I left there to stir the pot a little and because I knew it would get a reaction out of both JDandDD and headybrew (with the remark about the other site). If you don't like new virtuals being moved to Waymarking, it is perfectly legitimate to go to another geocaching site that still allows them.

 

I do get a bit tired of JDandDD's argument that Waymarking is bad because of the all the negative criticism. It is possible that some of the negative criticism is silenced because of the way critics get treated on the forums. However, I don't buy that entirely. JDandDD and fizzymagic seem to have become the loudest critics and neither has offered any real positive criticism. It's more of I don't like it - put it back the way it was. Well, the way it was had more critics. There was no shortage of people who were completely convinced that virtuals were not caches. The volunteer reviewers had a legitmate complaint that too many people submited virtuals that didn't even try to meet the guidelines. And the people whose virtuals were denied for not meeting the guidelines complained that system was broken because they had found the greatest place in the world and could not put a physical cache there so they should be allowed to put a virtual there.

 

I see a whole lot more positive comments about Waymarking. Leprechauns and Desert Viking have posted in this thread about how well the site is meeting their needs. There is even a thread on What's Right With Waymarking. Desert Viking has described how she even found a way to have fun with the hated McDonald's category. Sure, JDandDD are correct that change can either be good or bad and that organizations need to be flexible to respond to problems brought up by those affected by change. In my opinion, as well as many others, TBTB have been very responsive in making changes to improve the quality of Waymarking.

Link to comment
JDandDD and fizzymagic seem to have become the loudest critics and neither has offered any real positive criticism.

As expected, a hostile, personal, and mendacious attack. JDandDD is right. The defensiveness and hostility are palpable. Instead of listening to critiques, the critiquers are attacked and the issues dismissed.

 

Please go back and read the positive suggestions I made about improving Waymarking, including those I made early on after the site was first made available.

 

All I have received for my trouble are personal attacks, much like the one you made above.

 

At this point, after the treatment I have received for my attempts to be honest about Waymarking, even if it turned into a wonderful activity, I very much doubt I would participate, given the overall nastiness of the participants I have encountered.

 

Maybe you should consider the public face of the Waymarking community that you and others have been presenting...

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...