Why Aren't Virtual Caches Allowed?

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

Actually, fizzymagic did make some very good comments about improving Waymarking early on. I remember his concern that the category managers would have too much power and could deny waymarks for trivial reasons. The group management seeks to address some of these issues. It obviously didn't solve all the problems as in one group a manager was rejecting waymarks due to spelling errors where other managers in the group would accept these. Several suggestions were made, including a wiki style interface to allow certain group members to fix minor problems. The truth is that Waymarking has problems. It needs smart people that can come up with clever ideas how to fix them.

[+The Leprechauns]

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.

 

Well, I can't tell if this is a pro or con, or a for or against but I agree and I'll even spot you a McDonalds dinner on it.

Cool! We can log a waymark while we're there.

 

My post is an acknowledgment that the Waymarking site is far from perfect. But I like where it's heading, and it beats the heck out of seeing 90-something percent of virtual caches denied over the past several years, and 100% of locationless denied since early 2003.

[+The Leprechauns]

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.

For whatever it's worth, I found your posts to the What's Wrong With Waymarking? thread especially helpful. It was about how Waymarking is *perceived* as much as with its design challenges. I used the insight gained from that thread and other constructive criticism as a discussion point during in-person meetings with Groundspeak's lead developer for Waymarking and its marketing professional last month. Groundspeak can do a better job not only with the site design, but in how it's explained to the community. Forum debates are not necessarily the best way to convey the message.

[+Cornerstone4]

As expected, a hostile, personal, and mendacious attack.

 

Good word. I had to look it up.

 

However, how was the statement deceitful?

 

 

edited for spelling...sheesh!

Edited May 9, 2006 by Cornerstone4

[+headybrew]

On Topic:

 

When I was in college at University of Maine, I had an instructor whom I will remember for the rest of my life. It was a theater class, and we had been assigned to watch a performance art show the night before. It was the Omaha Magic Theater. They put on a bizarre and fascinating show, with nothing that one might call a plotline, or even characters for that matter.

 

The next morning in class, The professor asked us our thoughts. There was dead silence... Somebody had to speak, so I ventured... "Well, it was interesting. But it's not what I'd call 'theater'."

 

I guess this struck a chord with the professor, a bit of a throwback to the '60s generation in some ways, because he became quite impassioned and launched into a speech which, upon reflection has literally changed my life.

 

I could never rise to his impromtu eloqence. But the gist of it is, when I define things in a rigid way, I only cheat myself out of the variety and complexity that this world has to offer. Others will still continue to enjoy it, and even understand it in a way that I will be completely incapable of. I have limited not only my own joy, but my own understanding of the world. And by defining, I have also judged. Defining something is Judging something.

 

I'm sure you can see what I'm getting to eventually... But bear with me for a moment please before judging me...

 

Definitions and categories are an inherent part of being human. Without them, we could not have symbolic speech or even thought as we currently know it. Take for example a child first learning language. The child may see a cow in a field, and hear mommy say "that's a cow. COW." The child sees four legs, eating grass... and that's the definition of a cow.

 

The next day the child may see a horse in the field and say "look Mommy, Cow."

 

"No, sweetie, that's a horse.", she will say. The child then has to add to his/her definiton of Cow, perhaps adding horns to his mental category. He must also create a new category for animals that are have four legs, eat grass, but are taller and have no horns.

 

This is how we build definitions/categories for all of the objects we experience in life. Without well defined definitons we have no language, no thought as we know it, and arguably no knowledge at all.

 

But sometimes we go too far. We define cows and horses and theatrical pieces so narrowly that we limit our knowledge and our experience of them. We limit ourselves. We limit our potential. We limit our joy of experiencing the world.

 

Must a cache have a container? Must it have a log? Must it have room enough for swag items?

 

Certainly we must limit our definition to something reasonable; Not everything is a cache. But if you want to know why we don't have virts or locs on geocaching.com... I submit to you it is ultimately because of the rigidity of our thought. We have defined these types of caches out of existence. We (and more importantly TPTB) have defined them as "not caches".

 

And we have limited our own experience of the world.

[+The Leprechauns]

Thank goodness that we've outgrown our narrow definition of "virtual cache" and "locationless cache" so that they no longer are square pegs trying to fit into the same square holes as "traditional caches." They now have a site that can be tailored specifically to their unique needs.

 

Really, if you want to examine definitional paradigms, a geocache is nothing more than a waymark category. A very large and popular one... so much so that it has its own site.

 

For now.

[+headybrew]

Thank goodness that we've outgrown our narrow definition of "virtual cache" and "locationless cache" so that they no longer are square pegs trying to fit into the same square holes as "traditional caches." They now have a site that can be tailored specifically to their unique needs.

 

Really, if you want to examine definitional paradigms, a geocache is nothing more than a waymark category. A very large and popular one... so much so that it has its own site.

 

For now.

 

By that argument we should get rid of geocaching.com and move all traditionals into a waymark category.

 

The issue that many of us have with wamarking.com is that it's not the same as virtuals and locationless caching.

 

More specifically, (speaking only for myself) virtuals are ruined by being subjugated to categories. Virtuals and Locationless caches should never have been considered to have any relationship to each other. By defining a virtual as a found-locationless, we've restricted the freedom and creativy we could have been enjoying in virtual caching.

 

Free your mind, and the rest will follow. <-- it's not just a silly saying. It's true.

[+tozainamboku]

Thank goodness that we've outgrown our narrow definition of "virtual cache" and "locationless cache" so that they no longer are square pegs trying to fit into the same square holes as "traditional caches." They now have a site that can be tailored specifically to their unique needs.

 

Really, if you want to examine definitional paradigms, a geocache is nothing more than a waymark category. A very large and popular one... so much so that it has its own site.

 

For now.

 

Lep got it right on. Suppose that Waymarking came first. People start to create categories of things that can be found by listing the geographic coordinates. These categories start out pretty mundane - McDonald's Restaurants, Historic Markers, Pedestrian Suspension Bridges. Later some people begin to list more interesting categories and Waymarking games - Weird Locations, Old Photos, Confluence Points. Eventually someone comes up with an idea for a new category - Caches. To create a waymark in this category hide a container someplace with a log book and optional trade items. Post the coordinates. To log a visit to the waymark find the container and sign the log. If you take a trade item leave a trade item. Category variables: difficulty rating, terrain rating, container size. Later still someone else would come up with categories for multi caches and for puzzle caches. You wouldn't need a virtual cache category because you could already put these locations in one of the other categories. But maybe someone would decide that it's not much fun going to look for Historic Markers or Pedestrian Bridge. It would be more fun to visit places that most people don't know about and that can't be found on some other website (not refering to terracaching here ). It may even be more fun if the description didn't give away exactly what you would find at the location. Someone could create a Best Kept Secrets category for these.

[+JDandDD]

But sometimes we go too far. We define cows and horses and theatrical pieces so narrowly that we limit our knowledge and our experience of them. We limit ourselves. We limit our potential. We limit our joy of experiencing the world.

 

Must a cache have a container? Must it have a log? Must it have room enough for swag items?

 

Certainly we must limit our definition to something reasonable; Not everything is a cache. But if you want to know why we don't have virts or locs on geocaching.com... I submit to you it is ultimately because of the rigidity of our thought. We have defined these types of caches out of existence. We (and more importantly TPTB) have defined them as "not caches".

 

And we have limited our own experience of the world.

headybrew, how eloquently stated and this has been exactly my concern. You just said it much better than I did. This is how things go wrong in all organiztions when the nature of the world forces change and they adapt poorly. It is a natural posture to take action to eliminate what challenges your initial thoughts but the crucial thing is to free your thinking as you say.

 

JDandDD

[+JDandDD]

Thank goodness that we've outgrown our narrow definition of "virtual cache" and "locationless cache" so that they no longer are square pegs trying to fit into the same square holes as "traditional caches." They now have a site that can be tailored specifically to their unique needs.

 

Really, if you want to examine definitional paradigms, a geocache is nothing more than a waymark category. A very large and popular one... so much so that it has its own site.

 

For now.

 

By that argument we should get rid of geocaching.com and move all traditionals into a waymark category.

 

The issue that many of us have with wamarking.com is that it's not the same as virtuals and locationless caching.

 

More specifically, (speaking only for myself) virtuals are ruined by being subjugated to categories. Virtuals and Locationless caches should never have been considered to have any relationship to each other. By defining a virtual as a found-locationless, we've restricted the freedom and creativy we could have been enjoying in virtual caching.

 

Free your mind, and the rest will follow. <-- it's not just a silly saying. It's true.

Again , headybrew I have to agree with you. My position has always been that the problem with Waymarking is the mixing of virtuals (specific places) with locationaless (really multi-location) and it is that, I think inaccurate) joining of locationaless and virtuals that has been the problem with Waymarking. You said it very well.

 

I think what you have hit upon has been the point behind my pleas to TPTB to define what that site is for. Originally it was sold as a replacement for locationaless, and in that I can fully agree with leprechauns about the usefulness of Waymarking. In fact, that is how it could be improved, make it a locationaless only site then it has a focus.

 

The other point I have consistently made, and this discussion is helping me make clearer to myself, is that caching is about finding a specific spot via gps coordinates. Virtuals, traditionals, earthcaches, benchmarks have all had that common factor, a specific spot that can be located with a gps.

 

That is the one major characteristic never shared by locationaless. You never needed a gps to find the spot. And that is what the majority of waymarks is. Now there is probably a need, obviously there is, for a locationaless site because they didn't really fit in with the other types.

 

You have put it very well by pointing out that virtuals were mistakenly defined in the same way by TPTB as being like locationless when they are really more like traditionals. By grouping them together on Waymarking, the site has been saddled with a mixed focus which will always be a problem for it. Decouple the two types and much if not most of the problems go away.

 

I have on several occasions asked that the TPTB explain better what Waymarking is about and they do not answer. As leprechauns say they could do a better job of that. But to do that they need to follow your advice and Free their minds first.

 

JDandDD

Edited May 10, 2006 by JDandDD

[CoyoteRed]

My position has always been that the problem with Waymarking is the mixing of virtuals (specific places) with locationaless (really multi-location) and it is that, I think inaccurate) joining of locationaless and virtuals that has been the problem with Waymarking.

 

I've not ever been too big on non-physical caches so I didn't migrate over to the Waymarking site. However, from the way it was explained to me I thought the layout of the Waymarking site was absolutely brilliant. Someone thinks of a Waymarking category (locationless) and someone finds a waymark (a locationless find). But now, that "find" is now findable by others, which means it is now a virtual cache. (a locationless find = virtual cache)

 

Before generally only one person could find a locationless spot. Now, it's pretty much the same, but the person to find that spot is now the "owner" of that spot which now acts like a virtual cache.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

[+Bill & Tammy]

The fact is Waymarking cannot and will never replace virtuals and locationless caches. Waymarking I suppose is fine for what it is, and I think it probably more of a wiki coordinate directory than caching and is certainly not vitual and locationless caching. As with most hobby communities you will find geocachers are made up of various subsets who may decide for whatever reason or another to pursue one particular vein of what we include in the broad defintion of the hobby. In my other addiction which is kiting, I happen to enjoy powerkiting and even though broadly defined as still "flying kites" it has very little to do with the many other branches of the pursuit which include sport, trick, prescision, fighter kites etc, etc. And while I appreciate those other areas, I don't do them and probably never will, I like to fly my power kites. By attempting to eliminate specific directions this hobby has taken by a purist definition of "what caching is" we deprive those enthusiasts of perhaps the reason they enjoy the hobby. Again, we need to allow the diverse aspects of this hobby to flourish instead of nipping them off at the bud.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+headybrew]

I've not ever been too big on non-physical caches so I didn't migrate over to the Waymarking site. However, from the way it was explained to me I thought the layout of the Waymarking site was absolutely brilliant. Someone thinks of a Waymarking category (locationless) and someone finds a waymark (a locationless find). But now, that "find" is now findable by others, which means it is now a virtual cache. (a locationless find = virtual cache)

 

Before generally only one person could find a locationless spot. Now, it's pretty much the same, but the person to find that spot is now the "owner" of that spot which now acts like a virtual cache.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

 

Yup. That paradigm is my understanding of it too. When I first realized that that's what they are getting at, I thought "Cool! What a great way to put it all together." And I honestly explored the site with excitement about a new way to have fun and a new place for virtuals to exist.

 

I think that's the initial appeal of the site, the idea that Locs and Virts do relate that way. But after a while I just couldn't figure out why it all seemed so boring. The magic of virtuals is lost somehow.

 

I think that the issue is this: no matter how elegant that paradigm seems at first, it *defines* virtuals as a one-of-many item that fits into a category. Do we really think a virtual can have much excitement or uniqueness if it is defined from the start as something that fits into a pre-approved category?

 

We've gone too far with this definiton-of-a-true-cache stuff. So my answer to the OPs question is simply that: virts (and locs) arent allowed, because the don't even exist in our definition of the universe anymore.

[Pto]

I've not ever been too big on non-physical caches so I didn't migrate over to the Waymarking site. However, from the way it was explained to me I thought the layout of the Waymarking site was absolutely brilliant. Someone thinks of a Waymarking category (location less) and someone finds a waymark (a location less find). But now, that "find" is now findable by others, which means it is now a virtual cache. (a location less find = virtual cache)

 

Before generally only one person could find a location less spot. Now, it's pretty much the same, but the person to find that spot is now the "owner" of that spot which now acts like a virtual cache.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

 

CR- that is probably the best summary I have read to describe it, that Sank in- so Thank You!

I admit to Not having read much of the info/help on Waymarking, I figured I'd be able to intuit my way thru it, but I did have a question, and this seems like a great time to ask it - since I will use my example/question I had in mind- basing it on your explanation above.

Seriously, I have not been able to "wrap my head around it" any better than seeing your post.

 

Someone thinks of a Waymarking category (locationless)

OK, so I found a category, Sundials

and someone finds a waymark (a locationless find)

37 people have found this/their waymarks. Nobody has reported the location in my question.

 

..(a locationless find)....But now, that "find" is now findable by others, which means it is now a virtual cache.

 

I have a cache placed within, say 30 feet of a cool sundial on a sandy point on a lake. My cache page contains a complete description, and history of the area/sundial- and displays pics of sundial, and view/attractions from the point. I found a spot to place a container, so not a virtual on geocaching.com- its a traditional geocache. So here is my question:

 

Do I log a "find" on Waymarking of this location? I could do it without leaving my desk. I have done a grid of the area and have coordinates of center of sundial, Pics, history and so on.

 

(a locationless find = virtual cache)

 

If the answer to my question above is Yes, then I've just "found" the same spot twice, playing Two separate "games/hobbies/etc"- but for one its a Hide, the other a find - AND - a find of "a locationless, which=virtual cache". So now I’ve hidden a geocache, and "found" a locationless cache, which is by nature a virtual cache- all in one place?

What about other finders of my cache(65 total)? They can now also report a find of this waymark? (virtual cache)??They have enough info to do so......so, now those 65 people could - theoretically- claim at least 1 find on Waymarking? Isn’t this "cheating" on my part- being able to "find it" from my desk?(as well as everyone else)?

 

Is there a guideline on having waymarks near geocaches? Is there established "etiquette" on these issues?

Am I blind - and missed any of this info somewhere?

 

Honestly- CR's post was the first starting point I could use to jump off into this question, so if I have missed anything along the way- I’m sorry. This has been a confusing discussion. . ..

[+Corp Of Discovery]

The only problem with virts, LC and the other now banned types were artificially created by TPTB IMO.

 

How many time has it been said that approvers/reviewers do not pass judgement on caches, yet that was what asked of them when the WOW factor was enacted for virts. With all the 'discussion' on micros all the time, what if the same standard gets applied to them or any other cache type?

 

The YJ LC was archived we were told, if I recall right, because so many logs on it caused problems, yet I see event caches with more than 3600 logs on them. All the other LC it was said cause site slow downs also.

 

Earthcaches were created but now are all but abandoned. Webcams just got dumped with everything else. Why? Just because TPTB said so.

 

But that's all in the past. I've been trying to get a feel for Waymarking and haven't had much success yet. I am hopeful that it will come in time tho. The banned types weren't pefect here, and Waymarking isn't perfect either. I'm going to at least give it time to get it's sea legs. I may end up switching to only Waymarking or never log a single one. In any case I, for one, will remember a time when there was much more variety to what I could look for while out for a day of caching.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Corp Of Discovery

[+headybrew]

I think what you have hit upon has been the point behind my pleas to TPTB to define what that site is for. Originally it was sold as a replacement for locationaless, and in that I can fully agree with leprechauns about the usefulness of Waymarking. In fact, that is how it could be improved, make it a locationaless only site then it has a focus.

 

Yes, I'd agree with that too. Locs don't fit well within the cache paradigm, and would do well to be seperated from the other types. In fact (no plug intended, it's just germain here) the other site seperates them out, and it works very well.

 

The other point I have consistently made, and this discussion is helping me make clearer to myself, is that caching is about finding a specific spot via gps coordinates. Virtuals, traditionals, earthcaches, benchmarks have all had that common factor, a specific spot that can be located with a gps.

 

That is the one major characteristic never shared by locationaless. You never needed a gps to find the spot. And that is what the majority of waymarks is. Now there is probably a need, obviously there is, for a locationaless site because they didn't really fit in with the other types.

 

I think it is useful to look at it the way a non-cacher would. non-cachers have a completely open mind, because they've never considered these topics yet. When I explain these things to a non-cacher, the easiest way is to say that a locationless cache is like a scavenger hunt, and all the other cache types are more like a treasure hunt. They seem to instantly understand that one has a location to go find something at (even if it's just a log book, or simply a neat place to be) and the other could be anywhere, you just have to look for it.

 

To me that is the first distinction between the cache types. A virtual is a type of treasure hunt. A locationless is unique in that it is a scavenger hunt and can't be grouped with the others.

 

You have put it very well by pointing out that virtuals were mistakenly defined in the same way by TPTB as being like locationless when they are really more like traditionals. By grouping them together on Waymarking, the site has been saddled with a mixed focus which will always be a problem for it. Decouple the two types and much if not most of the problems go away.

 

BINGO!!!!!

 

I have on several occasions asked that the TPTB explain better what Waymarking is about and they do not answer.

 

I intend this as absolutely no insult to them, but I think the reason is again that they have defined things so rigidly that they have lost the ability to even understand the things that a non-cacher can so easily comprehend just by using different words(scavenger vs treasure hunt). They've defined them into oblivion and without good and useful definitions they just don't know how to answer your question.

 

As leprechauns say they could do a better job of that. But to do that they need to follow your advice and Free their minds first.

 

JDandDD

 

Now I really hope that the people who disagree with us will read these thoughts and consider them. I respect their point of view too. But I'd love to see a carefully thought out, mind-stretching response, instead of a quick repeat of the same dismissals.

Edited May 10, 2006 by headybrew

[+headybrew]

What about other finders of my cache(65 total)? They can now also report a find of this waymark? (virtual cache)??They have enough info to do so......so, now those 65 people could - theoretically- claim at least 1 find on Waymarking? Isn’t this "cheating" on my part- being able to "find it" from my desk?(as well as everyone else)?

 

If I understand it correctly, only one of those 65 people could log that particular sundial as a waymark. And only if they beat you to it.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Only one person can create the waymark for that sundial, but all of the rest can log a visit to that waymark. In that regard, it becomes like a virtual cache. In old locationless caches, once a sundial was logged, then it could not be logged again. In Waymarking, you can log a visit to a sundial that someone else logged before you.

[+tozainamboku]

I've not ever been too big on non-physical caches so I didn't migrate over to the Waymarking site. However, from the way it was explained to me I thought the layout of the Waymarking site was absolutely brilliant. Someone thinks of a Waymarking category (locationless) and someone finds a waymark (a locationless find). But now, that "find" is now findable by others, which means it is now a virtual cache. (a locationless find = virtual cache)

 

Before generally only one person could find a locationless spot. Now, it's pretty much the same, but the person to find that spot is now the "owner" of that spot which now acts like a virtual cache.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

 

Yup. That paradigm is my understanding of it too. When I first realized that that's what they are getting at, I thought "Cool! What a great way to put it all together." And I honestly explored the site with excitement about a new way to have fun and a new place for virtuals to exist.

 

I think that's the initial appeal of the site, the idea that Locs and Virts do relate that way. But after a while I just couldn't figure out why it all seemed so boring. The magic of virtuals is lost somehow.

 

I think that the issue is this: no matter how elegant that paradigm seems at first, it *defines* virtuals as a one-of-many item that fits into a category. Do we really think a virtual can have much excitement or uniqueness if it is defined from the start as something that fits into a pre-approved category?

 

I agree with headybrew. Initially, Waymarking had a problem. To create a virtual, it had to fit in one of the existing categories (locationless caches) or you had to create a new category for it. This really did not have the feel of virtuals. First of all the finder would have some idea of what he/she would find at the location because of the category. Next, there was no general requirement to verify your visit and in particular to find something at the location that could be used to verify the visit (many virtuals caches lacked this feature as well even though IMO it was a requirement). Finally, sometimes the "Wow" was the suprise of what you would find, and Waymarking wanted a detailed description of the waymark.

So I proposed the Wow! Waymark category. It was a little bit tongue in cheek. I just took the guidelines for Virtual caches and replaced the word virtual cache with Wow waymark. I also added a jab at the volunteer reviewers for doing such a good job of denying Virtuals that weren't wow. But as others continued to complain about Waymarking lacking the feel of virtual caches, I took a serious look. I created the Wow Waymarkers group to discuss what made virtuals interesting and how could they be better represented on Waymarking.

We decided that some of the best virtual caches weren't really that unique or fanstastic places. Instead what made them worth doing was that you would find out about an interesting place that you didn't know existed (or something interesting you didn't know about a place that you knew existed) In addition, there were many cases were the Virtual cache page made what you were going to find into a mystery. This increased the suprise factor when you visited. So we have proposed a Best Kept Secrets category in Waymarking for places that meet these guidelines. Not every good virtual will be a Best Kept Secret, but we believe that some of the best virtual caches would qualify. Let's see if this category will suceed and if it provides a way for the spirit of virtuals to live at Waymarking.com. Let's see if doesn't inspire some more creative categories that may represent ways to share experiences using a GPS that geocaching never imagined.

[Pto]

<Snip>....To create a virtual, it had to fit in one of the existing categories (locationless caches) or you had to create a new category for it.................

 

You sound very informed on the whole process- Any ideas on my questions above?

[+tozainamboku]

I have a cache placed within, say 30 feet of a cool sundial on a sandy point on a lake. My cache page contains a complete description, and history of the area/sundial- and displays pics of sundial, and view/attractions from the point. I found a spot to place a container, so not a virtual on geocaching.com- its a traditional geocache. So here is my question:

 

Do I log a "find" on Waymarking of this location? I could do it without leaving my desk. I have done a grid of the area and have coordinates of center of sundial, Pics, history and so on.

 

(a locationless find = virtual cache)

 

You could create a new waymark in the sundial category (equivalent to finding a locationless) if no one has created a waymark for this sundial yet. Since you got GPS coordinates, pictures, history, etc. when you hid your cache you probably could do it with out leaving your desk. The category may have additional requirements that you may have to go back to the sundial in order to meet. If someone else had already created a waymark for this sundial, you could log a visit.

 

If the answer to my question above is Yes, then I've just "found" the same spot twice, playing Two separate "games/hobbies/etc"- but for one its a Hide, the other a find - AND - a find of "a locationless, which=virtual cache". So now I’ve hidden a geocache, and "found" a locationless cache, which is by nature a virtual cache- all in one place?

Yep you can have a physical cache and a waymark in the same place. You can have multiple waymarks (in different categories in the same place. Maybe that sundial appeared in a movie?

 

What about other finders of my cache(65 total)? They can now also report a find of this waymark? (virtual cache)??They have enough info to do so......so, now those 65 people could - theoretically- claim at least 1 find on Waymarking? Isn’t this "cheating" on my part- being able to "find it" from my desk?(as well as everyone else)?

 

Being able to create a waymark from your desk isn't considered cheating if you meet all the requirements from the category. The intent is that you visited the place to get the coordinates, but some category managers are not enforcing this. The idea right now is to get more waymarks listed. The previous finders of your geocache may or may not be able to log a visit to your waymark. You as the waymark owner could decide not to allow back dated visits. You could ask for some verification that visitors to your cache would likely have paid attention to when they found the cache.

 

Is there a guideline on having waymarks near geocaches? Is there established "etiquette" on these issues?

Am I blind - and missed any of this info somewhere?

 

Honestly- CR's post was the first starting point I could use to jump off into this question, so if I have missed anything along the way- I’m sorry. This has been a confusing discussion. . ..

Waymarks can be in the same place as a geocache - they are separate games. There is no saturation limitation on waymarks. As of the first of the year, physical geocaches can be place less that .1 miles from a grandfathered virtuals cache as well.

[+sbell111]

...The issue that many of us have with wamarking.com is that it's not the same as virtuals and locationless caching. ... Virtuals and Locationless caches should never have been considered to have any relationship to each other. By defining a virtual as a found-locationless, we've restricted the freedom and creativy we could have been enjoying in virtual caching.

I disagree. As others have explained, LCs and virts have a direct relationship to categories and waymarks.

More specifically, (speaking only for myself) virtuals are ruined by being subjugated to categories.

I have to believe that what you mean is that with waymarks, you lose the surprise of what the object is. I think that once we will be able to pull PQs of waymarks, you will get this back.

 

Think about it this way. If I really like specific kinds of virts waymarks (perhaps historic locations or trains) you will be able to just include these in your PQs. This will allow you to ignore the types of virts waymarks that you hate. You could also run the PQ wide open and get all of the waymarks in the area (except those categories that you know that you'll hate). You can then be surprised as to what the object is when you arrive.

 

Note: I scrambled your post a bit for clarity. I believe that your intent is still intact.

Edited May 10, 2006 by sbell111

[+Prime Suspect]

 

I have to believe that what you mean is that with waymarks, you lose the surprise of what the object is.

Maybe a "Surprise" category would be in order. Similar to "Wow", but without too much detail.

[+tozainamboku]

 

I have to believe that what you mean is that with waymarks, you lose the surprise of what the object is.

Maybe a "Surprise" category would be in order. Similar to "Wow", but without too much detail.

 

Please note: The Best Kept Secrets category is now in peer review. (The link will only work for Premium members logged into Waymarking.com.) By this time tommorow, you may very well be able to submit waymarks for interesting places that are not well known among the locals. These waymarks will not neccessarily give away the what the object is. In fact making it a suprise is encouraged. If you liked looking for Virtuals because of the "Wow" factor, you might consider visiting a Best Kept Secret.