Virtual Geocaches

[Moonsovrbend]

National Parks - Monuments and Recreation Areas do not permit physical geocaches. These are - almost by definition - some of the most worthy places to visit we have in the US.

 

I've not been geocaching for very long - but i have been doing it long enough to realize one of the greatest things about the pastime is going to places that are unique. One of the greatest things about geocaching is that we discover places we had no idea existed - and as a result of our cache-finds - we even revisit some of these places-

 

It seems to me the Virtual Geocache should be reinstated - My favorite geocache was a Virtual in a National Park and i would love to do more of them.

 

I understand that we have a new way to list virtual geocaches but it isn't the same to me - If you have never done a virtual cache - try one (grandfathered) and see how fun they are and remember - it is the only way we can list some of the most spectacular places in North America.

[+New England n00b]

I've done a virtual or two (not many, I admit), but how is Waymarking (where virtuals nw live) less effective than geocaching.com at providing that functionality?

[+The Leprechauns]

Is the location somehow less spectacular if you learn of it from Waymarking.com? How is a virtual inherently more fun? Is it because you get a smiley added to your find count?

 

I'm not following your logic here, sorry.

 

The majority of virtual caches I found were pretty lame. A few were spectacular.

 

Same for Waymarking, but at least I've got a fighting chance at finding what I want to see, and I don't have to pretend it's a geocache.

[+tozainamboku]

National Parks - Monuments and Recreation Areas do not permit physical geocaches. These are - almost by definition - some of the most worthy places to visit we have in the US.

 

I've not been geocaching for very long - but i have been doing it long enough to realize one of the greatest things about the pastime is going to places that are unique. One of the greatest things about geocaching is that we discover places we had no idea existed - and as a result of our cache-finds - we even revisit some of these places-

 

It seems to me the Virtual Geocache should be reinstated - My favorite geocache was a Virtual in a National Park and i would love to do more of them.

I understand that we have a new way to list virtual geocaches but it isn't the same to me - If you have never done a virtual cache - try one (grandfathered) and see how fun they are and remember - it is the only way we can list some of the most spectacular places in North America.

 

A cache hidden in a spectacular site is much nicer to go looking for than one hidden in a Wal*Mart parking lot. But you don't need to hide a virtual in a National Park in order to hide a cache in a spectacular place and the converse in also true. I recently did a virtual at a National Park that was formerly a micro hidden at the kiosk where you pay the entry fee. After the ban on physical caches, the owner simple turned it into a virtual. Instead of driving just 1 mile further down the road to a spectacular view, I got to get some infomation off of informative signs at the kiosk and send the owner the requested information about the fee that was charged for tour buses of 25 or more. Wow!!!

 

Just as not every Wal*Mart needs a parking lot micro (or do they?), not every place that has a great view or is of historical interest needs a cache. Virtuals almost invited that - and thus the reason for a subjective Wow factor - to limit VirtualSpew . Like the OP, I liked virtuals. When they were done properly, with a verification question that required a search of the cache area, and some degree of "wow" in the location, the were the equivalent of any great cache. But most were really the equivalent of another Wal*Mart micro - both hidden by someone too lazy to place a real cache.

 

If he really thinks, "One of the greatest things about geocaching is that we discover places we had no idea existed", I invite him to become a Wow Waymarker. We manage the Best Kept Secrets category for places that most people don't know exist but which have enough special quality (Wow?) to make them worth visiting.

Edited May 28, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+The Jester]

I've done a virtual or two (not many, I admit), but how is Waymarking (where virtuals nw live) less effective than geocaching.com at providing that functionality?

How? They don't show up on the maps so I can find them while planning caching along my route.

 

And yes, there are some lame virts, but is that a reason to ban them all ? If so, why are caches still around, there are lot's of lame caches?

 

I've always enjoyed the virts I've seen, especially while traveling. They teach more about the area I'm going thru than most caches. I'm glad they didn't archive them all when they were switched over to Waymarking. But I'm not asking that they be brought back, I know how much "trouble" they caused.

[+JakeBond]

Most of the VC's around me are pretty fantastic. I do believe that Virt.s should be reinstated, however only if there was a way to check to see if the places where they are placed is well above average. I konw this is impossible, but one can dream, can one?

 

I enjoy virt.s

 

And visiting VC's via Waymarking, is ok, except that Waymarking has been littered with so much trash that its very hard to wade through to find the gems. I think Waymarking needs a little CITO, honestly...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Moonsovrbend, we usually seem to see eye-to-eye on many things, and we both seem to like the same types of caches. And, one of the few caches on my "to-do" list is your Plunge Extreme cache in KY. However, on this matter, I disagree, and I am personally relieved that geocaching.com chose to put a cap on virtuals. And, my personal opinion only is other than the smiley/find thing, I cannot see why virtual lovers cannnot pursue their hobby/sport over at Waymarking.com.

[+New England n00b]

I've done a virtual or two (not many, I admit), but how is Waymarking (where virtuals nw live) less effective than geocaching.com at providing that functionality?

How? They don't show up on the maps so I can find them while planning caching along my route.

 

And yes, there are some lame virts, but is that a reason to ban them all ? If so, why are caches still around, there are lot's of lame caches?

 

I've always enjoyed the virts I've seen, especially while traveling. They teach more about the area I'm going thru than most caches. I'm glad they didn't archive them all when they were switched over to Waymarking. But I'm not asking that they be brought back, I know how much "trouble" they caused.

Well, that is a valid point, I guess. Maybe Groundspeak could add Waymarks (as a user option) to the geocaching.com maps? It would be kinda nice to see them superimposed on each other. However, implementing something like that, with all the filters at Waymark (unless you want EVERY type of Waymark), seems like it might be really hard...

[+JDandDD]

Before anyone say, oh here he comes again about virts, you'll get a bit of a surprise in this post. Someone fairly criticized me for not giving Waymarking a chance so I have begun to do so. Placed 64 waymarks so far and enjoy the activity and some of my attitudes have changed.

 

Waymarking has its place and there are some fun aspects to it. I would still like to see virts and earthcaches back on geocaching. I still think, after giving Waymarking an honest try and getting on board (I will continue to do the new activity) that Waymarking is a great place for locationless. My definition of locationless is multi-location/multi-coordinate places that do not really require a GPS to find.

 

Too many things that were locationaless by that definition got called virtuals in the past leading to a lot of the problems. Good virtuals, are things that require a GPS to find and are single specific spots on the planet. For example, at Niagara Falls, the Falls would not be a virt but there is a plaque there that is near impossible to find without a GPS (in fact most people walk right by it and a container cannot be placed there), check out Nigara Virtual cache to see what I mean.. The Falls are multi-location, you can see them from thousands of spots, but the plaque is a single unique place with a single set of coordinates.

 

I think the same problems that nagged caches on geocaching will rear themselves eventually in Waymarking, conflicting definitons and that would hurt Waymarking. Make it the place for locationaless (multi-location, multi-coordinate spots) and slightly broaden the definition of caches to be single location, single coordinate spots. Then benchmarks would fit well on geocaching as well.

 

So, my new bottom line, support both sites, just get the right things on each.

 

JDandDD

[+Bill & Tammy]

It has been said one of the greatest benefits of caching is that it brings you to unique and worthwhile places that you may have never knew, of heard about or even imagined before. I have certainly have experienced this as well as have all of my friends that cache. As I believe the OP pointed out there are many great places that because of regulation or some other impracticality that geocaches (container and logbook) cannot be be readily or legally placed. I know for many of you this is rehash, but let me give you another argument: For an individual that is caching while travelling or vacationing , Waymarking just does not work as efficiently, simply or effectively for this. Virtual caches remain the best way in our hobby for a local to bring visitors to an interesting location they want to show off. Some of the best caches in my area (and perhaps the best) are virts and they are always logged enthusiastically and appreciatively

 

I recently conducted a poll on our local forum and the majority of respondents indicated that they wished that virtuals could be created again. Goundspeak should take notice of this because I think if a poll were to be taken from a larger base I beleive it would indicate similiar results. Simple fact: a business that does not listen or respond to the desires of its' costomers does not compete and and is on the fast track to self-extinction.

 

I keep seeing the same spin from the same indiviuals about how great Waymarking is but I fail to see it myself (interesting how many of them are always forum moderators, huh?). I suppose it is fine for what it is, but it is not geocaching or does speak to the reasons that I for one cache. I'll say it again: WMng is really only a global coordinate directory with many only marginally interesting categories. Categories that force everything into a neat little box and limit creativity.

 

Another argument: Virtuals open up caching for those with mobility needs. I would estimate that perhaps as high as 90% of my areas' local traditional caches could not be logged readily by those with disablilities involving mobility. But you know what? Every single virtual cache in our area can be logged by a person in a wheelchair, scooter or perhaps a person that is even restricted to their vehicle. What does it say about a company that has taken steps that although perhaps only as a unintended side effect, but as a result anyway deprives those with phyical handicaps of potential enjoyment of an activity?

 

Let's bring virtuals back.

[+Tsmola]

I wish virtuals were back too, I found a cool spot that could be used for a great virtual but because they are not allowed I have to place a physical cache.

 

I checked out the Waymarking site, and I have to say, while some of the categories were interesting, the whole concept really was not.

 

My main reason for wishing they were back is I like better the fact that these places of interest and the caches are all on one site instead of two seperate ones. As others in this thread have said, I know lots of other cachers who feel the same way.

[+Sagefox]

...Virtual caches remain the best way in our hobby for a local to bring visitors to an interesting location they want to show off.

 

I liked virtuals and have "found" 267 virts, locationless & other containerless caches. I was originally in support of the status quo but after careful consideration over a two year period, examining and participating in a lot of forum topics, I now strongly agree with the removal of these cache types from mainstream geocaching. After working through my emotional response to the removal of these often very fine cache locations I could see the logic in the changes.

 

Bringing people to very nice locations is part of geocaching but is not the prime-directive. Hiding a container of trinkets, or at minimum, a logsheet, is what geocaching is. It that regard lampbase micros (which are very boring) qualify as geocaches and containerless locations that are visual treats, historically significant or educational points of interest do not.

 

...Simple fact: a business that does not listen or respond to the desires of its' costomers does not compete and and is on the fast track to self-extinction.

 

I think this is a bit of an exageration. I really don't think the loss of containerless geocaches is going to put the slightest dent in the popularity of this sport.

[+TennesseeFlyBoy]

I think the Virtual Cache has it's place. A couple of weeks ago I was in Deadwood, South Dakoa and saw that someone had put one at the grave of WildBill Hickok. Having been an avid hiker and bikepacker in an earlier life, I know there are some really interesting places out there off of the beaten path that you only come across by accident. Another reason for the Virtual Cache was raised by a local cacher near where I live, and that is that a lot of that person's caching friends were elderly and some were handicapped. Virtual Caches give them something to go looking for.

[+New England n00b]

I wish virtuals were back too, I found a cool spot that could be used for a great virtual but because they are not allowed I have to place a physical cache.

 

I checked out the Waymarking site, and I have to say, while some of the categories were interesting, the whole concept really was not.

 

My main reason for wishing they were back is I like better the fact that these places of interest and the caches are all on one site instead of two seperate ones. As others in this thread have said, I know lots of other cachers who feel the same way.

Wait - a physical is allowed at the site, and you DON'T like that? WHy is that a problem?

[+LaPaglia]

I think the Virtual Cache has it's place. A couple of weeks ago I was in Deadwood, South Dakoa and saw that someone had put one at the grave of WildBill Hickok. Having been an avid hiker and bikepacker in an earlier life, I know there are some really interesting places out there off of the beaten path that you only come across by accident. Another reason for the Virtual Cache was raised by a local cacher near where I live, and that is that a lot of that person's caching friends were elderly and some were handicapped. Virtual Caches give them something to go looking for.

 

That is a virtual grave site. The body is buried in Colorado. Encased in cement because the Wy guys kept trying to steal it.

[+Sue Gremlin]

Actually, I was just thinking the same thing, that I wish virtuals were still allowed. We are having perhaps a bit of a problem with folks who believe that geocachers are responsible for the demise of some ruins in the pine barrens, and have therefore apparently taken it upon themselves to steal our caches that we placed near these historic sites. Getting to a place I'd never otherwise get to is what it's all about for us. (and these ruins were crumbling WAY before caching existed, and we are largely responsible for picking up the garbage left by others at these places, but whatever). We do, by the way, include a longish blurb about respecting the ruins and looking-but-not-touching. Our caches are nonintrusive and do not require that people wander around in sensitive areas while seeking.

We plan to keep replacing our cache until the person or people get bored, or until we become bankrupt, whichever comes first. If that is the case, it would certainly be a good thing to make them virtuals, then these people with nothing better to do would not be able to take that away from us.

Our lives are richer because of the places we see, and we think it's very important to share the history. That's how history gets passed on, and it's such a pleasure to read informative cache pages.

 

Hm. Maybe we'll have to start Waymarking.

[+Deweyz]

I've done a virtual or two (not many, I admit), but how is Waymarking (where virtuals nw live) less effective than geocaching.com at providing that functionality?

 

I don't know about anyone else...but I find Waymarking harder to navigate and a LOT harder to find things. Geocaching.com I had figured out pretty much from the beginning...you do a search and *poof* it's there...miles from you zip code etc. etc. Waymarking I do a search and the only thing I get is a blog about rock climbing spots in Virginia. I know there's at least 1 Waymarking point in my own state, and I don't care about their silly blog, I'm looking for places.

Also, I like the virtuals mixed in with the other caches. I suppose if you download a virtual (or puzzle for that matter) without reading the page and go out with the coordinates looking for something it's a bit annoying (but kinda your own fault too)...but still...I like it all in one place. I'd perfer a meld together rather than more separation.

I don't like it...maybe it'll get better...but I don't like it.

[+Renegade Knight]

I've done a virtual or two (not many, I admit), but how is Waymarking (where virtuals nw live) less effective than geocaching.com at providing that functionality?

 

Simply put a waymark is not a cache any more than Sharps is Beer. They may have similar ingredients but the end result is very much different..

[+Renegade Knight]

Is the location somehow less spectacular if you learn of it from Waymarking.com? How is a virtual inherently more fun? Is it because you get a smiley added to your find count?

....

 

When you get right down to it most locatoins have benchmarks in one form or another. What's special about Waymarking over benchmarking over caching? There must be something making them different of they would not attract different people.

[+Team Teuton]

Can you get PQs with Waymarking? I looked but it doesn't seem like you can.

 

For that matter, does Cachemate or GSAK support Waymarking?

[+Runaround]

I'm glad virts are gone. For every "Wow" virt I can point out a half dozen that were pretty bad. The drinking fountain next to the parking lot was interesting. So was the rotting mailbox in front of the house that was torn down. And oh yeah, how can I forget the port-o-potty on the bike trail. Yep, WOW!

 

There were plenty more examples. I recall seeing cache pages for the dead bird(ID the species), the golf ball(ID the brand), the tennis shoe(ID the brand), the old tire(ID the brand and size), and the beer can(ID the brewery).

 

The Wow criteria was far to subjective. After all, someone thought all the above were good ideas.

[+briansnat]

Virtual caches remain the best way in our hobby for a local to bring visitors to an interesting location they want to show off.

 

That's news to me. I've been hiding real caches for this purpose since I started this sport. In fact most of my hides are at interesting locations I want to show off

 

Most of the the real cahces I've found were also placed by a local to bring me to an interesting location. Not every real cache is in the Burger King parking lot.

[+LaPaglia]

I'm glad virts are gone. For every "Wow" virt I can point out a half dozen that were pretty bad. The drinking fountain next to the parking lot was interesting. So was the rotting mailbox in front of the house that was torn down. And oh yeah, how can I forget the port-o-potty on the bike trail. Yep, WOW!

 

There were plenty more examples. I recall seeing cache pages for the dead bird(ID the species), the golf ball(ID the brand), the tennis shoe(ID the brand), the old tire(ID the brand and size), and the beer can(ID the brewery).

 

The Wow criteria was far to subjective. After all, someone thought all the above were good ideas.

 

Actually those examples are why "WOW" was created. Most if not all were before the guideline change that instituted "WOW".

[+Bill & Tammy]

Virtual caches remain the best way in our hobby for a local to bring visitors to an interesting location they want to show off.

 

That's news to me. I've been hiding real caches for this purpose since I started this sport. In fact most of my hides are at interesting locations I want to show off

 

Most of the the real cahces I've found were also placed by a local to bring me to an interesting location. Not every real cache is in the Burger King parking lot.

 

Again you have taken my comments out of context. My point was that virtual caches are effective at bringing people to a location that one cannot place a physical cache as was expressed also by the OP.

[+Team Tigger International]

It has been said one of the greatest benefits of caching is that it brings you to unique and worthwhile places that you may have never knew, of heard about or even imagined before. I have certainly have experienced this as well as have all of my friends that cache. As I believe the OP pointed out there are many great places that because of regulation or some other impracticality that geocaches (container and logbook) cannot be be readily or legally placed. I know for many of you this is rehash, but let me give you another argument: For an individual that is caching while travelling or vacationing , Waymarking just does not work as efficiently, simply or effectively for this. Virtual caches remain the best way in our hobby for a local to bring visitors to an interesting location they want to show off. Some of the best caches in my area (and perhaps the best) are virts and they are always logged enthusiastically and appreciatively

 

I recently conducted a poll on our local forum and the majority of respondents indicated that they wished that virtuals could be created again. Goundspeak should take notice of this because I think if a poll were to be taken from a larger base I beleive it would indicate similiar results. Simple fact: a business that does not listen or respond to the desires of its' costomers does not compete and and is on the fast track to self-extinction.

 

I keep seeing the same spin from the same indiviuals about how great Waymarking is but I fail to see it myself (interesting how many of them are always forum moderators, huh?). I suppose it is fine for what it is, but it is not geocaching or does speak to the reasons that I for one cache. I'll say it again: WMng is really only a global coordinate directory with many only marginally interesting categories. Categories that force everything into a neat little box and limit creativity.

 

Another argument: Virtuals open up caching for those with mobility needs. I would estimate that perhaps as high as 90% of my areas' local traditional caches could not be logged readily by those with disablilities involving mobility. But you know what? Every single virtual cache in our area can be logged by a person in a wheelchair, scooter or perhaps a person that is even restricted to their vehicle. What does it say about a company that has taken steps that although perhaps only as a unintended side effect, but as a result anyway deprives those with phyical handicaps of potential enjoyment of an activity?

 

Let's bring virtuals back.

 

*claps * very well said indeed !

 

Star

[+StarBrand]

For me geocaching is about finding something hidden somewhere. Virtuals are just half of that. Somewhere.

 

I never did much like most virtuals but I must admit that a few took me to an interesting or historical place that I liked but it is sad that many more just brought me somewhere for the sake of calling it a cache.

 

Makes sense to me that they are over at the Waymarking site now. There are some odd, weird and poorly thought out categories over at Waymarking but I figure with some prep time I can find all the better places to visit anyway. Eliminating virtuals has really upped the creativity of caches around this area as well.

 

I really don't miss them too much. I will eventually re-do the 2 of mine to be tradsional caches.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Some virtuals are great!! A quick review of the 49 that I've logged shows that six of them had the WOW factor! And, I'm very sorry that more like this cannot be put out. (Spectacular hike to the Lake of the Clouds Hut! So what if it took me four days of hiking, and nine thousand feet of climb to finish the Presi Traverse!) Fifteen of them were mildly interesting. (Nice statue, but there are millions of statues in the world.) Which leaves twenty eight as either boring (why did you drag me here for that?!?) to downright pathetic. (Yes, it's a beauty salon. Who cares that it's bilingual in Korean, or named after a psalm. - Not sure which was supposed to be interesting here.)

TPTB could have required the WOW factor, but decided that it was easier to make them go away. Their call. Oh, well.

Comparing geocaching.com to waypointing.com is like comparing it to terracaching.com. All nice places, I'm sure. But I'll stick to one.

[+geowalkabout]

I wish we could use the ghost cache (virtual) again. I'd hate to get in trouble for creating or digging around in a foreign country when all I'd have to do is take a picture or find out what a plaque says. i.e. China. I'd hate to take an unnecessary risk in china. Besides, virutal caches are fun and they break up traditional or multi caches.

 

On person on this list said that virtuals are usually all lame. Oh contraire Peire, Almost every vrtual cache in New Mexico is spectacular to say the least. As are Earth caches as are web cam caches.

 

I like all three and believe that they should all come back. I think they will add an entire order of magnitude of enjoyment for this game we call geocaching.

 

The other day, I was in Kentucky trying to get my face on a web cache. Truly the most fun I had caching.

 

Come on people, lets think about this logically, bigger is better in geocaching. let break up the monoteny of the same ol cache. It's a no brainer.

 

I wish we could set up camera caches again. Don't send me to Waymarking.com.

 

I was asked in a previous message before my topic was closed if this was a ploy to inflate statistics. I had to think about it . I use the geocaching.com web site, my stats are here . I don't want to play with those reverse waymarks. This is where I am collecting statistics. Let us have these types of caches back. Let Waymarkers do the reverse stuff.

 

I think having caches in a lot of neat places in NEW MEXICO should be virtural. Ie to keep people from damaging fragile areas. To comply with federal and state limitations for certain areas.

 

It's a no brainer to keep it the way it is, but should you exercize it just a tad, I think you will see how much more fun this web page would be and the hobby itself.

 

Most sincerrely,

Geowalkabout.

[+geowalkabout]

Virtual caches remain the best way in our hobby for a local to bring visitors to an interesting location they want to show off.

 

That's news to me. I've been hiding real caches for this purpose since I started this sport. In fact most of my hides are at interesting locations I want to show off

 

Most of the the real cahces I've found were also placed by a local to bring me to an interesting location. Not every real cache is in the Burger King parking lot.

 

That's funny, I thought some of the crummyiest caches I have seen were simple traditional caches!

 

Including dead mice, a golf ball, and yes a burger king parking lot! this is not sound logic.

[+martinell]

I liked virtual and locationless as well and found them to be enjoyable on a different level then the basic box in the weeds by the dumpster.

 

I tried Waymarking - I really did. I even added a waymark.

 

I cannot explain why, but Waymarking bored me enough that I didn't even want to do regular caches for awhile.

 

Apparently they are not going to come back, so we all might as well "get over it", maybe write a little memorial - "Ode to Virtuals", and get on with our lives.

 

Well, back to caching!

[+geowalkabout]

I just went over to the Waypoint websight again and decided that I do not want to participate on that web page. As of this writing it looks boring as hell. Strictly not interested in it at all. So the only way, that I will get to play with webcams caches, virtual caches and earthcaches will be if they are going to be on geocaching.com

 

I absolutely agree with the previous entries of Moonsovrbend.

 

I know this will never change because the powers that be made the decision.

But it is sad.

 

Most sincerely,

Geowalkablout.

[+The Leprechauns]

How is the webcam any more boring at Waymarking compared to being a "geocache?" It is going to the same spot and taking the same picture and seeing the same street corner. Is there any difference in the experience, other than a "visited" log vs. a SMILEY?

[+Team Teuton]

I liked virtual and locationless as well and found them to be enjoyable on a different level then the basic box in the weeds by the dumpster.

 

I tried Waymarking - I really did. I even added a waymark.

 

I cannot explain why, but Waymarking bored me enough that I didn't even want to do regular caches for awhile.

 

Apparently they are not going to come back, so we all might as well "get over it", maybe write a little memorial - "Ode to Virtuals", and get on with our lives.

 

Well, back to caching!

 

My sentiments exactly. (Except for the adding a waymark part.)

 

For me, Waymarking itself just doesn't have that WOW factor. Dunno why.

 

I wish them the best of luck, but... back to caching.

[+sbukosky]

I'm away for a while. I check in. Same arguements. Many new people and so on. Stick with it long enough and you'll understand that virtual caches are not caches and microcaches, at best, suck and when in an urban environment....well time for another hobby.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I just went over to the Waypoint websight again and decided that I do not want to participate on that web page. As of this writing it looks boring as hell. Strictly not interested in it at all. So the only way, that I will get to play with webcams caches, virtual caches and earthcaches will be if they are going to be on geocaching.com

 

I absolutely agree with the previous entries of Moonsovrbend.

 

I know this will never change because the powers that be made the decision.

But it is sad.

 

Most sincerely,

Geowalkablout.

 

(Ok trying this again. I typed out a nice response and lost internet connection just as I tried to post it. That was a few hours ago. Hopefully the connection is stable now.)

 

Nothing has changed with the earthcaches except the location. You can always just look at the earthcaches or some other category you are interested in. You can ignore the ones you do not like.

 

I have found ways to enjoy Waymarking. Ive looked for outstanding things in each category. They are there, if you look.

 

Can you honestly tell me that the following waymarks are boring?

 

Porky Lights Up

 

Day of Infamy

 

Blue Sky Mausoleum

 

Ggantija Temples - Peace Pole on island of Gozo, Malta

 

FIRST - Announcement of the Secret of Life

 

Mt. St. Helens from Harry's Ridge

 

Museum of Bad Art

 

Even the "hated" MacDonalds category has some interesting ones. Read this one and see for yourself.

 

Would you like Bach with that?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I just approved this one in a category I manage. It looks great too.

 

Patsy Ann, Juneau's Official Greeter

Edited June 6, 2006 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+The Jester]

I'm glad virts are gone. For every "Wow" virt I can point out a half dozen that were pretty bad. The drinking fountain next to the parking lot was interesting. So was the rotting mailbox in front of the house that was torn down. And oh yeah, how can I forget the port-o-potty on the bike trail. Yep, WOW!

 

There were plenty more examples. I recall seeing cache pages for the dead bird(ID the species), the golf ball(ID the brand), the tennis shoe(ID the brand), the old tire(ID the brand and size), and the beer can(ID the brewery).

 

The Wow criteria was far to subjective. After all, someone thought all the above were good ideas.

That's a weak argument. The same thing can be said about "real" caches - for every "Wow" cache I can point out a half dozen that are lame. That park 'n Ride lot was interesting. So was that bush next to the drainage ditch. And oh yeah, how can I forget the guardrail in the middle of nowhere. Yep, you get the point.

 

So because the arguement can be used both for virts and "real" caches, shouldn't the results be the same? So why haven't the caches been removed?

 

BTW, I'm not advocting for the return of virts (I understand the reasons), or the removal of caches. Just pointing out how silly the arguement is.

[+briansnat]

How is the webcam any more boring at Waymarking compared to being a "geocache?" It is going to the same spot and taking the same picture and seeing the same street corner. Is there any difference in the experience, other than a "visited" log vs. a SMILEY?

 

I don't get it either. With Waymarking you are using a GPS to find an interesting spot. The activity is identical to finding a virtual cache. You get coords, key them into your GPS and follow the arrow.

 

Complaints about the layout of the site and the preference for "one stop shopping" are valid, but the idea that actual activity is any different is absurd.

 

I think the thing that makes it "boring" or unacceptable for most people is that they don't get a smiley. The day that visited logs count towards your GC.COM find count is the day that Waymarking.com becomes the cat's pajamas in most people's eyes.

[+cache_test_dummies]

For those who visit Waymarking.com with the expectation of once again living the Glory Days of Virtuals only to find initial disappointment, it might help to understand that during these early days of Waymarking, the site is really more about creating new waymarks than finding existing waymarks. This means that for the time being, the activity is more like locationless caching than virtual caching.

 

Later, when there are more (and more widely distributed) waymarks to find, and when the site offers some type of PQ-like functionality, the focus of the activity should shift to something which more resembles virtual caching.

[+Packanack]

Are people having fun with Waymarking ? I would like to hear from people who say they are really getting out and seeking out waymarks and having fun with it. And I would like to hear what they like about it. I may be wrong here, but Waymarking seems to be tied into Just Show Up, rather than finding the clues, answering the question, interact with the virtual owner. Earlier comments about the site problems were right on the money.

 

The comments about the smilies are right on the money too. When there is a "find record" there will be more Waymarkers as that is part of the enjoyment for many people.

 

Fast forward: Two years from now: "I wish they would bring back virtuals"

Edited June 6, 2006 by Packanack

[+Ambrosia]

Are people having fun with Waymarking ? I would like to hear from people who say they are really getting out and seeking out waymarks and having fun with it. I may be wrong here, but Waymarking seems to be tied into Just Show Up, rather than finding the clues, answering the question, interact with the virtual owner. Earlier comments about the site problems were right on the money.

I love Waymarking!!!

 

Woo, hoo!

[+slightlynorth]

I have tried the Waymarking site. I had a cool virtual cache I wanted to add to geocaching.com but realized the ability was disabled. So off to Waymarking.com I went. I was not able to add the location for a few reasons:

 

1. The category thing. My loaction fell into the "buildings" category. However, you can not add a waymark to the buildings category, you have to add it to a sub-category. There are only 2 sub-categories and neither of them apply. I could not figure out how to create a sub-category and finally gave up.

 

2. Filters are bad. I have tried to filter my location to my ZIP code yet it still sorts search results by date created. Not very user friendly.

 

3. Content. I realize the site is new and still being populated with waymarks. However, it does not appear there is any attempt to take current virtual caches from geocaching.com and import them to Waymarking.

 

I spent about an hour messing around with the Waymarking site and finally gave up out of frustration. I failed at all aspects of using the site as it is intended.

 

Please bring back virtual caches to geocaching.

[+Miragee]

<snip> . . . I think the thing that makes it "boring" or unacceptable for most people is that they don't get a smiley. The day that visited logs count towards your GC.COM find count is the day that Waymarking.com becomes the cat's pajamas in most people's eyes.

Yesterday, when someone mentioned using Waymarking to find WiFi hotspots, I checked out Waymarking for the first time in many months, looking at the WiFi category. In the entire San Diego area, there were none.

 

So, after learning that, just for "fun," I spent a couple of hours doing Internet searches for locations in San Diego and mapping them on my Mapsource maps.

 

However, if I were to drive to those 53 locations to verify the existence of the WiFi spot, I would sure like to get smilies for my trouble . . . and for spending all that money on gas.

 

Maybe when/if the stats for the two sites get incorporated, more people will be willing to participate.

 

Edit for speeeling . . .

Edited June 6, 2006 by Miragee

[+WalruZ]

Before anyone say, oh here he comes again about virts, you'll get a bit of a surprise in this post. Someone fairly criticized me for not giving Waymarking a chance so I have begun to do so. Placed 64 waymarks so far and enjoy the activity and some of my attitudes have changed.

 

I started adding Waymarking to the mix a month or so ago and I've been very pleased with it. Here's my take....

 

You have to figure out how you want Waymarking to work for you. There aren't that many people doing it in my area, so I didn't have much to go on for norms.

 

I've decided that placing a waymark is the act of describing something neat (or at least representative of it's category), so I take pictures and try to find a little information to use on the page - like this Monarch, this Historic Marker, or this National Wildlife Refuge Trailhead. They're not all winners, but that doesn't mean you can't try.

 

I treat visiting waymarks as photo-virtuals. "take a picture of yourself at the site" is how I treat them all, pretty much, (unless I forget), regardless of less demanding visiting requirements. I've been visiting right along and liking it alot. Over 109 visit so far. (yes, you have stats but they're not visible to others, at least not easily.)

 

I find that waymarks make more sense in an urban/suburban environment, and frankly, traditional geocaches less so. Trads wind up getting stuck in ugly little corners for no good reason. That doesn't happen with waymarks. Conversely, there's no really good way to waymark stuff out in the woods - trads are the weapon of choice out there, imo.

 

My advice to people reading this is to just do a little Waymarking while your out caching. Add some waymarks for the neat things you know about locally. It's still quite quiet yet, so don't expect throngs visiting them or anything, but it's still fun.

 

In response to the OP, you can still hide caches inside NPs if you take some extra steps - make them offset multis. "Hike down this trail, at these coordinates is a sign. How many letters in the 5th word?", etc, etc, yadda. Hide the physical cache somewhere outside the park. Easy, really, I just went and re-did my favorite of mine, Licau II, hidden in a NWR near SF bay.

[+Glenn]

<snip> . . . I think the thing that makes it "boring" or unacceptable for most people is that they don't get a smiley. The day that visited logs count towards your GC.COM find count is the day that Waymarking.com becomes the cat's pajamas in most people's eyes.

Yesterday, when someone mentioned using Waymarking to find WiFi hotspots, I checked out Waymarking for the first time in many months, looking at the WiFi category. In the entire San Diego area, there were none.

 

So, after learning that, just for "fun," I spent a couple of hours doing Internet searches for locations in San Diego and mapping them on my Mapsource maps.

 

However, if I were to drive to those 53 locations to verify the existence of the WiFi spot, I would sure like to get smilies for my trouble . . . and for spending all that money on gas.

 

Maybe when/if the stats for the two sites get incorporated, more people will be willing to participate.

 

Edit for speeeling . . .

 

I think you are exactly right. I had a very popular webcam cache. It would sometimes get as many as five finds in one day. It was becoming very hard to manage and I was thinking about archiving it when Waymarking came around. I knew it would take a hit in the number of visitors by moving it to new site. However I never imagined that almost a year later and my very popular webcam turned waymark would get NO visits so far! It is the same camera in the same location. The listing was edited a little but still almost identical to the listing on GC.com. The only difference between the webcam cache and the webcam waymark that I can tell is that the webcam waymark doesn't increase your find count at GC.com.

 

Now that I think about it, I bet I could get logs on my webcam waymark if I also allowed logs on the archived webcam cache. But I won't be doing that anytime soon.

[+dougsmiley]

"Waymarking is a Joke"

 

Yes, it's about the smiley. I'm not spending money on gas to go to this place if I don't get any credit for it. So what? The only reason anyone hides or finds a cache under a lamppost in front of a walmart is for a NUMBER. Why are they still allowed? With this logic, maybe we should remove the stats all together!

 

If people want to find things just for a number, LET THEM. It doesn't hurt anyone. If you truely don't care about the numbers, you won't care that they have more than you do.

 

Virtual Caches were great. They took you to the actual interesting location. Now, the person is forced to place a waymark that no one will ever see, so they place a cache in the nearest fencerow and never come back to maint. it. These "Virtual Replacements" are often easily spotted due to wet logs, full logs, and missing caches.

[+sbell111]

... The only reason anyone hides or finds a cache under a lamppost in front of a walmart is for a NUMBER. ...

One's perception is not always the same as reality. For instance, light pole cache finds are not just good for beefing up my find counts. They serve to get me out of the house and they occupy my mind enough that I can not be concerned about the worries of life, for a few minutes. My find count truly is not important to me. I couldn't guess my number of finds within 50.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Yes, it's about the smiley. I'm not spending money on gas to go to this place if I don't get any credit for it.

Credit?

 

One Find logged on Geocaching.com gets you

One Visit logged on Waymarking.com gets you

 

I didn't know they were really worth anything. I'm gonna have to start saving up so I can turn them all in for something really nice.

[+Bill & Tammy]

Yes, it's about the smiley. I'm not spending money on gas to go to this place if I don't get any credit for it.

Credit?

 

One Find logged on Geocaching.com gets you

One Visit logged on Waymarking.com gets you

 

I didn't know they were really worth anything. I'm gonna have to start saving up so I can turn them all in for something really nice.

 

remember Green Stamp stores?, hmmmm

[+dougsmiley]

Waymarking is locationless, not virtual, earth or webcam.

 

Yes, the little lampost micrs get us out and caching. So did virtuals. That's my point.