Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
FireFly61

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

I believe preventing future virtual caches is a mistake. Virtual caches are a way of showing people locations, in a fun way, in an area that is enjoyed outside of a cacher's local area. I had planned to sprinkle virtual caches in an area that has very few geocaches.

 

I tried to find out why virtual caches are being eliminated, but I only received an error message - that the page is no longer available to view.

 

I see that a Waymarking page has been started. However, geocaching, including virtual caches, is like solving a big puzzle. As with any puzzle; sometimes we solve it and sometimes we don't. That's the challenge. The Waymarking page seems to require more from its participants, but the search itself is minimal. Sometimes the virtual cache is such a beautiful place because there are no signs.

 

I hope the powers that be reconsider their decision about no longer allowing virtual caches from being submitted on the Geocaching site.

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to agree with you. I think eliminating the virtual caches was strange. I found Lester Park to be a nice refreshing site cache that I never would have known about. I know of a local gorge that I would like to turn into a virtual cache as well. Why were virtuals done away with anyway? Swizzle

Share this post


Link to post

www.Waymarking.com is the answer. Ok, it doesn't gets you a smiley, but heck it still drives you to great, great places. :(

Edited by SUp3rFM & Cruella

Share this post


Link to post

Mostly because TPTB have decided that a "geocache" is a container with a logbook. Virtuals, locationless, webcams and earthcaches didn't meet this and are now waymarks. I doubt they're going to reconsider.

Share this post


Link to post

Ain't going to happen.

 

I am a huge fan of virtual caches. I think Waymarking is totally awesome, way better than virtual caches toward the end of their submissions. Eventually, as categories expand, you will be able to waymark just about anything. You could not do that with virtual caches. Frankly, I don't want to see existing virtual caches go away. I hope they stay. The problem is that just about everything that had the "wow" factor has already been listed pretty much. The submissions that were coming in at the end were mundane. If it was a brass plaque riveted to a piece of concrete, someone submitted it as a virtual. The "yawn" factor for reviewers was really bad, and I like virtuals. I only saw one or two in the last 12 months that were interesting and worth publishing. One that I remember was the newly constructed WWII Memorial in DC. Several submissions came in from people from out of town asking you to count water fountains or something like that. Yawn. Finally, a local found something very unusual, very easy to overlook and very cool as the target for that memorial. I listed it. I think it was the last one I listed. I can't remember how many I turned down, but only one or two made it. I probably rejected over 100 to 200.

 

Virtuals are still there. Have fun finding them. To me, they are a part of geocaching history. Enjoy them.

 

Waymarking is way cool. You can do them while traveling, something you could not do with virtuals. You can do the same target in several categories if you want to make sure people with different interest see them, something you could not do with virtuals. Categories are run by your fellow waymarkers/geocachers and not by the team of reviewers. The Waymarking site is new and is still changing and is getting better as we, fellow waymarkers/geocachers, suggest ways to make it better. Play around with it. It is going to be updated soon, and Opinionate has posted a topic about that in the Getting Started Waymarking Forum. Waymarking is a far better solution (than) the virtual cache.

 

Remember the old deal where " a view is not a cache". Well, a view is indeed a waymark.

Check these out... Kerry Park and Dead Horse Point. Awesome.

 

(Correction in parenthesis.)

Edited by mtn-man

Share this post


Link to post

Remember the old deal where " a view is not a cache". Well, a view is indeed a waymark.

Check these out... Kerry Park and Dead Horse Point. Awesome.

I can't believe that you're the first one to get Kerry Park. Goodness, I'm a member of that group category, and I've just been by that park recently. I'm slipping to let an out-of-towner show me up like that. :(:P

Share this post


Link to post

Mostly because TPTB have decided that a "geocache" is a container with a logbook. Virtuals, locationless, webcams and earthcaches didn't meet this and are now waymarks. I doubt they're going to reconsider.

There are still webcams around. I would have preferred to move them to waymarks and kept the virtuals...

Share this post


Link to post

mtn-man & IV_Warrior:

 

Thanks for the information. When I queried gc.com, all I got was a "thanks for your feedback. . ."

 

I guess I was so frustrated about not being able to post some new caches in a geocache-lacking area, that I didn't give Waymarking a chance.

Share this post


Link to post

:(:P

 

It was a recommendation. Holy cow, what a great place.

If you go to Seattle and miss it, you missed the best view in town.

 

I'll be waiting for your log! :P:D

Share this post


Link to post

mtn-man & IV_Warrior:

 

Thanks for the information. When I queried gc.com, all I got was a "thanks for your feedback. . ."

 

I guess I was so frustrated about not being able to post some new caches in a geocache-lacking area, that I didn't give Waymarking a chance.

Do give it a chance. I really do love it. The site is well done as is and is only going to get better. I like the more powerful search function that is coming out as well as the advanced ignore functions. If you don't like something you can wipe it out. If you find you like it later, you can bring it back easily. It is only going to get better and better, and it is great right now as is.

 

As a side note, when in Seattle, I went to WM1, the very first waymark. It was like visiting the original stash location. Very cool, even if it was just a McDonald's location.

Share this post


Link to post

Mostly because TPTB have decided that a "geocache" is a container with a logbook. Virtuals, locationless, webcams and earthcaches didn't meet this and are now waymarks. I doubt they're going to reconsider.

There are still webcams around. I would have preferred to move them to waymarks and kept the virtuals...

Web Cameras are on the Waymarking site!

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/default...46-2e4fdae93ddd

Share this post


Link to post

:(:P

 

It was a recommendation. Holy cow, what a great place.

If you go to Seattle and miss it, you missed the best view in town.

 

I'll be waiting for your log! :P:D

I'll get it as soon as I can. :D

 

And to the OP....the more I get into Waymarking, the more I love it and appreciate it more than I ever appreciated virtuals and locationless. And I was really into those. Waymarking takes on a life of it's own once you get into it. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I like the basic idea of Waymarking and virtuals. I just checked out Waymarking for a 50 mile radius around my zipcode and I can visit a variety of cool things. How about for starters a McDonalds in another town or a Walmart or one of the many payphones waymarked in my area or the two twisted car wrecks in the woods?!? I'm sorry but that is just tagging too many items. I want to see gorges and cliffs and panoramic views and vistas or visit a cool park. I don't want to visit a payphone or a rusted relic in the woods. Maybe some of the many mill ruins that dates back to the 1800's and earlier, or some adirondack lean-to's and an island on a backwoods lake. I think there should be some limitations on what can be logged as a waymark. It's a great site, but with payphones and rusted junk it looks like it may turn into a dump site. There are books available that tells you of every historical marker in the U.S. so I can't see posting those either unless there is some eye candy to go along with it. Please don't take this the wrong way but until trash like that has some type of limitations put on it then I don't see much reason to visit a seperate website. I love geocaching and hate the fact that virtuals have been grandfathered. They should be bought back. Geocaching is only 6 years old and virtuals in my opinion are as much a part of geocaching as finding a cache box. To each there own. Some like evil micro's and multi's others like night stalkers and traditional and puzzle caches. Each have there own following and I feel that virtual caches also have a following. If you don't like virtuals then place them on your ignore list, but don't do away with this great aspect of treasure hunting. I love to see the view from a fire tower just as much as a 4yr old likes seeing the latest burger king toy in a ammo can. Swizzle

Share this post


Link to post

Mostly because TPTB have decided that a "geocache" is a container with a logbook. Virtuals, locationless, webcams and earthcaches didn't meet this and are now waymarks. I doubt they're going to reconsider.

There are still webcams around. I would have preferred to move them to waymarks and kept the virtuals...

 

There are still virtual caches and earthcaches around, too. Locationless are the only ones that got locked down. There just won't be any NEW submissions of any of them on gc.com, new for all are now on Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Swizzle, the solution is for you to get out there and waymark all those things. Create the waymarks for others to visit. In my area I'm the only person who has created waymarks so there are very few to visit. If there are these interesting things to see, waymark them. Others will come to visit, and the category will grow. Then, when you're in another area, you can finds waymarks in those categories that do interest you.

 

Waymarking is way cooler for these type of cacheless caches, imo. It lets you add to and expand the list of places to go. For locationless, especially, Waymarking was a great solution. The more people use Waymarking the better it will become.

Share this post


Link to post
I hope the powers that be reconsider their decision about no longer allowing virtual caches from being submitted on the Geocaching site.

 

Thank you.

As previously mentionned, a great view now needs a container.. why not hide one and let people see this great view as they are getting to the cache?

Share this post


Link to post

swizzle, Bear Paughs is right on the mark.

 

Comparing the current Waymarking site, which is still in beta, to the current geocaching site of today is apples and oranges.

 

When I first started geocaching, there were very few caches near me. I found the site as it was just starting to grow. I knew of some cool places, so I started placing caches near them. I didn't complain that there were no caches near me. I went and hid them. Eventually I stopped placing so many caches. The caches popped up around me. Other cachers filled in areas around me. Now there are caches near McDonalds and Walmarts under lightpole covers. There are caches in rusty old cars in the woods and under payphones.

 

Waymarking is very much like geocaching. Many waymarks require verification of the visit, some don't. You just don't get a find on your geocaching profile. You do get them on your Waymarking profile, if finds are important to you. If you want to feature these places you speak of, a site has been presented for that. You cannot ignore all of the Walmart caches with one click. Soon, you will be able to do that with Waymarking. The site is actually being designed with someone with your wishes in mind.

 

*YOU* can be the one to feature these areas, as Bear Paughs mentions and just as I have done. There were no waymarks for Dead Horse Point or for Kerry Park until *I* created them. Do your fellow waymarkers/geocachers a favor and go waymark these areas. Show us the good stuff!

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps some who morn the demise of virtuals would benifit by looking at this thread. It seems you can often hide a cache at or near one of those unique locations that you point to as reason for virtuals. Even if you can't hide a cache at the site, you can often make an offset cache that takes you to the special place and then to the cache hidden elsewhere.

 

Of course there may be places where you still can't place a cache. Perhaps deep in a National Park or other area where caches are off limits. Or what about the great place you found on vacation? You can't leave a cache because you would have no way to maintain it. Waymarking lets you share these places as well. And waymarks (unlike virtuals) can be placed where you can have a physical cache. There is no .1 mile rule for waymarks. Waymarking categories let people chose what kind of waymarks they want. Are you interested in history? Do want to visit a place with a spectacular view? Find the Waymarking categories that interest you. Ignore McDonalds restaurants if that doesn't thrill you. Some virtuals were special because you got a suprise sometimes if the virtual cache page didn't give away what you were going to find. We even have a Waymarking category like this.

Share this post


Link to post

I was an anti-Waymarker when the idea first came out but have sense changed my mind. It is a great idea and expands on what virtuals were.

 

I still have a priority on the 20,000 closest geocaches to my home coordinates :P

Share this post


Link to post

Alright I'll do it. But I'm not going to tag every backwoods lake or giant boulder I see. How about for starters the last covered bridge in my county (next to 2 sets of waterfalls). A small gorge and a cliff overlooking a lake. Just a question about Waymarking...For ex: I want you to see the lake from a cliff or the top of a rock face. Can I set it up like a multi to allow them the easiest trail to the summit? I'll go check it out and actually try improving my area choices by Waymarking the highlights. Can you make people send you a pic of the virtual as proof or is it best to ask a question about the area that they would know unless they were there? Swizzle

Share this post


Link to post

O.K. it was denied because I didn't post a pick or post it on the Waymarking site? What was that form for that I filled out? I thought that was for Waymarking and is it vital to have a pic of the bridge posted? Swizzle

Share this post


Link to post

Swizzle,

 

I feel your pain. I have waymarked 10 Ontario Historic Plaques, (there are other websites that tell all about them but Waymarking actually encourages me to visit them.) of the 10 only 2 were approved without changes being required. The group approvers still have the final say in the way they want their group presented. before you submit be sure to read the requirements and check out a few that are already listed so you know what they are looking for. It frustrated me to no end but it is satisfying when they get approved.

 

bwmick

Share this post


Link to post

Swizzle, I'm with you. www.Waymarking.com STINKS!!!! Of course it can only get better. Anything would be an improvement. You can only look by zip code Ya that narrows things down, dont it? And are they interesting places that a tourist would like to see. Ha ha ha. And do they give you things in the city, place, area your at. No, they give you the entire class of items, and maybe one of them is where your at and maybe not.

 

Tried it on two occations. Wont be back!!!!!!!!!! Virtuals took me to places were I learned about the place I was visiting. They were what sold me on geocaching. Sad to see em go and die like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Waymarking is way cool. You can do them while traveling, something you could not do with virtuals. You can do the same target in several categories if you want to make sure people with different interest see them, something you could not do with virtuals. Categories are run by your fellow waymarkers/geocachers and not by the team of reviewers. The Waymarking site is new and is still changing and is getting better as we, fellow waymarkers/geocachers, suggest ways to make it better. Play around with it. It is going to be updated soon, and Opinionate has posted a topic about that in the Getting Started Waymarking Forum. Waymarking is a far better solution than the virtual cache.

I quoted my own post in the topic and highlighted where I said that the Waymarking site will be updated soon. I posted this elsewhere, but comparing the current geocaching.com site to the current Waymarking site is apples and oranges. The current site for Waymarking.com is still in beta. It is still being worked on. There are updates that will make it easier to navigate and such. When geocaching.com started, it was pretty much nuts and bolts and hard to search. Over time, it got better. Over time, Waymarking will get better.

 

Regarding searching the site, you actually have more options than the geocaching.com site. If you look to the right side of the pages on the site you will see a link that says "advanced search", just like on the geocaching.com site. If you click it, you can search by coordinates, keyword, your origin (which you can have multiple, something you *don't* have on the geocaching.com site), postal code, state/country, user name found, user name owner and waymark code. This link is in a similar location on the geocaching.com site.

 

Some Waymarking owners require pictures, yes. We do in the Natural Arches category, for example. It is up to the category owner. Many do. Just as with submitting caches, you should read the category guidelines to keep from being suprised. I have a beautiful roadside overlook that I cannot submit because I forgot to take a picture of the parking lot (the main sign would have worked, but that place had none).

 

Regarding the Ontario Historic Plaques, *none* of those would have been listed as virtual caches, period. That would have been too common of a target. The fact that people have an outlet to post these now excites a lot of people. I am starting on my local historical markers, for example. Hopefully you can modify the rest of yours so they fit within the category correctly and can resubmit them. You have the option to resubmit if you go back to that waymark, go to the edit page and then look at the bottom. You will see a resubmit button. Just make sure you have all of your information correct before you resubmit. I did that this morning myself. I am waiting for approval.

 

(Edited to add -- My resubmit was approved this evening -- WMMCC!)

Edited by mtn-man

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches are superior to Waymarks on many levels, but especiallly the fact that visiting a Virtual counted as a "Find". IMHO, Waymarks are a waste of computer resources. I have visited a few Waymarks and have even created my own. In fact, one of my caches (waypoint: GCPYH9) is also a Waymark (WaymarkCode: WMQR ) . There have been 80 logged geocache visits, but ONLY 7 Waymark logged visits.

 

I think this speaks volumes about Waymarking. Eighty geocachers have visited a location that is clearly marked as both a Microcache AND Waymark, and 91% of them choose to ignore the Waymark.

 

Waymarks are in the same catagory as Navicaching, Buxley's Waypoint, GeoDashing, or TerraCaching. They are not as popular as Geocaching.com for many reasons, but IMO, the main reason is no cache count or cool icons. This is what sets GC.com apart. Waymarks were GC.com's answer to Virtuals but Waymarks do not add to your stats. So why bother?

 

By doing away with Virtuals (which are some on the BEST "caches" I have found), and the like, GC.com is limiting the creative ability of their members, limiting potential historical / educational/ interesting "caches", and ultimately limiting their marketability. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches are superior to Waymarks on many levels, but especiallly the fact that visiting a Virtual counted as a "Find".

I guess that is the sad fact. I realized this, though I like virtual caches. In many cases, the tick on the find count was the most important thing, which contradicts this statement.

 

By doing away with Virtuals (which are some on the BEST "caches" I have found), and the like, GC.com is limiting the creative ability of their members, limiting potential historical / educational/ interesting "caches", and ultimately limiting their marketability. :anitongue:

First of all, they have not been done away with. They are still there to find.

 

Secondly, as I have said, in the last year of review I saw maybe one or two that were interesting. The desire for a tick on the find count had people submitting every brass plaque as a virtual. That and dead animals, tennis balls, manhole covers and even wadded up grass. I've been to a virtual that was listed that was a manhole cover. Historic? Educational? Interesting? A manhole cover at the end of a street is none of that.

 

Anything historic and/or educational pretty much already is a virtual geocache, so you have your wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Anything historic and/or educational pretty much already is a virtual geocache, so you have your wish.

 

But visiting a historic or interesting location doesn't give me a "Find". I discover many types of "containers" when hiking but none of them are official geocaches, so I can't log "Picked up a 2 liter Coke bottle in the woods. TFTC!" and get a Find for it.

 

I agree with you that there are countless historical / educational locations out there, but the majority of people are unaware of them. I live in Richmond Virginia, the Capital of the Confederacy, the site of many important Revolutionary War events, and home to famous individuals such as Edgar Allan Poe. Yet the majority of locals (and none of the visitors) are aware of the many awe-inspiring locations, which could be highlighted as Virtual geocaches. Virtuals benefit the geocacher (they are taken to and made aware of an extraordinary location which cannot support a physical cache), benefit GC.com (Virtuals are unique to GC.com, and therefore gives it an edge over the competition), and benefit localities (they bring local and visitor geocachers to their historical / educational tourist attractions). Geocaching is officially sanctioned in Virginia, mostly because of Virtuals. The Virginia Department of Tourism (http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?FeatureID=193), the Official Tourism Website of the Commonwealth of Virginia, supports and encourages Geocaching in Virginia. Virginia Tourism wholeheartedly welcomed Virtual caches, as a way to highlight Virginia’s history and heritage. From the first permanent English settlement of Jamestown in 1607 through the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, Virginia was where the nation originated. And this provides A LOT of potentially incredible Virtual caches, where otherwise, a physical cache could not be placed.

 

I agree that dead animals, tennis balls, manhole covers and even wadded up grass are NOT suitable cache locations. It sounds as if you have a lot of unimaginative, "it's all about the numbers" geocachers. I agree every plaque doesn't qualify as a Virtual. GC.com defined Virtuals as "although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant logging a visit.". (This excludes manhole covers :tired: ).

 

SO I stick by my point that it was a bad decision to put a freeze on Virtual geocaches. To me, it's the first sign of many other restrictive components that will be the downfall of Geocaching.com. :anitongue:

Edited by Walden Pond

Share this post


Link to post
But visiting a historic or interesting location doesn't give me a "Find".

I guess the problem for me with that statement is that you would not go to these locations unless you could get a find. To me, that makes them sound as if they are not that important, but you might go there if you can get a tick on your find count. That just doesn't help your argument for the remainder of your post.

 

Here again, if the goal is to feature these historical areas, the Waymarking site makes *way* more sense.

 

If you want to find these historic areas that you posted about, you can go to that category on the Waymarking site and they will all be organized there for you. If you don't care about McDonalds restaurants or sushi restaurants, etc, etc., then put them on "ignore". Then, when you search by the categories that you like and you get them all organized by category right there for you. You *cannot* do that with GC.com. It isn't built that way, but the Waymarking site is.

 

By the way, if the finds are that important, you have "finds" and "hides" on your profile on the Waymarking site. They are just called "visits" and "owned". "To-ma-to" or "ta-ma-to", still works the same for me. (Well, except for the "me being alergic to tomatos" part!)

Share this post


Link to post

"Secondly, as I have said, in the last year of review I saw maybe one or two that were interesting. The desire for a tick on the find count had people submitting every brass plaque as a virtual. That and dead animals, tennis balls, manhole covers and even wadded up grass. I've been to a virtual that was listed that was a manhole cover. Historic? Educational? Interesting? A manhole cover at the end of a street is none of that."

 

I think this is the fault of the reviewer! Now, I don't know what there rules are for allowing a cache, and maybe deaming it a good or bad cache is not one of the rules they have to follow, but it should be. Enough said here.

 

"I guess the problem for me with that statement is that you would not go to these locations unless you could get a find."

 

Its not "would not go to these locations" its DONT KNOW of these locations. I spent two years in Biloxi, Miss. in the Air Force. Last year me and the wife visited the place. Through virtuals I learned about Biloxi. I will add that the visitors center had a lot of info, but the virtuals had a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Anything historic and/or educational pretty much already is a virtual geocache, so you have your wish.

 

But visiting a historic or interesting location doesn't give me a "Find". I discover many types of "containers" when hiking but none of them are official geocaches, so I can't log "Picked up a 2 liter Coke bottle in the woods. TFTC!" and get a Find for it.

 

I agree with you that there are countless historical / educational locations out there, but the majority of people are unaware of them. I live in Richmond Virginia, the Capital of the Confederacy, the site of many important Revolutionary War events, and home to famous individuals such as Edgar Allan Poe. Yet the majority of locals (and none of the visitors) are aware of the many awe-inspiring locations, which could be highlighted as Virtual geocaches. Virtuals benefit the geocacher (they are taken to and made aware of an extraordinary location which cannot support a physical cache), benefit GC.com (Virtuals are unique to GC.com, and therefore gives it an edge over the competition), and benefit localities (they bring local and visitor geocachers to their historical / educational tourist attractions). Geocaching is officially sanctioned in Virginia, mostly because of Virtuals. The Virginia Department of Tourism (http://www.virginia.org/site/features.asp?FeatureID=193), the Official Tourism Website of the Commonwealth of Virginia, supports and encourages Geocaching in Virginia. Virginia Tourism wholeheartedly welcomed Virtual caches, as a way to highlight Virginia’s history and heritage. From the first permanent English settlement of Jamestown in 1607 through the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, Virginia was where the nation originated. And this provides A LOT of potentially incredible Virtual caches, where otherwise, a physical cache could not be placed.

 

I agree that dead animals, tennis balls, manhole covers and even wadded up grass are NOT suitable cache locations. It sounds as if you have a lot of unimaginative, "it's all about the numbers" geocachers. I agree every plaque doesn't qualify as a Virtual. GC.com defined Virtuals as "although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant logging a visit.". (This excludes manhole covers :lol: ).

 

SO I stick by my point that it was a bad decision to put a freeze on Virtual geocaches. To me, it's the first sign of many other restrictive components that will be the downfall of Geocaching.com. :ph34r:

 

If you are so hung up on the numbers that you just can't see the point of Waymarking when why don't you just post a find log on one of your archived caches each time you find a waymark.

 

I find it sad that some people feel that they need to earn a icon_smile.gif every time they find something. They can't bring themselves to visit a truly unique or breathtaking spot because they will feel cheated if they can't increase their find count on this webpage! By their action I have deduced that it isn't the experience of hunting a cache that thrills them. Instead, it is the online logging of the cache and the increase in their find count number that give them their thrill. That is what I find very sad.

Share this post


Link to post

"Secondly, as I have said, in the last year of review I saw maybe one or two that were interesting. The desire for a tick on the find count had people submitting every brass plaque as a virtual. That and dead animals, tennis balls, manhole covers and even wadded up grass. I've been to a virtual that was listed that was a manhole cover. Historic? Educational? Interesting? A manhole cover at the end of a street is none of that."

 

I think this is the fault of the reviewer! Now, I don't know what there rules are for allowing a cache, and maybe deaming it a good or bad cache is not one of the rules they have to follow, but it should be. Enough said here.

 

"I guess the problem for me with that statement is that you would not go to these locations unless you could get a find."

 

Its not "would not go to these locations" its DONT KNOW of these locations. I spent two years in Biloxi, Miss. in the Air Force. Last year me and the wife visited the place. Through virtuals I learned about Biloxi. I will add that the visitors center had a lot of info, but the virtuals had a lot more.

 

I definitely don't see eye to eye with the reviewers in my area but I have NEVER blamed them for the caches that other people list. This is a listing service and when someone lists a crapy cache it isn't the fault of the reviewer. The reviewer is there to ensure that the listing is proper in on the technical side. It is up to the cacher to place a quality cache and the community to hunt the quality caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is the fault of the reviewer! Now, I don't know what there rules are for allowing a cache, and maybe deaming it a good or bad cache is not one of the rules they have to follow, but it should be. Enough said here.

Actually, the reviewers did an excellent job in all of those cases. The only one that was listed was the one with the manhole cover. The manhole one was really old, and one example of why we stopped listing things like that (basically anything that was submitted at one point). My point is that near the end of their run, that was the type of stuff that we were seeing submitted. It wasn't just that, but most of it was very common stuff. Waymarking is built for all of that and more and is built to handle it all efficiently so users can pick and choose what they want to find.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you are so hung up on the numbers that you just can't see the point of Waymarking when why don't you just post a find log on one of your archived caches each time you find a waymark.

 

I find it sad that some people feel that they need to earn a icon_smile.gif every time they find something.

 

I think it is unfair to catogorize this as simply wanting to increase your counts. Most people do this for some form of stisfaction out of numbers, maybe just as personal milestones or maybe to compete. Both are valid.

 

Some like to keep a running log and use the smiley that way. in any case and has been mentioned previously, Waymarking has many shortcomings. I hope they work it out, however that combined with having to bounce between two sites and no way to log my Waymarking in an offline DB without creating my own in Access are many of the downsides.

 

For me, Waymarking is just an incomplete and poorly organized guide to an area and is more frustrating than it is worht it (for me). I would have rather seen them keep virtuals and webcams, exclude them from the overall counts (like benchmarks) and more strictly enforce the WOW factor.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is the fault of the reviewer! Now, I don't know what there rules are for allowing a cache, and maybe deaming it a good or bad cache is not one of the rules they have to follow, but it should be. Enough said here.

Actually, the reviewers did an excellent job in all of those cases. The only one that was listed was the one with the manhole cover. The manhole one was really old, and one example of why we stopped listing things like that (basically anything that was submitted at one point). My point is that near the end of their run, that was the type of stuff that we were seeing submitted. It wasn't just that, but most of it was very common stuff. Waymarking is built for all of that and more and is built to handle it all efficiently so users can pick and choose what they want to find.

 

I have to agree with mtn-man. The reviewers did as best they could with enforcing the "Wow" requirement for virtuals. Before this requirement, people would hide virtuals at all sorts of silly places. While some people though that being taken to a street corner that had a historic marker was cool, most people could see that you didn't really want to make every historic marker a virtual geocache. For one thing, why not hide a micro near the marker or use the information on the marker to compute an offset location where you hid a real cache. Even in areas where a real cache would not be allowed, such as in a national park, you had problems with people hiding virtuals that had you find the entrance fee for groups of 20 or more from the sign at the entrance plaza. At least take me to some place in the park that is interesting.

 

The "Wow" requirement is subjective and when reviewers would reject virtuals they got nothing but grief. The requirement specifically specified that "signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers" were generally too common to be considered "Wow". Yet, people continued to submit these claiming that their virtual was the exception. In Waymarking, the requirements are generally much less subjective. Each category is managed by a group of individuals who have expressed an interest in waymarks in that category. Thousands of signs, memorials, tombstones, statues, historical markers, and other interesting location have been listed.

 

While Waymarking does a good job of addressing the need of the persons who wants to create waymarks or visit waymarks in a particular category, it does miss out on the serendipity that virtual caches sometimes provided. The cacher out for a day of geocaching might have stopped to search for one or two virtuals that were in the area. The virtuals may have taken them to an historic building or a unique sculpture that they didn't know about. The discovery of finding something that you didn't know was there and that you wouldn't have even thought about searching for was what made virtuals so cool. In Waymarking we have a Best Kept Secrets category which tries to capture this aspect of virtual caches by listing places that most people don't know about. Unfortunately, we have only three waymarks so far. The main reason is that most people creating waymarks prefer to list them in one of the other categories where the requirements are less subjective. We sometimes reject submissions to Best Kept Secrets because they are not really so secret or because the object seems to not interesting enough so I can see why someone would be reluctant to submit as waymark here when they can get it listed for sure as an Historic Marker or Guiness World Record. I hope that we get more submissions in this category so that people want to have a Waymarking experience closer to virtuals might find this satisfactory.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that Waymarking is still going through its baby steps. I just don't see the need for a million different catagories. I guess if you were making a route for your family vacation and wanted to know where all the rest stops and resturants are then Waymarking can help you. Its just very rough and needs a lot of work. As far as getting another smily face, yeah its all well and good but its not vital. It seems to me like some people still need a gold star to see that they did a good job. Most of my geocaches take you to nice spots or short walks, one even goes to the best fresh water spring in the area. I agree that I like seeing my numbers go up with every cache I find, but the quailty of the cache is what makes it worthwhile. A really good hide, a prime location, a puzzle solved, a lesson learned. That's what keeps me coming back for more with GCing. It creates the sence of adventure. The allure of finding something hidden from view. It awakens the true heart of the explorer. Virtuals may be different in the aspect that there is no physical cache at that location but your not finding Yosimite Park. Your finding the little wonders that abound throughout the world. Fossilized sea beds, battle fields, important historical locations, gorges, overlooks and vistas that take you away. I always am at a loss for words in locations where I can see for miles. In essence its a drug that takes your mind away from your daily grind. There's nothing like staring off in the distance for an hour with nothing to do and no where to go. Just alone with your thoughts and all your thoughts aare peacefully. That's where virtuals should take you. Virtuals are the the heart and soul of cachin'. That's what I like about them. I'll check back in another year and see what's new with Waymarking if its still there but for now I'll stick with geocachin'. Swizzle

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you are so hung up on the numbers that you just can't see the point of Waymarking when why don't you just post a find log on one of your archived caches each time you find a waymark.

 

I find it sad that some people feel that they need to earn a icon_smile.gif every time they find something.

 

I think it is unfair to catogorize this as simply wanting to increase your counts. Most people do this for some form of stisfaction out of numbers, maybe just as personal milestones or maybe to compete. Both are valid.

If you go back up and read the quote in my post from Walden Pond. The one that you cut out of your quote. You will see that he said "...visiting a historic or interesting location doesn't give me a "Find"...". I don't think it is unfair to catogorize this as someone simple wanting to increase their find count when the person comes right out and sais so!

 

Some like to keep a running log and use the smiley that way. in any case and has been mentioned previously, Waymarking has many shortcomings. I hope they work it out, however that combined with having to bounce between two sites and no way to log my Waymarking in an offline DB without creating my own in Access are many of the downsides.

Waymarking does still have a ways to come but remember it is still in BETA and improvements are happening every week. If you want have a voice in the direction of the website now to the time to start Waymarking.

 

About your point about bouncing between two sites. I use webmail a lot but I don't go asking for GC to make a more robust email system for the site so that I don't have bounce between Geocaching and my webmail.

 

For me, Waymarking is just an incomplete and poorly organized guide to an area and is more frustrating than it is worht it (for me). I would have rather seen them keep virtuals and webcams, exclude them from the overall counts (like benchmarks) and more strictly enforce the WOW factor.

The problem is not everyone can agree on what WOW is. Just take a look at WM. There are catagories that make me roll my eyes but other find just fascinating and vice versa. WOW is just too subjective for a website as flat as GC. One of the things that makes Waymarking different is that I can ignore catagories that don't intrest me. With GC I usually had to visit the location of the virtual before I even know what type of thing I was being brought to see.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that Waymarking is still going through its baby steps. I just don't see the need for a million different catagories. I guess if you were making a route for your family vacation and wanted to know where all the rest stops and resturants are then Waymarking can help you. Its just very rough and needs a lot of work. As far as getting another smily face, yeah its all well and good but its not vital. It seems to me like some people still need a gold star to see that they did a good job. Most of my geocaches take you to nice spots or short walks, one even goes to the best fresh water spring in the area. I agree that I like seeing my numbers go up with every cache I find, but the quailty of the cache is what makes it worthwhile. A really good hide, a prime location, a puzzle solved, a lesson learned. That's what keeps me coming back for more with GCing. It creates the sence of adventure. The allure of finding something hidden from view. It awakens the true heart of the explorer. Virtuals may be different in the aspect that there is no physical cache at that location but your not finding Yosimite Park. Your finding the little wonders that abound throughout the world. Fossilized sea beds, battle fields, important historical locations, gorges, overlooks and vistas that take you away. I always am at a loss for words in locations where I can see for miles. In essence its a drug that takes your mind away from your daily grind. There's nothing like staring off in the distance for an hour with nothing to do and no where to go. Just alone with your thoughts and all your thoughts aare peacefully. That's where virtuals should take you. Virtuals are the the heart and soul of cachin'. That's what I like about them. I'll check back in another year and see what's new with Waymarking if its still there but for now I'll stick with geocachin'. Swizzle

If you treat WM like GC and try to find each and every waymark in your area I can see how that would be aggravating and highly disappointing. The catagories are there to help you find the waymarks that interest you and ignore the waymarks that don't interest you.

Share this post


Link to post

If Waymarking ever gets more tied in to the geocaching site in terms of site functions, PQ's, stats etc, then it will be more highly used.

 

We just took a 3 week camping trip through several western states and had planned to add waymarks to our GSAK and CacheMate databases. After trying to figure out the waymark site for the 3rd or 4th time, we gave up. I don't think there are PQ's for waymarks. Or any way to get waymarks along a route. We just could not figure out any logical, easy way to get a list of waymarks for our trip, so we did not visit any.

 

We also don't have many local waymarks. This might change if the waymark site was more like the geocaching site so there was not such a steep, frustrating learning curve.

Share this post


Link to post

[quote

If you treat WM like GC and try to find each and every waymark in your area I can see how that would be aggravating and highly disappointing. The catagories are there to help you find the waymarks that interest you and ignore the waymarks that don't interest you.

 

Even though I think Waymarking is a year old now, there are only 11 waymarks within 50 miles of us. There are approx. 1,000 caches within 50 miles.

Share this post


Link to post

mtn-man & IV_Warrior:

 

Thanks for the information. When I queried gc.com, all I got was a "thanks for your feedback. . ."

 

I guess I was so frustrated about not being able to post some new caches in a geocache-lacking area, that I didn't give Waymarking a chance.

If an area is lacking geocaches, then why not place some? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Fossilized sea beds, battle fields, important historical locations, gorges, overlooks and vistas that take you away. I always am at a loss for words in locations where I can see for miles.

I could not find fossilized sea beds specifically, but there are in Arches National Park for example. The Natural Arches Category would probably help you find these locations since I bet they somewhat coincide. Battlefields can be found throughout several categories in the Monuments/Memorials area, including American Civil War Monuments and Memorials and WW I Monuments and Memorials. My goodness, there are so many categories for important historical locations that you would have to define what specifically that you are looking for. The beauty of Waymarking is that they are broken down into specific categories so you can find what you want without having to read each and every virtual cache page to see what it is about. With the GC system, you have no categories and must read each page individually to see what it relates to. Gorges are not listed, no. Sounds like a category proposal possibly if it could be defined properly.

 

Overlooks and vistas! My favorites. I hope to do a lot in these categories -- Mountain Summits, Scenic Road-side Overlooks (which I linked two of my favorite in a post of mine at the beginning of the topic), and Scenic Overlooks (as in from a trail and not by the roadside).

 

Again, my point is that the site better defines these. You cannot find these easily on GC.com as virtuals. You have to read every cache page to see if you can find what you want. With Waymarking, you find your category and go to town!

Share this post


Link to post
Even though I think Waymarking is a year old now, there are only 11 waymarks within 50 miles of us. There are approx. 1,000 caches within 50 miles.

So create some. A waymark category is in essence a locationless cache. Find an outdoor maze. Or a firehouse. Or a sundial. Mark it's location. Take a picture. Come back here and create the waymark.

 

That waymark then in essence becomes a virtual cache. Others can visit it and log their experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Even though I think Waymarking is a year old now, there are only 11 waymarks within 50 miles of us. There are approx. 1,000 caches within 50 miles.

So create some. A waymark category is in essence a locationless cache. Find an outdoor maze. Or a firehouse. Or a sundial. Mark it's location. Take a picture. Come back here and create the waymark.

 

That waymark then in essence becomes a virtual cache. Others can visit it and log their experience.

 

My point is that people, like me, are not creating waymarks. Instead of just saying "we should be", it would be more productive to try to understand why we are not. I think it is because the waymark site is so different than the geocaching site. If things were more similar and it was as easy to get waymarks to my computer as it is geocaches, more people would be interested in waymarks.

 

The hardcore waymark people seem to be saying "Waymarking is not geocaching so get over it". But if Waymarking is ever going to take off, the users will come from average geocachers like me. And we want things like PQ's, similar searching and down capabilities and linked stats. Without these sorts of things, Waymarking will not enjoy the popularity is deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Even though I think Waymarking is a year old now, there are only 11 waymarks within 50 miles of us. There are approx. 1,000 caches within 50 miles.

So create some. A waymark category is in essence a locationless cache. Find an outdoor maze. Or a firehouse. Or a sundial. Mark it's location. Take a picture. Come back here and create the waymark.

 

That waymark then in essence becomes a virtual cache. Others can visit it and log their experience.

 

My point is that people, like me, are not creating waymarks. Instead of just saying "we should be", it would be more productive to try to understand why we are not. I think it is because the waymark site is so different than the geocaching site. If things were more similar and it was as easy to get waymarks to my computer as it is geocaches, more people would be interested in waymarks.

 

The hardcore waymark people seem to be saying "Waymarking is not geocaching so get over it". But if Waymarking is ever going to take off, the users will come from average geocachers like me. And we want things like PQ's, similar searching and down capabilities and linked stats. Without these sorts of things, Waymarking will not enjoy the popularity is deserves.

 

In the last year or so before the change to Waymarking there were very few new virtual caches created. Probably only a few dozen world-wide. In the 8 or 9 months since Waymarking has been around there have been thousands of waymarks created. I would not say that people are not creating waymarks. In fact many people who would have submitted virtuals that had little chance of being approved are submitting waymarks and getting them approved.

 

I believe that people who mourn the departure of virtuals from geocaching are not making an effort to understand why Waymarking is in fact a better solution. And if it is not a better solution for them, then they haven't given much thought as to how to make Waymarking better so that it is a solution for them.

 

When I looked at Waymarking I saw a few problems from the perspective of a virtual cacher.

 

In order to hide a virtual you just need to find a place that met the guidelines, including the "Wow" guidline. To create a waymark you had to find a category it fit into and you had to meet requirements which vary from category to category. In the begining, when there were very few categories, just finding a category was harder than proving "wow" to the reviewer :ph34r: . There are now a lot more categories, and new tools have been provided to search categories. The group concept has, for the most part, worked well to make creation of new categories relatively easy and management of categories better. There are still problems. These get discussed in the Waymarking forums and improvements continue to be made.

 

In order to find a virtual you got a list of nearby virtuals listed along with other nearby caches on the search page. To find (visit) waymarks, you need to pick the categories you want to visit and search for waymarks nearby. You can get a list of all waymarks nearby a geocache by clicking on the link on the geocache page, but the you see all categories including ones that aren't that interesting to you. In addition, in visiting a virtual you didn't always know what you were going to find. Would it be an historical marker, a funny sign, or the grave of a famous person? Most Waymarking categories are going to tell you this before you even leave home. New ways are being added to filter and search for waymarks. While you currently cannot download the coordinates of all nearby waymarks in your favorite categories, this is moving up on the list and I'm guessing it will be implemented soon. Suggestions for searches that combine waymarks and geocaches have been made and they will probably be implemented in the future. My guess is that as soon as a format for downloading waymarks is announced, changes will be made in existing 3rd party software to allow geocaches and waymarks to be combined. Some attempts have been made at defining some Waymarking categories to make what you find a suprise. I expect more categories like this will be developed to satisfy people who want to have Waymarking experiences a little closer the the virtual caching experienc. Additional tools like bookmark list and the ability to cross list waymarks in multiple categories, will allow someone to find waymarks that are really "wow" but weren't listed in one of your favorite categories.

 

Being that it is still in beta test, you can help to improve Waymarking and make it into a solution for virtual caching. Or you can continue to whine that virtuals should never have been removed as a cache type on geocaching.com and get this: :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

If you refer to my posts, I think you misunderstand. I like the concept of waymarks. In southern Oregon, at least, there are very few waymarks after a year. I think this is because of the Waymarking site, not because the idea of waymarks is bad. I think the site should work like geocaching.com. There should also be searching, PQ's, downloading , etc. just like there is for caches at geocaching.com.

 

I also think the stats page on geocaching.com should include waymarks.

 

These are just my opinions on a few things that might make the Waymarking site more popular with geocachers.

Share this post


Link to post

If you go back up and read the quote in my post from Walden Pond. The one that you cut out of your quote. You will see that he said "...visiting a historic or interesting location doesn't give me a "Find"...". I don't think it is unfair to catogorize this as someone simple wanting to increase their find count when the person comes right out and sais so!

 

Please re-read my post. I did not say "they" I said "this"/

 

Waymarking does still have a ways to come but remember it is still in BETA and improvements are happening every week. If you want have a voice in the direction of the website now to the time to start Waymarking.

 

Why would I spend time on this if I believe it to be ill-conceived?

 

About your point about bouncing between two sites. I use webmail a lot but I don't go asking for GC to make a more robust email system for the site so that I don't have bounce between Geocaching and my webmail.

 

This doesn't make sense. The two are unrelated to begin with.

 

The problem is not everyone can agree on what WOW is. Just take a look at WM. There are categories that make me roll my eyes but other find just fascinating and vice versa. WOW is just too subjective for a website as flat as GC.

 

Good point. So Waymarking is doomed as well.

 

One of the things that makes Waymarking different is that I can ignore catagories that don't intrest me. With GC I usually had to visit the location of the virtual before I even know what type of thing I was being brought to see.

 

No difference. I can do the same with GC, ignore caches that do not interest me. As to categories, it would have been simpler to add them to the existing model rather than create one from scratch and go through the pin of trying to force the issue.

 

GC became popular because it was not contrived. It just started out as something simple and the participants were responsible for it's growth. GC.COM grew because it simply responded rather than try to mold things.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, was created for reasons unknown (I suspect a minority of vocal whiners) and now there is misplaced energy being spent on "selling" it.

 

When all is said and done, it is there until it is not. The it is not part will come dependant on how many it attracts. Since sites like Waymarking are already common on the web, those which collect waypoints of interesting places, it places Jeremy and company in a position of having competition on the level they have not experienced to this point.

 

I wish them well, however to attract me and apparently some others in this thread, it still has a long way to go and no, it is not my responsibility to swim upstream trying to improve it.

 

The answer to the original post is clear. IMO virtuals should have remained on gc.com.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

If you refer to my posts, I think you misunderstand. I like the concept of waymarks. In southern Oregon, at least, there are very few waymarks after a year. I think this is because of the Waymarking site, not because the idea of waymarks is bad. I think the site should work like geocaching.com. There should also be searching, PQ's, downloading , etc. just like there is for caches at geocaching.com.

 

I also think the stats page on geocaching.com should include waymarks.

 

These are just my opinions on a few things that might make the Waymarking site more popular with geocachers.

Oh yeah Cheminer Will. I understand and I actually agree. I look forward to the day when we can pull a PQ for the Waymarking site. I would pay another $30 a year for that. I have also noticed recently that you cannot download a .loc file from the waymark page. You can search though, as I have posted above. There is an advanced search function that works great. I would love to see another tab on my GC profile page with my waymarks on it. Don't know if that one will happen though. Hopefully as it continues to be developed in beta some of these issues will be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Waymarking does still have a ways to come but remember it is still in BETA and improvements are happening every week. If you want have a voice in the direction of the website now to the time to start Waymarking.
Why would I spend time on this if I believe it to be ill-conceived?

 

The problem is not everyone can agree on what WOW is. Just take a look at WM. There are categories that make me roll my eyes but other find just fascinating and vice versa. WOW is just too subjective for a website as flat as GC.
Good point. So Waymarking is doomed as well.

 

<snipped>

 

GC became popular because it was not contrived. It just started out as something simple and the participants were responsible for it's growth. GC.COM grew because it simply responded rather than try to mold things.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, was created for reasons unknown (I suspect a minority of vocal whiners) and now there is misplaced energy being spent on "selling" it.

 

When all is said and done, it is there until it is not. The it is not part will come dependant on how many it attracts. Since sites like Waymarking are already common on the web, those which collect waypoints of interesting places, it places Jeremy and company in a position of having competition on the level they have not experienced to this point.

 

I wish them well, however to attract me and apparently some others in this thread, it still has a long way to go and no, it is not my responsibility to swim upstream trying to improve it.

 

The answer to the original post is clear. IMO virtuals should have remained on gc.com.

I would consider you a lost cause then. I know fully that some people won't like Waymarking. Fine. Let us enjoy the site and help it grow then. As you pointed out:

(GC.com) just started out as something simple and the participants were responsible for it's growth.
I, and others like me, *want* to be participants and *want* to help it grow. It is not doomed by any means. The number of waymarks listed every day is a testamonial to that *fact*. New categories are being added. *We* get go vote on which categories are added. I voted on four more yesterday.

 

We would be more than happy to help mold the site. Despite what you think, it will still be here and you will be welcomed you back when/if you come back to it. It is too popular and will not fall apart. The data being collected is a testament to the popularity. As I write this, there are 4,171 historical markers documented alone. 4,171!!! That is HUGE. There are 750 locations of U.S. National Register of Historic Places. HUGE!!! That is sounding pretty popular to me.

 

As to why Waymarking was created, that is easy. The GC site was not built for locationless caches or virtual caches. Locationless caches were impossible to manage on the GC site. You had no way of knowing if the target you were trying to add was already posted unless you searched through all of the logs. On some caches, that was hundreds. With Waymarking, you get an error if there is a waymark already in that category that is less than a mile away. With historical markers, you ignore that since some can be a few feet apart. I listed an airport and got an error telling me it was already listed. The system is far superior to the GC system in handling locationless caches. Virtual caches could not be searched easily. As noted here, you had to read each cache page to see if it interested you. Here, these virtual targets are properly classified. This make it easier for you to find what you want. Seems like a great solution to me.

 

Regarding your last comment, I would remind you of the actual question:

I hope the powers that be reconsider their decision about no longer allowing virtual caches from being submitted on the Geocaching site.
I answered that question. It ain't going to happen. Regarding your last comment, virtual cache *are* still on GC.com. It is just that no new submissions are being accepted.

Share this post


Link to post

If you go back up and read the quote in my post from Walden Pond. The one that you cut out of your quote. You will see that he said "...visiting a historic or interesting location doesn't give me a "Find"...". I don't think it is unfair to catogorize this as someone simple wanting to increase their find count when the person comes right out and sais so!

Please re-read my post. I did not say "they" I said "this"/

You are getting away from the issue. From what Walden Pond said it is clearly a numbers issue for him. 'nuff said.

 

Waymarking does still have a ways to come but remember it is still in BETA and improvements are happening every week. If you want have a voice in the direction of the website now to the time to start Waymarking.

Why would I spend time on this if I believe it to be ill-conceived?

I don't know, you tell me.

 

About your point about bouncing between two sites. I use webmail a lot but I don't go asking for GC to make a more robust email system for the site so that I don't have bounce between Geocaching and my webmail.

This doesn't make sense. The two are unrelated to begin with.

Exactly.

 

<continued in next post>

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...