Jump to content

Virtuals aren't "caches" but GC.com uses the pictures from them


TerryDad2
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

If GC.com doesn't want virtuals on the GC side of life why use the pictures posted to virtuals on the banner of the main page.

 

I found this picture the last time I logged on, got interested, then found out it was a virtual :) I refreshed the page a few times and found this one too

 

Interesting how some great photos and experiences come from grandfathered virtuals. :rolleyes:

 

Too bad these people don't find similar locations over at Waymarking as well. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

If GC.com doesn't want virtuals on the GC side of life why use the pictures posted to virtuals on the banner of the main page.

 

I found this picture the last time I logged on, got interested, then found out it was a virtual :rolleyes: I refreshed the page a few times and found this one too

 

Interesting how some great photos and experiences come from grandfathered virtuals. :)

 

Too bad these people don't find similar locations over at Waymarking as well. :rolleyes:

 

They probably just pick random pics from the image server.

Link to comment

If the OP's point was that Virts *are* and *were* a valued and enjoyed cache type I would agree with that. The best cache in my area is a virtual requires to glean facts from an amazinging interesting cemetery to log it. This "cache" is so much better than the vast majority of traditionals I have come across lately.

 

And why couldn't that be a traditional? I've found many traditionals where I've had to glean facts from amazingly interesting objects to obtain the cache coordinates.

Link to comment

If GC.com doesn't want virtuals on the GC side of life why use the pictures posted to virtuals on the banner of the main page.

 

I find this logic compelling, and call upon Geocaching.com to archive all the remaining grandfathered virtual caches immediately so as to prevent any further photographic outrages.

 

Hear, hear!

Link to comment

If GC.com doesn't want virtuals on the GC side of life why use the pictures posted to virtuals on the banner of the main page.

 

I find this logic compelling, and call upon Geocaching.com to archive all the remaining grandfathered virtual caches immediately so as to prevent any further photographic outrages.

 

I disagree. I think they should just photoshop a banner that say "Grandfathered" accross any images that came fromr a grandfathered type cache.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Shouldn't the forums edit out the word "virtual" from now on too (Much like it does with the word dadgum)? Maybe instead of "virtual" it could say "virtgum" so we'd know what it meant but we wouldn't be subjected to such a horrible word.

 

I don't think virtual is a bad word. From some people's post however it seems that waymadgum is the bad word.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

We shouldn't be able to see pics from any grandfathered cache or archived cache. These pics are evil.

 

:)

 

I don't know that they're entirely evil. There is still good in them...I can sense it.

 

Pics from locationless caches are evil though. Those pics shot my pappy and ran over my dog.

Edited by ThePropers
Link to comment

If the OP's point was that Virts *are* and *were* a valued and enjoyed cache type I would agree with that. The best cache in my area is a virtual requires to glean facts from an amazinging interesting cemetery to log it. This "cache" is so much better than the vast majority of traditionals I have come across lately.

 

And why couldn't that be a traditional? I've found many traditionals where I've had to glean facts from amazingly interesting objects to obtain the cache coordinates.

 

If we apply your question to the OP then the answer is because they would have been vacation caches. The first virtual cache listed is lcoated in Utah but the owners live in California. The second virtual cache listed is located in Colorado but the owers live in Georgia. Both spots appear to be very nice locations for a physical cache container with a log book and trade items. It is obvious the owners opted for placing a virtual to get around the no vacation cache guideline for physical caches. These caches were placed when this practice was still acceptable and are now grandfathered. I wish these caches a long run so that they may stand as examples as to why virtual caches where moved to their own website.

Link to comment
If we apply your question to the OP then the answer is because they would have been vacation caches. The first virtual cache listed is lcoated in Utah but the owners live in California. The second virtual cache listed is located in Colorado but the owers live in Georgia. ...

Did you look at all virts, or just those that are still active?

Link to comment

If the OP's point was that Virts *are* and *were* a valued and enjoyed cache type I would agree with that. The best cache in my area is a virtual requires to glean facts from an amazinging interesting cemetery to log it. This "cache" is so much better than the vast majority of traditionals I have come across lately.

 

And why couldn't that be a traditional? I've found many traditionals where I've had to glean facts from amazingly interesting objects to obtain the cache coordinates.

 

If we apply your question to the OP then the answer is because they would have been vacation caches. The first virtual cache listed is lcoated in Utah but the owners live in California. The second virtual cache listed is located in Colorado but the owers live in Georgia. Both spots appear to be very nice locations for a physical cache container with a log book and trade items. It is obvious the owners opted for placing a virtual to get around the no vacation cache guideline for physical caches. These caches were placed when this practice was still acceptable and are now grandfathered. I wish these caches a long run so that they may stand as examples as to why virtual caches where moved to their own website.

One was in a National Park so they opted for a virtual to also get around the no traditionals allowed in National Parks rule. (But that is a discussion from other threads)

Edited by TerryDad2
Link to comment

Pics from locationless caches are evil though. Those pics shot my pappy and ran over my dog.

Isn't there something about playing a country song backwards that can get yer pappy un-shot and yer dog un-ran over and all virts re-listed? I think also that if locationless caches are not logged on line for a certain length of time then the pics start to fade away.

Link to comment

One was in a National Park so they opted for a virtual to also get around the no traditionals allowed in National Parks rule. (But that is a discussion from other threads)

 

When caching with another guy in my area (Raleigh/Durham, NC) in Umstead Park (just up the street from the site of GeoWoodstock 5, BTW!) he mentioned that the park has banned all caches... that includes any type of new virtual cache as well (even if it were permitted). So I expect that this will apply to the newly re-incarnated Earthcaches as well. Basically they just don't want people wandering all over the place... stick to the trails in their park!

Link to comment
When caching with another guy in my area (Raleigh/Durham, NC) in Umstead Park (just up the street from the site of GeoWoodstock 5, BTW!) he mentioned that the park has banned all caches... that includes any type of new virtual cache as well (even if it were permitted). So I expect that this will apply to the newly re-incarnated Earthcaches as well. Basically they just don't want people wandering all over the place... stick to the trails in their park!

How can they ban a virt?

 

If they find out I told you about a cool spot are they going to come get me? :antenna:

Link to comment

If the OP's point was that Virts *are* and *were* a valued and enjoyed cache type I would agree with that. The best cache in my area is a virtual requires to glean facts from an amazinging interesting cemetery to log it. This "cache" is so much better than the vast majority of traditionals I have come across lately.

 

And why couldn't that be a traditional? I've found many traditionals where I've had to glean facts from amazingly interesting objects to obtain the cache coordinates.

 

That's a fair point. As much as I fight for people to be able to place virtuals. I'd rather find a box. That said, there are times when you flat out can't do the box, and that's why virtuals should continue to exist. They are a cache type. Just not favored by TPTB.

Link to comment

This subject always turns into the Hatfields vs. McCoys! :( To me Geocaching has always been about using a high tech satellite to find a spot on the earth by using a cool piece of electronics in your hand. Many of these spots are incredible! Just because these spots don't contain an Altoids tin or a film cannister doesn't make these spots any less special! So what's so bad about seeing some photos from some awesome locations around the globe?

 

I guess they could only post photos of Altoids containers, film cannisters, tupperware and ammo boxes if that is what is truly important to most of you! :sad:

Link to comment
... I guess they could only post photos of Altoids containers, film cannisters, tupperware and ammo boxes if that is what is truly important to most of you! :(

Don't forget golf balls.

5ca52b80-1ea6-4d98-81a8-2e15a31c340a.jpg

 

Golf balls just can't take a bullet like they used to. I like collecting them from caches and shooting them with a .22. It's fun. But now that they have stopped using rubber bands inside of them, they don't absorb the .22 bullet like they used to. For ever one that can take a bullet and stop it inside there are 4 that just let it pass on through.

Link to comment
... I guess they could only post photos of Altoids containers, film cannisters, tupperware and ammo boxes if that is what is truly important to most of you! :(

Don't forget golf balls.

Golf balls just can't take a bullet like they used to. I like collecting them from caches and shooting them with a .22. It's fun. But now that they have stopped using rubber bands inside of them, they don't absorb the .22 bullet like they used to. For ever one that can take a bullet and stop it inside there are 4 that just let it pass on through.
I have over 1000 golf balls in my garage from golfers hitting them into my yard. Hmmm! I wonder how many lamp posts are in town! :sad: Maybe they should have a banner photo of a lamp post cache! Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

This subject always turns into the Hatfields vs. McCoys! :anicute: To me Geocaching has always been about using a high tech satellite to find a spot on the earth by using a cool piece of electronics in your hand. Many of these spots are incredible! Just because these spots don't contain an Altoids tin or a film cannister doesn't make these spots any less special! So what's so bad about seeing some photos from some awesome locations around the globe?

 

Why aren't you Waymarking? Waymarking has always been about using a high tech satellite to find a spot on the earth by using a cool piece of electronics in your hand. That spot is always interesting to the group that manages whatever category that waymark is in. Sure the spot may be a McDonald's Restaurant. But Ronald and Friends are finding McDonald's this way and lovin' it.

 

Geocaching, on the other hand, is about using GPS to find a cache. If it happens to take you to an incredible spot, that is just a bonus. If the pictures being selected for the Geocaching home page are giving a false impression that every geocache is hidden in an incredible place, then perhaps TBTP should start selecting some pictures of lamp posts :wub:

Link to comment

This subject always turns into the Hatfields vs. McCoys! :anicute: To me Geocaching has always been about using a high tech satellite to find a spot on the earth by using a cool piece of electronics in your hand. Many of these spots are incredible! Just because these spots don't contain an Altoids tin or a film cannister doesn't make these spots any less special!

Why aren't you Waymarking?
Oh no! Here's the sales pitch again. :wub: To be honest, I think Waymarking is a pain to use. You can't run PQs. You can't easily see all the Waymarks near you. If they ever fix this stuff, I might do it. But to me it's a joke that an Altoids tin under a lamp post is OK, but a virtual on a scenic mountain top is not.

 

By the way, in case you didn't notice, Earthcaches are back and there is no cache! I applaud that decision! ;)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Oh no! Here's the sales pitch again. :anicute: To be honest, I think Waymarking is a pain to use. You can't run PQs. You can't easily see all the Waymarks near you. If they ever fix this stuff, I might do it. But to me it's a joke that an Altoids tin under a lamp post is OK, but a virtual on a scenic mountain top is not.

 

By the way, in case you didn't notice, Earthcaches are back and there is no cache! I applaud that decision! :wub:

Why stop there? We could have virtuals for great places to buy a hambuger, popular hang-outs, stations with cheap gas, places to buy illegal drugs...heck if it doesn't actually have to have a cache, then the sky is the limit.

 

But is it really still the same game?

Link to comment

This subject always turns into the Hatfields vs. McCoys! :anicute: To me Geocaching has always been about using a high tech satellite to find a spot on the earth by using a cool piece of electronics in your hand. Many of these spots are incredible! Just because these spots don't contain an Altoids tin or a film cannister doesn't make these spots any less special!

Why aren't you Waymarking?
Oh no! Here's the sales pitch again. :wub: To be honest, I think Waymarking is a pain to use. You can't run PQs. You can't easily see all the Waymarks near you. If they ever fix this stuff, I might do it. But to me it's a joke that an Altoids tin under a lamp post is OK, but a virtual on a scenic mountain top is not.

 

By the way, in case you didn't notice, Earthcaches are back and there is no cache! I applaud that decision! ;)

I'm confused by this. I can easlily see all the waymarks near me. And they've mentioned that they plan on using pq's in the future for Waymarking. Get into it now, so that you are used to it and know your way around by the time they have pq's.

 

The Waymarking site keeps getting easier and easier as they keep working on it. I'm having a blast right now! B)

Link to comment
I'm confused by this. I can easlily see all the waymarks near me.
Where? There is nothing on my page that says "Nearest Waymarks" like my Geocaching home page does.....

Actually....there is, on cache pages. :anicute:

There is no way to find the closest waymark to my home coords. Anyhow, I figured it out by getting a map of a nearby library which is a waymark and then I moved the map over to my neck of the woods. Anyhow, it looks like after finding the library, I could go and find a dog park. Then I could find a big palm tree waymark behind the AM/PM. I'm not making this up. Then I could find the Boll Weevil. Then I could find a McDonalds. Then I could find a local High School. Then I could find a little kids' playground. I'm still not making this up. Then I could go find another McDonalds. Then I could find a golf course. Then I could find City Hall. Then I could find a 7-11. I can see my 7-11 waymark log now: "I went to the 7-11. Then I had a Slurpee. Then I went back to my car. Then I went home. Then I took a nap. Then I logged all my waymarks. Thanks for bringing me to 7-11." Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
The Waymarking site keeps getting easier and easier as they keep working on it. I'm having a blast right now! :anicute:
You guys have fun! :wub: I'll pass for now... ;)

 

The people who are having fun are the one person from each major metropolitan area who enjoy "placing" hundreds of waymarks. Not that anyone is finding them. Oops, I didn't really type that, did I? I didn't really hit "add reply" did I?

Link to comment
The Waymarking site keeps getting easier and easier as they keep working on it. I'm having a blast right now! ;)
You guys have fun! :anicute: I'll pass for now... :wub:

 

The people who are having fun are the one person from each major metropolitan area who enjoy "placing" hundreds of waymarks. Not that anyone is finding them. Oops, I didn't really type that, did I? I didn't really hit "add reply" did I?

"Did I do thaaaaat?" B)
Link to comment

There is no way to find the closest waymark to my home coords.

Not only can you set your home coordinates as a permanent "saved search" location, you can add multiple origins. I have one for home and one for my office. With a mouseclick or two, I can search the entire directory, or just the categories I've placed on my favorites list, or just a single category, to see what waymarks are nearby.

 

People have been asking for years to have multiple "home coordinates" on Geocaching.com. At Waymarking, we're lucky enough to have this feature first. Maybe some day the code will be ported over to the big site.

 

It's too bad you couldn't figure out how to set your home coordinates and search the site. In another context, I would have been delighted to provide step-by-step instructions. There aren't a lot of steps.

 

I did the field work to set up 25 waymarks today. That's 25 virtuals that never would've seen the light of day prior to the establishment of Waymarking. My daughter said it was a great day, and she likes learning history with me by driving around for Waymarking a whole lot more than sitting in her social studies class.

 

Recently one of my pictures was selected as a "featured waymark" for the front page rotation on that site. Makes no difference to me which site or whether it's a cache or a waymark. I like seeing pictures of the cool places that a GPS takes people to visit.

Link to comment
The Waymarking site keeps getting easier and easier as they keep working on it. I'm having a blast right now! :wub:
You guys have fun! ;) I'll pass for now... :anicute:

 

The people who are having fun are the one person from each major metropolitan area who enjoy "placing" hundreds of waymarks. Not that anyone is finding them. Oops, I didn't really type that, did I? I didn't really hit "add reply" did I?

Recently I went to Nashville and was able to visit some waymarks that other people had set up. Really cool ones like forts in the middle of town and the exact replica of the Parthenon. I was glad that someone had taken the time to set up those waymarks. I had so much fun.

 

And after a while, after these adventurous people blaze new ground and set up all these waymarks, more and more people like me will be able to visit these spots and reap the benefits of their hard work.

Link to comment
The Waymarking site keeps getting easier and easier as they keep working on it. I'm having a blast right now! B)
You guys have fun! :wub: I'll pass for now... :anicute:

 

The people who are having fun are the one person from each major metropolitan area who enjoy "placing" hundreds of waymarks. Not that anyone is finding them. Oops, I didn't really type that, did I? I didn't really hit "add reply" did I?

Recently I went to Nashville and was able to visit some waymarks that other people had set up. Really cool ones like forts in the middle of town and the exact replica of the Parthenon. I was glad that someone had taken the time to set up those waymarks. I had so much fun.

 

And after a while, after these adventurous people blaze new ground and set up all these waymarks, more and more people like me will be able to visit these spots and reap the benefits of their hard work.

 

I'm sure there were some awesome, well done Waymarks in Nashville, and you enjoyed visiting, and the placers enjoyed marking and writing them up. I think Opinionate has done an outstanding job with the website, and the passionate placers generally do an excellent job with the waymarks (OK, except maybe for the McDonalds and fire hydrants ;)).

 

So I guess my comments weren't as flame-inducing as I thought, and I still stand by my observation. One person in each "region", whom, seeing no one else is "into" Waymarking, going to town, and marking everything in sight. They are passionate, having a blast, and doing a great job. But are the visitors ever going to come? I don't see it.

 

I don't think there was ever a major outcry for an alternative or "solution" to Virtuals and locationless. It was just about the numbers, and the quick, easy smiley. Now this crowd has found that en masse, they can place and find keyholders on guardrails next to the dumpster in parking lots.

Link to comment

I'm sure there were some awesome, well done Waymarks in Nashville, and you enjoyed visiting, and the placers enjoyed marking and writing them up. I think Opinionate has done an outstanding job with the website, and the passionate placers generally do an excellent job with the waymarks (OK, except maybe for the McDonalds and fire hydrants :wub:).

 

So I guess my comments weren't as flame-inducing as I thought, and I still stand by my observation. One person in each "region", whom, seeing no one else is "into" Waymarking, going to town, and marking everything in sight. They are passionate, having a blast, and doing a great job. But are the visitors ever going to come? I don't see it.

 

I don't think there was ever a major outcry for an alternative or "solution" to Virtuals and locationless. It was just about the numbers, and the quick, easy smiley. Now this crowd has found that en masse, they can place and find keyholders on guardrails next to the dumpster in parking lots.

I take exception to the McDonald's remark! :anicute: I researched and Waymarked McDonald's Stores #1 and #2 in Japan. #5000 in the world is also in Japan, but I didn't waymark it, hoping someone else will find it on his own. I pretty much ignored all other McDonald's since they were, in my opinion, insignificant.

 

I enjoyed and still enjoy Virtuals on GC.com. I agree with you that it's still not the same experience as Waymarking.com. However, the "marking everything in sight" behavior is the very reason Virtuals are not coming back to GC.com, especially due to the grief reviewers and TPTB received for trying to impose "quality control." One would be silly to argue that Waymarkers and Geocachers are different species.

 

There was an outcry from LCs, but it didn't bubble to the surface in the forums right away. I noticed it when LC owners were trying to delete logs that didn't meet the requirements (and the offenders escalated their whinings). The same probably happened with virtuals, except that only the reviewers received the complaints. They aren't known to copy and paste e-mails in the forums to defend their positions to the community. ;)

Link to comment
I'm confused by this. I can easlily see all the waymarks near me.
Where? There is nothing on my page that says "Nearest Waymarks" like my Geocaching home page does.....

Actually....there is, on cache pages. :anibad:

There is no way to find the closest waymark to my home coords. Anyhow, I figured it out by getting a map of a nearby library which is a waymark and then I moved the map over to my neck of the woods. Anyhow, it looks like after finding the library, I could go and find a dog park. Then I could find a big palm tree waymark behind the AM/PM. I'm not making this up. Then I could find the Boll Weevil. Then I could find a McDonalds. Then I could find a local High School. Then I could find a little kids' playground. I'm still not making this up. Then I could go find another McDonalds. Then I could find a golf course. Then I could find City Hall. Then I could find a 7-11. I can see my 7-11 waymark log now: "I went to the 7-11. Then I had a Slurpee. Then I went back to my car. Then I went home. Then I took a nap. Then I logged all my waymarks. Thanks for bringing me to 7-11."

Funny, that sounds just like the way virtual caches were getting before the crackdown.

Let's see. I'll start by finding the fire hydrant. Then from there I'll hit the cell phone tower. Then I'll drive over and log the old sneaker. After that, there are plenty of trees I can log. At night I'll hit a few graveyards. Then I'll hit the bridge, the ship, and the rusting car in the woods. Along the way I'll swing by the hair salon and a few places to eat. All old virtuals, so what's the point again?

Link to comment

 

I take exception to the McDonald's remark! :anibad: I researched and Waymarked McDonald's Stores #1 and #2 in Japan. #5000 in the world is also in Japan, but I didn't waymark it, hoping someone else will find it on his own. I pretty much ignored all other McDonald's since they were, in my opinion, insignificant.

 

I enjoyed and still enjoy Virtuals on GC.com. I agree with you that it's still not the same experience as Waymarking.com. However, the "marking everything in sight" behavior is the very reason Virtuals are not coming back to GC.com, especially due to the grief reviewers and TPTB received for trying to impose "quality control." One would be silly to argue that Waymarkers and Geocachers are different species.

 

There was an outcry from LCs, but it didn't bubble to the surface in the forums right away. I noticed it when LC owners were trying to delete logs that didn't meet the requirements (and the offenders escalated their whinings). The same probably happened with virtuals, except that only the reviewers received the complaints. They aren't known to copy and paste e-mails in the forums to defend their positions to the community. :o

 

The first McDonalds in Japan Waymark sounds way cool!! I was the first to visit the First Tim Horton's Donut Shop in Canada Waymark. Of course it was 2 1/2 months after it was placed, and I'm not even from Canada. B)

 

No, no, I never meant to say people "marking everything in sight" was a bad thing. Just that the dominant "one person" in each region is marking everything worthy of being a Waymark because no one else is.

 

As far as LC's, well you know there is another geocaching website that has them (haven't checked lately, but at least double the 300 or so that were ever available here), and I'd say the LC's over there are moderately successful as a group.

Link to comment
I'm confused by this. I can easlily see all the waymarks near me.
Where? There is nothing on my page that says "Nearest Waymarks" like my Geocaching home page does.....

Actually....there is, on cache pages. :)

There is no way to find the closest waymark to my home coords. Anyhow, I figured it out by getting a map of a nearby library which is a waymark and then I moved the map over to my neck of the woods. Anyhow, it looks like after finding the library, I could go and find a dog park. Then I could find a big palm tree waymark behind the AM/PM. I'm not making this up. Then I could find the Boll Weevil. Then I could find a McDonalds. Then I could find a local High School. Then I could find a little kids' playground. I'm still not making this up. Then I could go find another McDonalds. Then I could find a golf course. Then I could find City Hall. Then I could find a 7-11. I can see my 7-11 waymark log now: "I went to the 7-11. Then I had a Slurpee. Then I went back to my car. Then I went home. Then I took a nap. Then I logged all my waymarks. Thanks for bringing me to 7-11."

Funny, that sounds just like the way virtual caches were getting before the crackdown.

Let's see. I'll start by finding the fire hydrant. Then from there I'll hit the cell phone tower. Then I'll drive over and log the old sneaker. After that, there are plenty of trees I can log. At night I'll hit a few graveyards. Then I'll hit the bridge, the ship, and the rusting car in the woods. Along the way I'll swing by the hair salon and a few places to eat. All old virtuals, so what's the point again?

I know that there are good waymarks just as there are many good virtuals. This is why there are photos from grandfathered virtuals on the main GC banner. The fact is that there are many worthless caches of all types. In fact, I think there are more inane micros than any other cache type. I have to admit that it is much easier to tell which waymarks we should bypass than it is for caches. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...