Jump to content

Loss of Adventure


IamFennec
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Last week I stumbled onto Waymarking.com for the first time and after going though the site I had some concerns. So I emailed Groundspeak and in there reply they said "Since this is a concept that affects all users, I am going to suggest that you post this in the forums." So here it is...

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Well I have been a geocacher for some years now and today I discovered that you did away with specific types of caches and found your Waymarking site. After giving it a good look though I can tell you that the Waymarking site is very hard to navigate though and as far as I can tell you have taken the adventure out of what the old virtual type caches did. The fun in finding a cache that wasn’t really there was that you needed to find a sign or take your picture in front of something to something really wild to find, etc but you rarely knew what you were even looking for until you arrived at the location. As I looked though the site I saw that as it grows it would be good for finding points on interest when on vacation or in a unfamiliar area if you wanted to find food or something like that as long as you knew what you wanted to find. But there’s no task for getting credit and a picture of what you are going to see when you get there, there is no mystery to it. Am I missing the point? I would like to hear your comments on the matter.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I think this is a rather serous issue because its changing the game as we know it. I don't what to loose what geocaching has become. It is one thing to add to the sport (to be creative in coming up with new ways to seek, find, and place caches) but it is quite anouther to take away from what we all have come to enjoy when we are geocaching.

I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be?

Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

Link to comment

"snip"

I don't what to loose what geocaching has become. It is one thing to add to the sport (to be creative in coming up with new ways to seek, find, and place caches) but it is quite anouther to take away from what we all have come to enjoy when we are geocaching.

I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be?

Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

 

I don't know if I fully understand your question??? I've played with Waymarking and have created a few waymarks and I don't really see any problems. I get credit for them on the Waymarking site, is this where the complaint comes from, you don't get any credit on the GC site?

I've never really gone out of my way to "find" a waymark but the ones I have listed could be quite an "adventure" depending on your taste.

 

The only thing to do is play with the Waymarking site some more and try to see the bigger picture - there's a taste for everyone and I think Groundspeak is trying to keep the buffet full.

Link to comment

I don't think I understand your post, I suppose.

 

The way I read it you have divided it into 3 parts - your intro comment, a copy of an email supposedly sent to Groundspeak, and their supposed answer.

 

Before I go any farther with that, please tell me if that is a correct reading?

 

Frankly I am having a bit of a problem with the concept that they asked you to post that, and that those are their words, so I must be reading it all wrong!

 

Ed

Link to comment

I absolutely agreed with the OP. Waymarking did not do a good job at all of providing the adventure and fun of finding a well done virtual cache. A well done virtual cache rarely gave away exactly what you would find at the site. And if done properly, it took some searching to find the answers to the verification question. Waymarking put everything into neat little categories and encouraged using pictures over verification (or even having places where you don't need to verify anything - just claim you visited) But it was also clear to me that virtuals had stopped working at Geocaching.com. Too many people submitted virtuals that were just not interesting or they wrote them up to give away all the information so that you lost the adventure and the need to find anything. The volunteer reviewers had to adopt a "Wow" requirement which they used to reject just about every virtual that was submitted. If you liked virtuals, perhaps it was because the bar was set so high to getting one approved. TPTB at Groundspeak, pushed by the reviewers who were tired of having to reject so many virtuals, decided that Waymarking was a better place for virtuals. But as I said, they missed out on understanding why some of us thought that virtuals were among our favorite caches.

 

Instead of whining about bringing back virtuals, I looked at Waymarking and decided to do something about it. I formed the "Wow Waymarkers" group which developed the Best Kept Secrets category. It is meant to take you to interesting places but little known places without giving away too much about what you will find. It encourages using the kinds of verification questions that make you have to spend some time at the spot looking for the answers. I don't claim this Waymarking category is the equivalent of virtual caches (I proposed that category here). I see Best Kept Secrets as one of several new games under Waymarking that will capture the spirit of adventure and discovery that the OP is looking for. I encourage other to look at Waymarking in this way. Propose categories that work for you and be creative.

Link to comment

I think you are one of the few people that hit a good point about virtual caches... the mystery of what you find. With Waymarking, you pretty much know what you will find when you get there. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. If I want to seek out natural arches, for example, I can do that with Waymarking. They are in a single category and I can go right to it. I know I am going to see what I am looking for. With virtual caches, it is a crapshoot. Who knows what you find sometimes. Many times I have walked away from a virtual cache saying "whoopy do" in my head. I've taken the time to go there though, so I claim my find for my time spent.

 

The problem with virtual caches is the quality of what is left to submit at this point. Most of the interesting things already were listed. As a reviewer, I've only seen a few things that I would have listed as virtuals since they were removed from submission. As a reviewer, the quality of the submissions right at the end was horrible. Then there were the forum fights when someone had their virtual turned down and they thought it was the greatest thing since the pyramids. At this point, the problems with virtual caches far outweigh the benefits, in my opinion.

 

I do wish a few exceptional targets could be listed though, in a way. For example, Delicate Arch is a virtual cache and one of the last ones listed. It is a great virtual as a national historic landmark in the US. Nearby, Landscape Arch, arguably the largest arch on our planet, is not a virtual cache. To me, it should be. It is a waymark at least, but it took a guy from GA to list it. :anitongue: Still, this brings the subjective nature of the submissions in to play once again. What I think is an exceptional target might be a yawner to many other people. This is the problem. I don't want to see *every* natural arch listed as a virtual cache. I do LOVE seeing them listed as waymarks though. They are categorized so they are easy to sort out and seek. The Waymarking site is exceptionally well organized once you spend a little time learning how it is organized. Just looking at it for ten minutes isn't going to get you there though. Like anything, you need to bang around on it to see how it is organized.

Link to comment

...At this point, the problems with virtual caches far outweigh the benefits, in my opinion...

 

I agree with this statement. I liked virtuals and locationless caches and logged about 250 of them but ultimately the basis of the game is to find an object containing a logbook and perhaps some trading trinkets. In otherwords, a "cache". In this regard the most boring of lamppost micros qualifies as a geocache and the most interesting virtual location does not.

 

All throughout the virtual cache era there were good virts but there were far too many very boring virts. Most virtuals I visited could have had a container placed within feet of the object of interest. Virtuals became, in part, an easy way to place a cache and not have to maintain a container.

 

I like the leaner, back to basics face of geocaching today.

Link to comment
All throughout the virtual cache era there were good virts...

Shaw, you archived one of my favorite virtual caches. Fortunately the location was good enough to host an Earthcache.
New virtual caches are still popping up in many scenic locations in the form of Terracaches. TC also added a verification code you must enter to log a virtual, which is fun to find! Crappy caches also get rated low by the finders, so you won't earn as many points for finding those. Another excellent idea that promotes hiding quality caches. I only mention this here because it is always a good idea to benchmark the competition.... :anitongue:
Link to comment
All throughout the virtual cache era there were good virts...

Shaw, you archived one of my favorite virtual caches. Fortunately the location was good enough to host an Earthcache.
New virtual caches are still popping up in many scenic locations in the form of Terracaches. TC also added a verification code you must enter to log a virtual, which is fun to find! Crappy caches also get rated low by the finders, so you won't earn as many points for finding those. Another excellent idea that promotes hiding quality caches. I only mention this here because it is always a good idea to benchmark the competition.... :anitongue:

 

Sorry, I don't have enough gas money to get to a Terracache location.

Link to comment
All throughout the virtual cache era there were good virts...

Shaw, you archived one of my favorite virtual caches. Fortunately the location was good enough to host an Earthcache.
New virtual caches are still popping up in many scenic locations in the form of Terracaches. TC also added a verification code you must enter to log a virtual, which is fun to find! Crappy caches also get rated low by the finders, so you won't earn as many points for finding those. Another excellent idea that promotes hiding quality caches. I only mention this here because it is always a good idea to benchmark the competition.... :anitongue:

Sorry, I don't have enough gas money to get to a Terracache location.
TC is still very small but they have some good ideas. That was my point. I think GCs website is way better than TCs, but I also think there are many GC caches that would get a "poor," "pretty bad." or "very bad" rating on TC. I still find it funny that the literalists who mandate that there be a "cache" allow micros that cannot hold squat. To me that isn't a true cache either.... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I give credit to TPTB for at least keeping existing Virtuals grandfathered, so the newbies can enjoy the experience.

 

I still hunt for those Virtuals, and give them a special symbol in my eTrex just so I can spot them easily in map view mode. :laughing: Even the allegedly "boring" Virtuals aren't that bad, since I don't feel the urge to mock them on the spot like ho-hum urban caches. :anitongue:

 

I think the real debate is whether the quality of new Virtual hides can be maintained. Interesting locations will eventually run out. We can't be sure if newbies will understand "the spirit" of hiding good Virtuals - you'll be surprised at some of the reckless creativity I've heard at events. :laughing:

 

We might have to demonstrate to TPTB and reviewers that the community is capable of self-policing and picking great locations without relying on a central authority. I believe we have failed in that regard with the complaints and whingings for LCs and Virtuals.

 

I believe Waymarking was supposed to answer that need, but so far it hasn't lived up to replacing Virtuals... but I'd be more patient and see how it will evolve. The key is how well Geocaching and Waymarking will integrate, for example, using a central PQ to load up all the interesting waypoints quickly to your GPSr.

Link to comment
I think the real debate is whether the quality of new Virtual hides can be maintained. Interesting locations will eventually run out. We can't be sure if newbies will understand "the spirit" of hiding good Virtuals - you'll be surprised at some of the reckless creativity I've heard at events. :anitongue:
I agree. In fact, you bring a change to GC that I would like to see: all newbies have to wait 6 months before placing a cache. This would allow newbies to learn and gain experience before placing a cache. This should also increase the odds of newbie caches being more adventurous. Plus I think a lot of caches are placed by newbies that try geocaching and then quit, leaving us with many unmaintained caches. A six month period would show some commitment level as well. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
micros that cannot hold squat. To me that isn't a true cache either....

Brother, I feel your pain.

 

American Heritage Dictionary

cache (ksh) n.

 

A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

Computer Science. A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

 

But that debate would probably be best served in a different thread.

 

Back on topic:

We haven't logged any Waymarks, and only one Virt, (mainly to get the kewl ghost icon), since we started playing. I think everybody has an idea, often an evolving one, of what Geocaching is to them, and Virts simply didn't fit the bill for us. We certainly can't judge them as good or bad, they're just not our thing. In perusing the Waymarking site, I think something was defenitely lost with the transition, but I lack the experience to determine what that something was.

Link to comment

There are so many things about GC.com’s handling of virtual caches that I find so strange. Waymarking.com is NOT a suitable replacement for virtual caches; so essentially, virtual caches have been eliminated from the game altogether. Why? Is it because there needs to be a container and logbook in order for there to be a geocache? Many argue that this is the case, but I’d bet that many more would say that the spirit of geocaching is in the hike and in the adventure and in being taken to places they’ve never been before. To many people, virtual caching epitomizes what geocaching is (or should be) all about.

 

Another thing that is strange to me is that there was a “wow factor” requirement for approving virtual caches, but simply a “so you put a geocache there, didja?” requirement for approving traditional caches! I agree that the “wow factor” is subjective and makes it necessary to draw arbitrary lines as to what can and cannot be approved, but look at what geocaching has become today. To me, it is apparent that the “wow factor” requirement was a great idea and geocaching would be a better game today if it had been applied to regular caches, as well.

 

Please, bring back virtuals, “wow factor” rule and all, and immediately begin applying a similar “wow factor” rule for all geocaches! That'll be the day...

Link to comment
There are so many things about GC.com's handling of virtual caches that I find so strange. Waymarking.com is NOT a suitable replacement for virtual caches; so essentially, virtual caches have been eliminated from the game altogether. Why? Is it because there needs to be a container and logbook in order for there to be a geocache? Many argue that this is the case, but I'd bet that many more would say that the spirit of geocaching is in the hike and in the adventure and in being taken to places they've never been before. To many people, virtual caching epitomizes what geocaching is (or should be) all about.

 

Another thing that is strange to me is that there was a "wow factor" requirement for approving virtual caches, but simply a "so you put a geocache there, didja?" requirement for approving traditional caches! I agree that the "wow factor" is subjective and makes it necessary to draw arbitrary lines as to what can and cannot be approved, but look at what geocaching has become today. To me, it is apparent that the "wow factor" requirement was a great idea and geocaching would be a better game today if it had been applied to regular caches, as well.

 

Please, bring back virtuals, "wow factor" rule and all, and immediately begin applying a similar "wow factor" rule for all geocaches! That'll be the day...

I agree with you if that's worth anything.... :anitongue: Anyhow, virtuals were killed before micro spew. The "wow factor" argument would not hold water these days because what has happened to traditionals. But the deck was always stacked against virts anyhow.....
Link to comment

Please, bring back virtuals, “wow factor” rule and all, and immediately begin applying a similar “wow factor” rule for all geocaches! That'll be the day...

Can we do this with forum posts, too? 'Cause I'd say the "wow factor" of the "bring back virtuals" post is about as high as that of the "lamp post micro". :anitongue:
Link to comment

Last week I stumbled onto Waymarking.com for the first time and after going though the site I had some concerns. So I emailed Groundspeak and in there reply they said "Since this is a concept that affects all users, I am going to suggest that you post this in the forums." So here it is...

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Well I have been a geocacher for some years now and today I discovered that you did away with specific types of caches and found your Waymarking site. After giving it a good look though I can tell you that the Waymarking site is very hard to navigate though and as far as I can tell you have taken the adventure out of what the old virtual type caches did. The fun in finding a cache that wasn’t really there was that you needed to find a sign or take your picture in front of something to something really wild to find, etc but you rarely knew what you were even looking for until you arrived at the location. As I looked though the site I saw that as it grows it would be good for finding points on interest when on vacation or in a unfamiliar area if you wanted to find food or something like that as long as you knew what you wanted to find. But there’s no task for getting credit and a picture of what you are going to see when you get there, there is no mystery to it. Am I missing the point? I would like to hear your comments on the matter.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I think this is a rather serous issue because its changing the game as we know it. I don't what to loose what geocaching has become. It is one thing to add to the sport (to be creative in coming up with new ways to seek, find, and place caches) but it is quite anouther to take away from what we all have come to enjoy when we are geocaching.

I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be?

Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

From several things that you say here, it sounds like you think that you've come upon some big thing that nobody else has noticed, and that you're coming here and informing us of this tragedy and that we need to tell all your friends about it. I'm sorry to let you know, sweetie, we've had so many threads about it, and so many discussions. It's been hashed out so much! Thank you for your concern.

 

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.

 

No, Waymarking isn't the same as virts. We lose a bit, yes, but at the same time, Waymarking gives us so much more than virts (or locationless) ever could and so I am willing to take that trade.

 

I've let it go, and I'm embracing Waymarking. And you know what? I'm having a great time! The more you get into it, the more you understand it and the website. Try it, I think you'll be pleasantly suprised. :anitongue:

Link to comment
I think this is a rather serous issue because its changing the game as we know it. I don't what to loose what geocaching has become. It is one thing to add to the sport (to be creative in coming up with new ways to seek, find, and place caches) but it is quite anouther to take away from what we all have come to enjoy when we are geocaching.

 

The clampdown on virtuals came in early 2003. So (with a very few exceptions) virtuals haven't been published on this site in 3 1/2 years. You're a bit late to the party with your concerns, don't you think?

Link to comment
I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be? Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If we are not going to let people voice "their" opinions, then why have these forums? What annoys me if how some people defend the lame caches because "some" people enjoy then, and yet these same people are the opposite way when it comes to other cache types. The bottomline is that if you are sick of this topic then move on. If not then feel free to chime in! :anitongue:
Link to comment
I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be? Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If we are not going to let people voice "their" opinions, then why have these forums? What annoys me if how some people defend the lame caches because "some" people enjoy then, and yet these same people are the opposite way when it comes to other cache types. The bottomline is that if you are sick of this topic then move on. If not then feel free to chime in! :laughing:

I never said that no one could voice their opinions. I voiced mine. And I'm not sick of the topic, I was just letting the person know that we're aware of it because they didn't seem to know that.

 

I'm happy to keep extolling the virtues of Waymarking. Someday I'll win everyone over. :anitongue:

Link to comment
I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be? Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If we are not going to let people voice "their" opinions, then why have these forums? What annoys me if how some people defend the lame caches because "some" people enjoy then, and yet these same people are the opposite way when it comes to other cache types. The bottomline is that if you are sick of this topic then move on. If not then feel free to chime in! :anitongue:

I never said that no one could voice their opinions. I voiced mine. And I'm not sick of the topic, I was just letting the person know that we're aware of it because they didn't seem to know that.

 

I'm happy to keep extolling the virtues of Waymarking. Someday I'll win everyone over. :laughing:

I'm glad you enjoy Waymarking! :laughing: However, Waymarking IS missing the mystery of a virtual cache. The quote from Forrest Gump sums it up best for many cachers: "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get!" However, with Waymarking you do know what you're gonna get! So in that way it is way different than caching and is not a good substitute for those that like the surprise aspect of the game. :laughing:
Link to comment
I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be? Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If we are not going to let people voice "their" opinions, then why have these forums? What annoys me if how some people defend the lame caches because "some" people enjoy then, and yet these same people are the opposite way when it comes to other cache types. The bottomline is that if you are sick of this topic then move on. If not then feel free to chime in! :anitongue:

I never said that no one could voice their opinions. I voiced mine. And I'm not sick of the topic, I was just letting the person know that we're aware of it because they didn't seem to know that.

 

I'm happy to keep extolling the virtues of Waymarking. Someday I'll win everyone over. :laughing:

I'm glad you enjoy Waymarking! :laughing: However, Waymarking IS missing the mystery of a virtual cache. The quote from Forrest Gump sums it up best for many cachers: "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get!" However, with Waymarking you do know what you're gonna get! So in that way it is way different than caching and is not a good substitute for those that like the surprise aspect of the game. :laughing:

I understand. That's why I said that we lose some, but I personally am willing to work with it. :sad:

 

So, you don't think that Best Kept Secrets fits the bill?

Link to comment

A good virtual location could be combined with a hidden container by using a clue from the virtual site to give the coordinates for the actual cache location. And the container location doesn't have to be right next to the virtual location. For example, the Statue of Liberty, a container restrictive area, could be a cache where you get a clue from some questions asked about the statue. The answers give the coordinates for the actual cache that could be a micro (due to the muggles factor) hidden in Battery Park, Manhattan, a few minute walk to where you return on the ferry from Liberty Island after visiting the statue. I did something similar that was more involved that combined a driving tour and 2 mile hike, but the concept is the same. (cache) If you really like a place, be creative on figuring out how and where to hide the box.

 

I'd consider doing this with the Statue of Liberty, but it's already a "real" virtual! Got in before the ban. :anitongue:

 

On the other hand, in very large national parks like the Grand Canyon where caching is restricted and it would be too far to place a cache outside the park, I believe virtuals should be allowed. These areas are visited by loads of cachers and it would be nice to combine our visits with geocaching.

Edited by Alan2
Link to comment
I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be? Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If we are not going to let people voice "their" opinions, then why have these forums? What annoys me if how some people defend the lame caches because "some" people enjoy then, and yet these same people are the opposite way when it comes to other cache types. The bottomline is that if you are sick of this topic then move on. If not then feel free to chime in! :anitongue:

I never said that no one could voice their opinions. I voiced mine. And I'm not sick of the topic, I was just letting the person know that we're aware of it because they didn't seem to know that.

 

I'm happy to keep extolling the virtues of Waymarking. Someday I'll win everyone over. :laughing:

I'm glad you enjoy Waymarking! :laughing: However, Waymarking IS missing the mystery of a virtual cache. The quote from Forrest Gump sums it up best for many cachers: "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get!" However, with Waymarking you do know what you're gonna get! So in that way it is way different than caching and is not a good substitute for those that like the surprise aspect of the game. :laughing:

I understand. That's why I said that we lose some, but I personally am willing to work with it. :sad:

 

So, you don't think that Best Kept Secrets fits the bill?

Those look better. Now how do you efficiently download all 42+ of those waymarks?
Link to comment

thank you all for posting... To answer the question on post #3 the last pharagraph is my option on the issue not the reply from Groundspeak. The only part of there reply was in quotation in the first pharagraph. And YES Groundspeak did ask me to post this on the forums.

I was not fully aware of all the trouble with virts or what it took it get one posted but this is what I do know. I think that that it would be better to keep them apart of GC then to not. Sure there are some bummers out there in every type of cache but nobody MAKES you look for them. Thats your choice, and when it come down to it I'd rather be the one to make the choice of what type of cache to look for then to have Groundspeak make that choice for me. I like the divirsity of the types of caches and I don't think that should change. After all were not just talking about virts here were talking cams, locationless and earth caches. For what? GC doesn't maintain them, we do. So why get ride of caches that some ppl might enjoy and some may not? I agree that Waymarking is perfect for finding things that you want to do, that was in my email. I just don't want to see anything happen to the game. If they decide that virts can go away then whats next? Micros? Waymarking is not a bad idea but it doesn't need to take away from GC.com. The fun of it is that we don't know were it is, how to get there and sometimes what it looks like, but isn't that the whole point? Even though GC doesn't plan to add them back in. If enough ppl what them back then, they'll be back.

Link to comment
I know the basic concept is not changing and most likely not going to change. Why not just keep Geocaching.com what it has been and bring Waymarking.com up along side to be what it will be? Please post coments and email this to all the geocachers every where so we can let the admin and developers at Groundspeak know what we want...

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If we are not going to let people voice "their" opinions, then why have these forums? What annoys me if how some people defend the lame caches because "some" people enjoy then, and yet these same people are the opposite way when it comes to other cache types. The bottomline is that if you are sick of this topic then move on. If not then feel free to chime in! :anitongue:

I never said that no one could voice their opinions. I voiced mine. And I'm not sick of the topic, I was just letting the person know that we're aware of it because they didn't seem to know that.

 

I'm happy to keep extolling the virtues of Waymarking. Someday I'll win everyone over. :laughing:

I'm glad you enjoy Waymarking! :laughing: However, Waymarking IS missing the mystery of a virtual cache. The quote from Forrest Gump sums it up best for many cachers: "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get!" However, with Waymarking you do know what you're gonna get! So in that way it is way different than caching and is not a good substitute for those that like the surprise aspect of the game. :laughing:

I understand. That's why I said that we lose some, but I personally am willing to work with it. :sad:

 

So, you don't think that Best Kept Secrets fits the bill?

Those look better. Now how do you efficiently download all 42+ of those waymarks?

They're working on that right now. :mad: It's such a new site, and they are giving it to us early so that we can be sorta testers for them.

Link to comment
They're working on that right now. :laughing: It's such a new site, and they are giving it to us early so that we can be sorta testers for them.

Yeah, it's only 16 months old now. Another decade and it will be really neat!

 

Seriously. In what Internet universe is almost a year and a half still considered "new?"

I'm sorry, you seem to be having a bad day today. Maybe you need a hug. :anitongue:

 

comfort.gif

Link to comment
They're working on that right now. :laughing: It's such a new site, and they are giving it to us early so that we can be sorta testers for them.

Yeah, it's only 16 months old now. Another decade and it will be really neat!

 

Seriously. In what Internet universe is almost a year and a half still considered "new?"

I'm sorry, you seem to be having a bad day today. Maybe you need a hug. :anitongue:

 

comfort.gif

Where did you get these? comfort.gifAre there more? :laughing:
Link to comment
They're working on that right now. :laughing: It's such a new site, and they are giving it to us early so that we can be sorta testers for them.

Yeah, it's only 16 months old now. Another decade and it will be really neat!

 

Seriously. In what Internet universe is almost a year and a half still considered "new?"

I'm sorry, you seem to be having a bad day today. Maybe you need a hug. :anitongue:

 

comfort.gif

Where did you get these? comfort.gifAre there more? :sad:

Sadly, many years of having too much computer time on my hands. I just randomly find them on different websites. I've saved a gazillion of them. :laughing: But I don't use them all the time because I have to put them into photobucket and then retrieve the right one at the right time. :mad: So I save them for special occasions, or when I'm in the right mood. :laughing:

 

bigarmhug.gif

Link to comment

So, you don't think that Best Kept Secrets fits the bill?

Those look better. Now how do you efficiently download all 42+ of those waymarks?

 

Wow, I better get going on approving those Best Kept Secrets, because there are only 7 so far, not 42+.

 

Waymarking is still new. So there may not be many waymarks in your area yet. Geocaching was once like that. And from what TrailGators says in other threads, even lame urban micros were once like that. When I started geocaching there were no pocket queries or GPX files. You could download LOC files from the search page but that was a brand new feature. Don't knock Waymarking because it doesn't have these feature yet. They are in the works. Be patient.

 

You didn't answer Ambrosia's question. It seems like people look at Waymarking and see find only what they dislike about it. That's a shame. Waymarking provides a very flexible structure for creating many games and uses of GPS waypoints. It needs people to make recommendations on how to support these games and uses. You could propose a category like this for those that feel the need to have a cache in every lamp post so they don't clutter up Geocaching.

Link to comment

I've never really gone out of my way to "find" a waymark <snip>

Me either.

 

In the few visits I have made to the site, it seems that the point must be just to list new waymarks, not to visit those already listed. It doesn't seem like very many of them get logged by anyone other than the original lister.

 

Perhaps I should give it a little more of a trial, but it seems to be mostly "big deal", not "WOW!" for me.

 

I think the OP may have nailed the reason I feel this way.

Link to comment
All throughout the virtual cache era there were good virts...

 

Shaw, you archived one of my favorite virtual caches. Fortunately the location was good enough to host an Earthcache. :laughing:

 

Hummm.... That must have been Coral Henge. I don't think earth caches had been born yet when I archived that cache or I might have attempted to switch it over. But then again, vacation cachers were no longer needed in 2004 and I probably would still have filtered myself out of Iowa. Sure loved that part of Iowa though. My friends still live within a mile of that cache location.

Link to comment
I think this is a rather serous issue because its changing the game as we know it. I don't what to loose what geocaching has become. It is one thing to add to the sport (to be creative in coming up with new ways to seek, find, and place caches) but it is quite anouther to take away from what we all have come to enjoy when we are geocaching.

 

The clampdown on virtuals came in early 2003. So (with a very few exceptions) virtuals haven't been published on this site in 3 1/2 years. You're a bit late to the party with your concerns, don't you think?

 

I suppose the number of finds lends weight to ones words here but speaking from the perceptive of one who DID come late to the party all those "already done" virtuals are all new to me and my kids. We have not had the pleasure of "wowing" any of them yet...if ever. Yeh...we're "noobies" as everyone here once was and I suspect that the "noobies" far outnumber the "non noobies" and the "yet to be noobies" will far outnumber all of us put together soon. Christmas is coming and when I see cute jingles and lost cell phone users all over my TV I would guess Geocaching will continue growing exponentially. Now all those wonderful virtuals we are discussing here...the ones not grandfathered, are lost to us to this point in time.

 

I will not weigh in on Waymarking vs. geocaching I would only say there are all kinds of experience levels out there and just because one person arrives late and another has "been there done that" an interesting experience should be denied to the late comer. Fact of the matter is one of the primary reasons we Geocache is because it give us permission…ummm…a reason to go someplace we would not normally have an excuse to go. To discover. Explore. To get wowed. Maybe that's a virtual...maybe it's a waymark I don't know but I would better dollars to doughnuts there were some great virtuals which will never grace my finds list.

Link to comment

New virtual caches are still popping up in many scenic locations in the form of Terracaches. TC also added a verification code you must enter to log a virtual, which is fun to find! Crappy caches also get rated low by the finders, so you won't earn as many points for finding those. Another excellent idea that promotes hiding quality caches. I only mention this here because it is always a good idea to benchmark the competition.... :laughing:

Fine, I'm always happy to compare to the competition.

 

The only virtual terracaches within 100 miles of me:

 

1. "Go find the spot in the woods where I used to party when I grew up. I don't live there anymore, so I couldn't get coordinates, but these should be a good guess. Look for a fire ring." (Paraphrased)

 

2. Go to a Pennsylvania Historic Marker alongside a Pittsburgh city street. You can park right next to the sign. But, to make it look like a he-man terracache, it's listed as a 1.5 mile hike. Actually, it was more than that, since the terracache owner fat-fingered the coordinates and said that Pittsburgh was at N41° rather than N40°. This went undiscovered for many months, but didn't really matter because nobody visited it. The terracache has managed to withstand the withering scrutiny of both the hider's sponsors and of the community that pledges to rate crappy caches low.

 

I waymarked the same historic marker here. It is one of more than 800 Pennsylvania historic markers now in the Waymarking database, compared to the one at Terracaching. I look at the 800+ waymarks as 800 denied virtual caches getting a new lease on life, since historic markers were on "auto-deny" since 2003. Here is a picture of this particular terracached/waymarked historic marker:

 

d3604b21-7f21-4eac-8752-217d6ba52485.jpg

 

Nobody's visited my waymark, either. Frankly I am not surprised. As markers go, it is not a terribly interesting one. There is nothing there to see, because the iron furnace site is now a private school campus. Other historic signs I've waymarked, like the home of "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" get a lot more visits.

 

I guess the difference is, with Waymarking you know what to expect before visiting. If you don't have an interest in historic markers, you can filter out that category. You can make a list of favorite categories and only download locations in those categories to visit. So many of the old virtual caches left me saying "oh, is that all?" after I drove up to a historic marker, street sign or statue. I was expecting to say "WOW" but I very rarely did. I am liking Waymarking a whole lot more because of its honesty. I am far more likely to enjoy a visit to a historic marker at Waymarking, because I *chose* to visit a historic marker. It is a type of thing that I enjoy visiting.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment

New virtual caches are still popping up in many scenic locations in the form of Terracaches. TC also added a verification code you must enter to log a virtual, which is fun to find! Crappy caches also get rated low by the finders, so you won't earn as many points for finding those. Another excellent idea that promotes hiding quality caches. I only mention this here because it is always a good idea to benchmark the competition.... :laughing:

Fine, I'm always happy to compare to the competition. The only virtual terracaches within 100 miles of me:

1. "Go find the spot in the woods where I used to party when I grew up. Look for a fire ring." (Paraphrased)

2. Go to a Pennsylvania Historic Marker alongside a Pittsburgh city street.

1) Those terracaches should have low MCE ratings. Anyhow, that ties into the point I was making. TC has a cool rating and scoring system. Some caches are worth 200 and some are worth 1. So it does promote better caches because people want to get more points/find.

2) I would much rather find a historical marker on geocaching.com than a lamp post micro! I still can't believe how many people would disagree with me on that....

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I will not weigh in on Waymarking vs. geocaching I would only say there are all kinds of experience levels out there and just because one person arrives late and another has "been there done that" an interesting experience should be denied to the late comer. Fact of the matter is one of the primary reasons we Geocache is because it give us permission…ummm…a reason to go someplace we would not normally have an excuse to go. To discover. Explore. To get wowed. Maybe that's a virtual...maybe it's a waymark I don't know but I would better dollars to doughnuts there were some great virtuals which will never grace my finds list.

The problem with the newbie argument is that you don't have the history to know why certain decisions were made. Geocaching, while older than Waymarking, is still a young sport. Over that past 5+ years, geocaching has gone through a lot of growth and experimentation. When something doesn't work, it is very hard to drop it. There are always a few who will have found that feature useful. But Groundspeak has to make a decision where to spend resources and do what is best for their business as well as for geocaching.

 

When geocaching began there were only traditional caches. You hid a box somewhere and post the coordinates. Later came multicaches, unknown/mystery caches, virtual caches, and locationless caches. There was even a request to allow geocaches to also be listed as letterboxes resulting in the letterbox hybrid type, and the Project A.P.E. caches hidden to promote a motion picture. Some of these worked well, others didn't, and still others didn't really need to have there own cache type.

 

Locationless were the first to break. First of all many people were never comfortable with locationless as part of the geocaching game. It was more of a scavenger hunt - find an example of something and post the coordinates of it. It really didn't involve using your GPS to navigate to a place and it didn't even force you to use the GPS to get accurate coordinates as once you claimed your find no one else could use those coordinates to claim the locationless. Secondly, people started posting locationless for things that moved around and ones that were fairly easy to claim a find on. Some locationless caches soon got thousands of finds. It became hard to check if someone had use a particular place before and locationless put a undo load on the Geocaching website. So there was a moratorium on locationless while a new solution was developed.

 

Similarly, virtuals began to become a problem. People wanted make everything into a virtual. It was a lot easier than figuring out how to hide a cache where muggles wouldn't find it. And it was cheaper and required less maintenance. Most locations where people wanted to place a virtual could either support a cache hidden nearby or be used to provide the clues to find an offset cache some distance away. For locations where you truly couldn't place a cache or use the location as a offset, there were still problems. Firstly was determining if you truly couldn't place a cache there. Just because a spot was off limits like in a National Park or at a cemetery where you couldn't get permission to leave a cache, didn't necessarily mean it couldn't be used as an offset. Second, people would propose virtuals for every historic sign or every statue or even for their favorite rock or tree. The "Wow" rule was instituted to prevent the runaway placement of virtuals in places that were interesting only to the hider. Virtual caches had to "be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." But this rule is subjective by nature and lead to disputes between the reviewers and the hider. The forums were full of threads of people trying to appeal the rejection of their virtual cache.

 

Waymarking was solution that Groundspeak rolled out for locationless caches. As they developed the idea they realized that people could visit the coordinates posted for waymark (locationless find). That solved the issue of not being able to use the location once some else had used it for the locationless find. Now if someone found an octagonal building or a landlocked lighthouse before you did, you could still visit that location. While not the same a virtual cache, this idea seem close enough. At first there were many locations that people wanted to waymark that had no category. Waymarking now has a pretty good system for proposing and approving new categories, so most locations that people wanted to share as a virtual cache can now be shared as a waymark. As Lep says, by catetgorizing the locations you can pick out the ones you are truly interested in.

 

However, by categorizing everything, Waymarking removed the sense of adventure and discovery that the OP talks about. Fortunately, Waymarking categories are pretty flexible. I was able to propose a category that I thought covered some of the best virtuals that I had done. Best Kept Secrets are locations that are interesting but not well know in the local area. These are places that make you go "Wow, I didn't know this was here". The category supports the idea of not giving away what you will find and encourages the hider to use verification questions where you need to spend some time searching for answers. Of course, not all great virtuals might fall in this category. Hopefully, Waymarking will have several categories that try to capture what people liked about virtual caches.

 

As for missing the experience of geocachers that came before - I would not worry about the past. There are still the grandfathered virtuals that can give you a taste of what it was like. You have the chance to become an early adopter of Waymarking and contribute to its growth.

Link to comment
Best Kept Secrets are locations that are interesting but not well know in the local area. These are places that make you go "Wow, I didn't know this was here". The category supports the idea of not giving away what you will find and encourages the hider to use verification questions where you need to spend some time searching for answers. Of course, not all great virtuals might fall in this category. Hopefully, Waymarking will have several categories that try to capture what people liked about virtual caches.

 

So besides those 7 best kept secrets :laughing: what other waymarks have the element of discovering the unknown?

Link to comment

New virtual caches are still popping up in many scenic locations in the form of Terracaches. TC also added a verification code you must enter to log a virtual, which is fun to find! Crappy caches also get rated low by the finders, so you won't earn as many points for finding those. Another excellent idea that promotes hiding quality caches. I only mention this here because it is always a good idea to benchmark the competition.... :laughing:

Fine, I'm always happy to compare to the competition. The only virtual terracaches within 100 miles of me:

1. "Go find the spot in the woods where I used to party when I grew up. Look for a fire ring." (Paraphrased)

2. Go to a Pennsylvania Historic Marker alongside a Pittsburgh city street.

1) Those terracaches should have low MCE ratings. Anyhow, that ties into the point I was making. TC has a cool rating and scoring system. Some caches are worth 200 and some are worth 1. So it does promote better caches because people want to get more points/find.

2) I would much rather find a historical marker on geocaching.com than a lamp post micro! I still can't believe how many people would disagree with me on that....

I thought this thread was about whether virtual caches should be on Geocaching.com or Waymarking.com, not whether they should be on Terracaching. My understanding is that Terracaching was formed by some geocachers who were dissatisfied with Geocaching.com. Their complaints included the moratorium on locationless, the difficulty of getting virtuals approved, and the lack of any desire by Geocaching.com to have user cache ratings. They developed their own website with some of the features that they weren't getting from Geocaching.com. If there is such a desire among geocachers for these features they can go to Terracaching.com. Giving that Geocaching.com has been around for longer and gets the lion's share of publicity related to geocaching, it may be that Terracaching really does provide something that the community is clamoring for. But it might also be that the majority of geocachers just don't care about these things or that the number of caches listed on a site is more important than any bells and whistles. In any case this is a subject for another thread.

Link to comment
Best Kept Secrets are locations that are interesting but not well know in the local area. These are places that make you go "Wow, I didn't know this was here". The category supports the idea of not giving away what you will find and encourages the hider to use verification questions where you need to spend some time searching for answers. Of course, not all great virtuals might fall in this category. Hopefully, Waymarking will have several categories that try to capture what people liked about virtual caches.

 

So besides those 7 best kept secrets :laughing: what other waymarks have the element of discovering the unknown?

 

I have one in Japan, on an island that requires access by an airplane (40 minutes minimum) or a jetfoil (2.5 hours). It's a World Heritage Site so the location is well known, but the spot I picked for the verification is less known. I could have made the requirements tougher, but I figured people will visit there on its merits whether my waymark is there or not.

 

If you are lucky, you'll get to meet wild monkeys, like I did. (Project APE? :huh: )

Link to comment

....From several things that you say here, it sounds like you think that you've come upon some big thing that nobody else has noticed, and that you're coming here and informing us of this tragedy and that we need to tell all your friends about it. I'm sorry to let you know, sweetie, we've had so many threads about it, and so many discussions. It's been hashed out so much! Thank you for your concern.

 

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.

 

No, Waymarking isn't the same as virts. We lose a bit, yes, but at the same time, Waymarking gives us so much more than virts (or locationless) ever could and so I am willing to take that trade.

 

I've let it go, and I'm embracing Waymarking. And you know what? I'm having a great time! The more you get into it, the more you understand it and the website. Try it, I think you'll be pleasantly suprised. :laughing:

 

They are one more voice noting something of concern that is real. Virtuals did capture a kind of cache magic else people wouldn't log them. Waymarking is similar and different. I don't bother. Not because I can't find them, I drive by one almost daily and dont log it, it just doesn't capture my interest. Waymarks are not caches. I gain nothing I'm looking for with Waymarking. Perhaps you gain more because of your different perspective. Fair enough.

 

It's not about 'letting it go' it's about hoping they will come back and making the request so someday it could happen. As for the comment about that 'all the interesting spots are taken' it's a moot poing. Ditto on regular caches and yet they keep being placed, approved, recycled and life goes on. Good caches remain to be placed and good virtuals could continue to be placed. This activity can and does evolve. The thing is Waymarking only captured some cachers and not others. For me it's a new thing and not a new and improved version of the cache types it tries to replace.

Link to comment

New virtual caches are still popping up in many scenic locations in the form of Terracaches. TC also added a verification code you must enter to log a virtual, which is fun to find! Crappy caches also get rated low by the finders, so you won't earn as many points for finding those. Another excellent idea that promotes hiding quality caches. I only mention this here because it is always a good idea to benchmark the competition.... :laughing:

Fine, I'm always happy to compare to the competition. The only virtual terracaches within 100 miles of me:

1. "Go find the spot in the woods where I used to party when I grew up. Look for a fire ring." (Paraphrased)

2. Go to a Pennsylvania Historic Marker alongside a Pittsburgh city street.

1) Those terracaches should have low MCE ratings. Anyhow, that ties into the point I was making. TC has a cool rating and scoring system. Some caches are worth 200 and some are worth 1. So it does promote better caches because people want to get more points/find.

2) I would much rather find a historical marker on geocaching.com than a lamp post micro! I still can't believe how many people would disagree with me on that....

I thought this thread was about whether virtual caches should be on Geocaching.com or Waymarking.com, not whether they should be on Terracaching.

I'm not sure where you read anything that I said about why virtuals should be on Terracaching..... The topic is about loss of adventure. But specifically to waymarks not being like virtuals. I brought up what Terracaching does as a way to show how they increase adventure. Why terracaching is not as big as geocaching is not relevant to the point I was making. But now that you bring it up, maybe it is the fact that geocaching has gotten so big that is causing some issues. The main reason they got rid of virtuals is because they were a PITA for the reviewers. Waymarking solves that issue by assigning managers. However, most waymarks in my view do not have the "wow factor." There may be exceptions like your seven waymarks but I'm not sure how to find the others exceptions. But more importantly, I don't know how to find the exceptions that are close to where I live....
Link to comment

Best Kept Secrets are locations that are interesting but not well know in the local area. These are places that make you go "Wow, I didn't know this was here". The category supports the idea of not giving away what you will find and encourages the hider to use verification questions where you need to spend some time searching for answers. Of course, not all great virtuals might fall in this category. Hopefully, Waymarking will have several categories that try to capture what people liked about virtual caches.

 

I agree that your waypoint category can offer a home for some types of virtual caches that did not fit into previously available categories.

 

In my opinion, one of the major conceptual problems with Waymarking is that it is basically based on the single location per waymark approach. In this way, it becomes impossible to imitate virtual caches with several stages (and even more virtual caches with several stages and a puzzle which has to be solved before starting off). Multiple stages and puzzles can help to increase the "surprise factor", but they can, for example, also be used to offer a guided tour. Think, for example, of an area in the mountains which is snow-free only during a very short period of the year - often there exist no hideouts which can be found in reasonable time during Winter time. Since waymarks and caches can coexist, I cannot understand why the argument was always brought up that virtual caches and physical caches cannot coexist at the same location or a location close-by.

Instead of building up Waymarking, it would have sufficed to shift virtual caches to their own area and exclude them from being counted in the number of found (physical) caches and to change the review process to something which is currently used in Waymarking.

 

BTW: I do not agree with Ambrosia at all. From my personal point of view, Waymarking added nothing at all of interest to me while the restriction in virtual caches (already at the time when they still existed in theory)

took a lot away.

 

 

Cezanne

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...