Posting a Virtual cache

[+chrisjan]

How do I post a Virtual cache? I don't see Virtual as a category in the listing page.

[+ZSandmann]

Virtual caches are grandfathered in and no new ones can be posted on geocaching.com However, you can create a virtual cache over at http://www.Waymarking.com Hope this helps answer your question.

 

Z

[+chrisjan]

Virtual caches are grandfathered in and no new ones can be posted on geocaching.com However, you can create a virtual cache over at http://www.Waymarking.com Hope this helps answer your question.

 

Z

Thank you. That does help.

[+Renegade Knight]

How do I post a Virtual cache? I don't see Virtual as a category in the listing page.

 

You can't. They are no longer allowed on geocaching.com. On Waymarking you have a fairly close approximation of a locationless that you can post or find, but after that there is nothing that is the same as a virtual.

 

As close as it gets is that you post a catagory...but that's posting a locationless..you could find a item that fits the catagory and post that but unless that's what you are looking to post as your virtual it's not the same. If by chance your virtual did fit someones catagory and you did post it you may have something close to what a virutal was...but without any of the adventure number of the visits again missing the mark.

 

There is no virtual here or there that I can see anymore. (If my perception of Waymarking's lay out is off...please fix the error)

Edited December 13, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+briansnat]

You can't. They are no longer allowed on geocaching.com. On Waymarking you have a fairly close approximation of a locationless that you can post or find, but after that there is nothing that is the same as a virtual.

 

Then what are all those objects and locations that have coordinates that you can plug into your GPS and let it lead you there??

[+tozainamboku]

You can't. They are no longer allowed on geocaching.com. On Waymarking you have a fairly close approximation of a locationless that you can post or find, but after that there is nothing that is the same as a virtual.

 

Then what are all those objects and locations that have coordinates that you can plug into your GPS and let it lead you there??

 

RK is right that Waymarking doesn't provide the adventure and surprise to the finder that a virtual does. Most of the time you have some idea of what your are looking for based on the category. Most Waymarking categories require a picture of the waymark when it is listed so you know exactly what you are looking for. But Waymarking does provide some flexibility. The Best Kept Secrets category is for things that are not well know but still interesting enough to make a visit for the general public worthwhile. It encourages the waymark poster to not give away what the visitor will find so that the visitor can be surprised when they visit.

[+wizofozgal22]

i'm a geocache novice. can anyone tell me why virtuals are no longer allowed? just curious. i hadn't realized they were, and had two great ones picked out.

 

thanks

 

wiz

Edited December 16, 2006 by wizofozgal22

[+Outspoken1]

These comments are not to start another Geocache versus Waymark War (please!!)

 

I had the same question when I started geocaching in late August '06. There is concern by many Geocachers that Virtuals were not geocaching since there was no cache (hence puzzle to solve with a find). As most Geocachers quickly learn, the GPSr will put you in the vicinity with great ease--then the challenge is finding the hidden cache. With a Virtual, there really is not much challenge since the GPSr was so accurate. BUT... Waymarking (as Virtual Geocaching has been moved to--previous Virtuals were grandfathered in, but no more are allowed) is concerned with getting people to locations that relate to learning about a historic event or seeing an unusual or great sight.

 

So, the organizers of Geocaching.com graciously setup Waymarking.com for Virtuals. There are many categories on Waymarking.com that allow GPS owners to visit interesting places throughout the world. Each category on Waymarking.com is run by volunteers interested in that category. A new category much be proposed by someone who is a Geocaching.com Premium Member (who will become the Group Leader), submitted on Waymarking forums to get additional members (at least 3) to make the group eligible to manage the new category, develop the criteria for the new category, elevate members to officers and agree on category criteria, submit the new category for a yea or nay vote, then receive final approval (if yeas win) from Waymarking.com. Then Waymarks may be submitted to the new category. You may also submit Waymarks to existing categories. All Waymarks submitted must meet that Waymark's criteria and be approved by the category's Officers. Previously approved Waymarks have a .LOC file to download into your GPS to go visit the Waymark.

 

I just went through the above Waymarking process for my Waymark Group - Historical Markers - Colorado Historical Markers http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...b90aa&gid=6.

 

I don't mean to make the Waymarking process sound daunting. It is quite similar to the process for submitting and receiving approval for a new Geocache. I personally enjoy both Geocaching and Waymarking and am very grateful for the Waymark site. Visit, enjoy and don't be afraid to participate!

 

Take care,

Outspoken1

[+budd-rdc]

i'm a geocache novice. can anyone tell me why virtuals are no longer allowed? just curious. i hadn't realized they were, and had two great ones picked out.

 

thanks

 

wiz

The short answer (and merely my opinion) is that administering virtual caches on GC.com caused problems, mostly political. The reviewers took a lot of heat for rejecting the listings. Hiders lacked the discipline to impose "quality control" so many finders complained they were becoming "lame."

 

Many of the virtuals in my area are wonderful. It's likely many more were rejected without my knowledge. I don't blame people for wanting to recreate the wonderfulness by hiding one of their own. Unfortunately, that's no longer possible in Geocaching.com.

 

You can still share the locations you find by using Waymarking, but as tozainamboku has said, it's more difficult to recreate the element of surprise there.

[+welch]

i'm a geocache novice. can anyone tell me why virtuals are no longer allowed? just curious. i hadn't realized they were, and had two great ones picked out.

 

thanks

 

wiz

Thats one of those things that could probably get you a little different answer from every person you ask.

 

There are many threads about virtuals, why they were banned, what lead up to that, why they should be brought back/why they never will, etc etc heres one.

If you want to read more, click the linkin the upper right that says 'search', and put in Virtual and run a search. It shouldn't be too hard to find more theards (though some stuff about fake geocoin finds will probably be mixed in).

[+briansnat]

RK is right that Waymarking doesn't provide the adventure and surprise to the finder that a virtual does. Most of the time you have some idea of what your are looking for based on the category.

 

So its not that different from virtuals then, because most of my virtual finds I also knew what the object I was looking for was before I set out. Many virtual pages are quite specific about what is at the coordinates.

 

i'm a geocache novice. can anyone tell me why virtuals are no longer allowed? just curious. i hadn't realized they were, and had two great ones picked out.

 

There were several reasons. First off, people were getting out of hand and submitting every roadside marker, no matter how mundane, along with things like flag poles, fence posts, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods (tell the cache owner the brand to log a find) and even a rotting animal carcass (no joke).

 

Second, they are not geocaches and the owners of this website wanted to get back to the basics of finding geocaches.

 

Finally, when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches on their lands, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered traditional geocaching in some areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could center around real caches and how they could be allowed.

[+Renegade Knight]

You can't. They are no longer allowed on geocaching.com. On Waymarking you have a fairly close approximation of a locationless that you can post or find, but after that there is nothing that is the same as a virtual.

 

Then what are all those objects and locations that have coordinates that you can plug into your GPS and let it lead you there??

They are a point of interest that we can visit and write a quick log about. One notch above waypoint.org, one notch below geocaching.com and two notches better than the POI's already in our GPS.

 

Virtual caches do not exist on Waymarking. Locationless & Webcames do exist in a fairly close approximation to the orginal challenge, though the problem is still the same. One person can find them, then you are done.

[+Renegade Knight]

RK is right that Waymarking doesn't provide the adventure and surprise to the finder that a virtual does. Most of the time you have some idea of what your are looking for based on the category.

 

So its not that different from virtuals then, because most of my virtual finds I also knew what the object I was looking for was before I set out. Many virtual pages are quite specific about what is at the coordinates.

...

 

What a virtual cache has that a waypoint of a known object lacks is the suprise find or the challenge of a small quest when you get there. Sometimes both. Another thing that may or may not make much difference is that a cacher wanted you to see this spot. In Waymarking a cacher is essentially completing a different type of quest for a locationless cache which in turn automaticly becomes a point of interest that you can visit. It seems like it looses some magic.

 

My iRiver mp3 player does more than an iPod. Yet I know the iPod interface is better and it's what people like and actually use and buy. The differences can be subtle but they matter.

[+tozainamboku]

RK is right that Waymarking doesn't provide the adventure and surprise to the finder that a virtual does. Most of the time you have some idea of what your are looking for based on the category.

 

So its not that different from virtuals then, because most of my virtual finds I also knew what the object I was looking for was before I set out. Many virtual pages are quite specific about what is at the coordinates.

Most virtual caches required that user find something at the posted coordinates. Often this was just to get some information off a plaque but sometime it involved more keen observation. What you were going to find was never revealed even if you new that you were going to see a statue of George Washington or a ginormous ball of string. Virtual caches also let you make the object you would find a mystery if you wanted. In Waymarking you generally confirm your visit by posting a picture (perhaps with your GPSr in it). Yes, there were many virtual caches that used a photo as confirmation of a find, but I think the better ones had you find something. Only a few Waymarking categories have been setup to provide an experience similar to finding a virtual cache. That doesn't mean that if you are interested in statues of presidents or ginormous objects you can't have fun visiting these Waymarking categories.

i'm a geocache novice. can anyone tell me why virtuals are no longer allowed? just curious. i hadn't realized they were, and had two great ones picked out.

 

There were several reasons. First off, people were getting out of hand and submitting every roadside marker, no matter how mundane, along with things like flag poles, fence posts, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods (tell the cache owner the brand to log a find) and even a rotting animal carcass (no joke).

When virtuals were first proposed the idea was to take you to an interesting place where it was not possible to place a tradtional cache. The problem was that people had different ideas as to what was interesting as well as when it was possible to place a cache. Virtuals like the examples briansnat listed were submitted. That lead to the "Wow" rule that a virtual 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." The volunteer reviewers had the responsiblity of enforcing this rule. This lead to lots of whining on the forums when a virtual was denied and lots of extra work for the volunteers.

Second, they are not geocaches and the owners of this website wanted to get back to the basics of finding geocaches.

Virtuals were meant for where a traditional could not be placed. But even this could be abused. Instead of getting permission to place a cache on private property, a hider could place a virtual and just say he couldn't get permission. Virtuals were seen as a cheap and lazy persons way of hiding a cache. In fact, a micro or small container could often be hidden at or near the site of a virtual. Even if the virtual was located where you couldn't place a container, it could be used as a stage in a multi or offset cache that took you to where the container was hidden. By eliminating new virtuals perhaps TPTB hope that more physical caches could be placed perhaps using the virtual as stage in a multi. Here's an idea - instead of hiding a lame 35mm in a lamp post, why not take me to that neat statue and have me calculate the coordinates of the lamp post using something I would find by that statue. If I get to see that neat statue, the lamp post won't seem as lame

Finally, when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches on their lands, they would often point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered traditional geocaching in some areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could center around real caches and how they could be allowed.

If virtuals had been proposed by land managers as a alternative for physical caches on their property, that may make sense to allow something like geocaching there. But I think briansnat is right and virtuals existed before the ban in the National Parks and by other agencies. They saw the existing virtuals and it was a easy way for them to ban physical caches and still say they allowed geocaching. Personally, I feel that not every area has to have a geocache in it and if land managers cannot be convinced to allow physical caches then we just wont have caches there.

[+Renegade Knight]

....If virtuals had been proposed by land managers as a alternative for physical caches on their property, that may make sense to allow something like geocaching there. But I think briansnat is right and virtuals existed before the ban in the National Parks and by other agencies. They saw the existing virtuals and it was a easy way for them to ban physical caches and still say they allowed geocaching. Personally, I feel that not every area has to have a geocache in it and if land managers cannot be convinced to allow physical caches then we just wont have caches there.

 

The virtuals instead of regular caches argument of some land managers (not in my area but I know someone who knows a mod who knows an approver who has had this problem) is a good reason to keep a check on virtuals, if the problem is more than an isolated thing.

[+wizofozgal22]

thanks for all the information guys!

 

Here's an idea - instead of hiding a lame 35mm in a lamp post, why not take me to that neat statue and have me calculate the coordinates of the lamp post using something I would find by that statue. If I get to see that neat statue, the lamp post won't seem as lame

 

i like this idea, thanks!

[+SDAJumpmaster]

I, personally, am a big fan of virtual caches. I also am not a convert to Waymarking. As has been mentioned, Waymarking isn't as thrilling as Geocaching. Even with a virtual, I feel as though I have accomplished something once it has been found. I miss them.

 

I have a proposal for the Groundspeak gurus:

 

Bring back Virtuals. And keep them in Waymarking. Make them the "crossover" species, if you will; anyone who logs a virtual gains a "find" on both systems (providing he or she has registered thereon). Allow vitual caches to be started on either site and carried over the the other. This might lure some of us to "check out" Waymarking; otherwise, I am just not interested. Entice me!

[+StarBrand]

I, personally, am a big fan of virtual caches. I also am not a convert to Waymarking. As has been mentioned, Waymarking isn't as thrilling as Geocaching. Even with a virtual, I feel as though I have accomplished something once it has been found. I miss them.

 

I have a proposal for the Groundspeak gurus:

 

Bring back Virtuals. And keep them in Waymarking. Make them the "crossover" species, if you will; anyone who logs a virtual gains a "find" on both systems (providing he or she has registered thereon). Allow vitual caches to be started on either site and carried over the the other. This might lure some of us to "check out" Waymarking; otherwise, I am just not interested. Entice me!

The problem with virtuals was always one of how interesting the spot was. There was literally a virtual cache to id the color of a trashed out shoe at one point. So then they tried the "wow" factor for approving virts. Trouble was, nobody could quite pin down what was "wow". So it was sort of declared that a geocache is a physical container. Waymarking is Waymarking and geocaching is geocaching. I try not to confuse the 2.

[saopaulo1@hotmail.com]

I've gotten really into waypointing. Having not many geocaches in Brazil, it's my next best thing. Plus there's so much to share. Yesterday while hiding a few caches, I did a few waypointings.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

I, personally, am a big fan of virtual caches. I also am not a convert to Waymarking. As has been mentioned, Waymarking isn't as thrilling as Geocaching. Even with a virtual, I feel as though I have accomplished something once it has been found. I miss them.

 

I have a proposal for the Groundspeak gurus:

 

Bring back Virtuals. And keep them in Waymarking. Make them the "crossover" species, if you will; anyone who logs a virtual gains a "find" on both systems (providing he or she has registered thereon). Allow vitual caches to be started on either site and carried over the the other. This might lure some of us to "check out" Waymarking; otherwise, I am just not interested. Entice me!

 

But that may be the problem in the minds of TPTB. By allowing them at all as a GC.com find, everyone and their uncle starts trying for "free smileys" and the website gets overwhelmed, plus you'll start seeing the same flooding the admins with ridiculous ideas for virtuals. But I think there is a compromise. Why can't virts just be treated like "benchmarks", they are an icon in your profile, but you don't see them as part of your find count in regular geocaching logs. While there's certainly more benchmark traffic than waymark traffic, it certainly isn't at levels that overwhelm the site for geocaching.

 

In a way it's a shame Waymarking is so unpopular, now that we're finally getting cold and snowy-ish weather in which my wife and kids don't feel like going caching for awhile, I could easily get them to go and do waymarks like we did "locationless" during such weather in Dec. 2005, but I see so little traffic and visits that its not worth it (care very little about smiley counts).