Bring Back Virtuals To The Cities

[+outdoorsaddix]

I personally love virtuals, living in the great city of Toronto, ON, CAN I love wandering arround downtown finding these, traditional caches take hours to find due to the amazing amount of people allways arround. I have almost exausted Toronto's virtuals and I want more. Waymarking just isnt as good its simply not the same you probably know what I mean. I think that virtuals should be brought back to the cores of big cities at the very least. Who agrees with me?

Edited December 23, 2006 by photonut13

[+unicyclist]

The virtuals are still there no matter what site there on.

[+Greenback]

yep the vituals are still there somewhere, if you want to fuss with another site. But then if you're going to play around with another site why not make it a site which competes with Jeremy so he doesn't have a monopoly? Personally, I just don't have time for a second site no matter what it is. So, I'm all for bringing back new virtuals.

[+ePeterso2]

I don't know how the mods of this forum feel, but in other forums in which I participate starting a thread with a petition or an "open letter to the admins" is one of the best ways to get your thread locked and ignored.

 

It seems to me that the admins have already addressed the issue of virtual caches and, whether you agree or not, waymarks are the answer.

 

I just did a search for waymarks in Toronto, and there are a bunch of interesting ones listed! A lot more than where I live.

Edited December 23, 2006 by ePeterso2

[+hikergps]

IBTL.

[+Juicepig]

I live near Toronto, and still can't figure out one of the virtuals

[+Mudfrog]

I got to liking virtuals less and less since the majority of the ones we found were boring and uninspiring, my opinion of course. The ALR of them was my pet peeve and i got to where that even if i stopped to take a look at one, i wouldn't send the verifying email. So it really didn't bother me a bit when new virtual listings were done away with. But to be honest, i know there are alot of people out there who like em so i wouldn't care if the listings were reinstated. Afterall, i do have the ability to ignore and filter them out.

[+Mopar]

I don't know how the mods of this forum feel, but in other forums in which I participate starting a thread with a petition or an "open letter to the admins" is one of the best ways to get your thread locked and ignored.

Especially since the petition website is really just a way to push a load of advertising.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Mopar

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

 

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

 

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

 

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

 

The figurative reference to tilting at windmills came a little later. John Cleveland published 'The character of a London diurnall' in 1644 (a diurnall was, as you might expect, part-way between a diary or journal):

 

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

 

It isn't until as late as 1937 though that the actual phrase is recorded in print. That's in Agatha Christie's Death on Nile:

 

"Rather eccentric - inclined to tilt at windmills."

[+The Leprechauns]

Total number of active virtual caches in the entire Province of Ontario: 56

Total number of virtual caches published in Ontario for all of 2004-2005: 3

Odds of having a virtual cache published in Ontario, 2001-2005: 25%

 

Total number of active waymarks listed in the past 16 months within 50 miles of Toronto: 509

Odds of having a submitted waymark listed in the Province of Ontario: 90%+

 

I think the train has left the station. Now that we have the right train to ride on, it is a fun trip.

[+Quest Master]

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

 

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

 

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

 

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

 

The figurative reference to tilting at windmills came a little later. John Cleveland published 'The character of a London diurnall' in 1644 (a diurnall was, as you might expect, part-way between a diary or journal):

 

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

 

It isn't until as late as 1937 though that the actual phrase is recorded in print. That's in Agatha Christie's Death on Nile:

 

"Rather eccentric - inclined to tilt at windmills."

 

You must be talking about this "cache". It's a prime example of why we no longer have virtuals. The majority of "finds" are accomplished while speeding down the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

[+outdoorsaddix]

Im taking about downtown cores only, not caches that can be done by a drive by, but rather making virtuals avaliable only to downtown cores were they can be appreaciated and actually have some effort put into them

Edited December 23, 2006 by photonut13

[+The Leprechauns]

Ahhh, so only allow the "good" virtuals that can be appreciated, and require some effort. You could maybe call it the "wow" test. Thanks for clarifying.

 

How many kilometers from the center of downtown do you get before you are outside of the "core?" You would need a clear rule for reviewers to follow. "I'm sorry, but your proposed virtual cache is 57 feet beyond the 5km boundary of the downtown core of Toronto. Therefore, it cannot be appreciated. I am archiving your cache."

 

How big does a downtown need to be in order to qualify? Toronto? St. Catherines? Moose Jaw? You will need a clear rule for reviewers to follow. "I'm sorry, but your proposed virtual cache in downtown [name of town] does not qualify because the population of this area is less than 200,000 people. Therefore, it cannot be appreciated. I am archiving your cache."

[+Sagefox]

I think that virtuals should be brought back to the cores of big cities at the very least. Who agrees with me?

 

I liked virtuals. We placed 15 of them and found about 140. I liked locationless caches, as well.

 

But I do not agree with you on this. They have been put to rest on this site and we should not disturb their sleep.

[+The Leprechauns]

Waymarking just isnt as good its simply not the same you probably know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean.

 

I can think of three reasons why virtual caches might be considered superior to waymarks.

 

1. Better integration with pocket queries, etc.: Valid point, but this is a promised feature enhancement. I can still visit the waymarks in an area, but I have to download a bunch of .LOC files, 20 at a time, the old fashioned way.

 

2. "Surprise" factor: With virtuals, you *sometimes* didn't know what you would see when you arrived at the location, and you would then say "wow, I had no idea that was here." Yes, this is a cool feeling when it happens. But it describes a distinct minority of all virtual caches -- in my case, maybe 20 out of the 125 I've visited. The rest were historic markers, covered bridges, statues, etc. where it was pretty clear what you'd be visiting, or they were some mundane object that didn't make me say "wow." I prefer knowing where I'm spending my time traveling to for a visit, and focusing my travels on the items I'm interested in. And for those who miss the surprise factor, there's a "Wow Waymarking" category for that. The small number of qualifying "wow" objects in that category tells me something.

 

3. You get a smiley for finding a "cache."

[+ePeterso2]

I've reported two waymarks so far, and I must say that there's a lot to like about the interface. I bet the OP would appreciate it, too. After using it for a bit, many aspects of the GC interface seemed "lame". ;-)

[+ThePropers]

I'd throw my vote in for archiving all virtuals and webcams if it would stop people constantly asking for them to come back.

 

Wait, what was this topic about again?

Edited December 23, 2006 by ThePropers

[+ePeterso2]

Well, it worked for Earthcaches, didn't it? ;-)

[+Renegade Knight]

Waymarking just isnt as good its simply not the same you probably know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean.

 

I can think of three reasons why virtual caches might be considered superior to waymarks.

 

1. Better integration with pocket queries, etc.: Valid point, but this is a promised feature enhancement. I can still visit the waymarks in an area, but I have to download a bunch of .LOC files, 20 at a time, the old fashioned way.

 

2. "Surprise" factor: With virtuals, you *sometimes* didn't know what you would see when you arrived at the location, and you would then say "wow, I had no idea that was here." Yes, this is a cool feeling when it happens. But it describes a distinct minority of all virtual caches -- in my case, maybe 20 out of the 125 I've visited. The rest were historic markers, covered bridges, statues, etc. where it was pretty clear what you'd be visiting, or they were some mundane object that didn't make me say "wow." I prefer knowing where I'm spending my time traveling to for a visit, and focusing my travels on the items I'm interested in. And for those who miss the surprise factor, there's a "Wow Waymarking" category for that. The small number of qualifying "wow" objects in that category tells me something.

 

3. You get a smiley for finding a "cache."

 

You forgot the one that really matters.

[+mgbmusic]

The virtuals are still there no matter what site there on.

 

Right, but if the other sites suck badly (read:Waymarking.com) then we're left with junk...

 

--MGb

[+worldtraveler]

I like virtuals, and I would like to see new ones listed as geocaches, not waymarks. I wouldn't restrict them to downtown areas, because there are many other places where physical caches just don't make sense or are simply not permitted. I would be in favor of some form of peer review process in order to prevent a repeat of the excesses that caused the approvals to cease.

[+ChileHead]

Blech. Good riddance. Of the 33 I have done, only a small few were worthwhile. The others were for smilies.

[+ePeterso2]

I like virtuals, and I would like to see new ones listed as geocaches, not waymarks. I wouldn't restrict them to downtown areas, because there are many other places where physical caches just don't make sense or are simply not permitted. I would be in favor of some form of peer review process in order to prevent a repeat of the excesses that caused the approvals to cease.

You just described the Waymarking process.

 

-eP

[Mr.Yuck]

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

 

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

 

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

 

"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."

 

The figurative reference to tilting at windmills came a little later. John Cleveland published 'The character of a London diurnall' in 1644 (a diurnall was, as you might expect, part-way between a diary or journal):

 

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

 

It isn't until as late as 1937 though that the actual phrase is recorded in print. That's in Agatha Christie's Death on Nile:

 

"Rather eccentric - inclined to tilt at windmills."

 

You must be talking about this "cache". It's a prime example of why we no longer have virtuals. The majority of "finds" are accomplished while speeding down the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

 

Whoa! A speed-by (as opposed to drive-by) cache. That's the poster child for the moratorium on VC's. And it looks like the same guy has a another "speed-by" on U.S. 41 in Wisconsin. On the other hand, I've done a few virts that didn't even require exiting the vehicle. And a couple of them were quite good, in my opinion.

Edited December 24, 2006 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

And a couple of them were quite good, in my opinion...

Yup, call them a 'virtual' or a 'waymark' or 'an interesting place I want you to see' it's the experience that counts.

 

I did a couple of virtuals this month, one a historical monument at a battlefield I never knew had taken place, one a nearby Indian burial mound.

 

Zero WOW factor, yet both taught me something interesting.

 

The thing is, I do my caching from PQs, so until Waymarks start showing up in PQs they are of no use to me!

 

Ed

[FlagFinder]

ya i think they should be brought back but slightly changed as like start a rule where you can only make 1 more virtual per user so there isnt an overflow of meaning less virtuals.

[+Tharagleb]

Waymarking just isnt as good its simply not the same you probably know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean.

 

I can think of three reasons why virtual caches might be considered superior to waymarks.

 

1. Better integration with pocket queries, etc.: Valid point, but this is a promised feature enhancement. I can still visit the waymarks in an area, but I have to download a bunch of .LOC files, 20 at a time, the old fashioned way.

 

2. "Surprise" factor: With virtuals, you *sometimes* didn't know what you would see when you arrived at the location, and you would then say "wow, I had no idea that was here." Yes, this is a cool feeling when it happens. But it describes a distinct minority of all virtual caches -- in my case, maybe 20 out of the 125 I've visited. The rest were historic markers, covered bridges, statues, etc. where it was pretty clear what you'd be visiting, or they were some mundane object that didn't make me say "wow." I prefer knowing where I'm spending my time traveling to for a visit, and focusing my travels on the items I'm interested in. And for those who miss the surprise factor, there's a "Wow Waymarking" category for that. The small number of qualifying "wow" objects in that category tells me something.

 

3. You get a smiley for finding a "cache."

 

You forgot the one that really matters.

 

 

I give up, to what are you referring?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

ya i think they should be brought back but slightly changed as like start a rule where you can only make 1 more virtual per user so there isnt an overflow of meaning less virtuals.

 

Ah but there's the rub!

 

What's a meaningless virtual?

 

WOW factor didn't work.

 

I enjoyed the Civil War virtual I found a few weeks ago, but it's a small stone monument along a cow pasture fence on the side of a rural Mississippi backroad! If you don't want to learn a historical fact it's of zero value! Even worse, the monument isn't at the battle site, as the road doesn't go there!

 

A virt that says "something without much consequence happened somewhere over there a long time ago".

 

Is that meaningless? Not to me, to a lot of folk yes!

 

Just like any other cache, or waymark, value is entirely subjective!

 

And what's with the 1-per-cacher bit... should you be allowed only 1 micro or 1 ammo can?

 

Ed

Edited December 24, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+StarBrand]

geocache=physical container hidden nsomewhere

 

virtual=somewhere=waymark

 

Good thing they created a site so people can enjoy that sort of thing.....

[+Harry Dolphin]

For the sake of argument, we will look at the 54 Virtual Caches that I have found. 25 were in either New York City or Washington, D.C. (Okay, I'll throw in the one in Newark, New Jersey. Newark has over 200,000 people.) Four qualified as "WOW". One each Washington and New York, one in New Jersey and one in New Hampshire. There were ten that I considered interesting enough to recommend them to others: two in Washington, four in New York, one in Rhode Island, three in New Jersey. The other forty ranged from 'Why did you bother bringing me here?' to 'You've gotta be kidding! You found something even remotely interesting about this place?" I do not find this to be a very good ratio. This doesn't mean that I'll stop looking for Virtuals. I'll search for almost anything! What it means to me is TPTB let the situation get out of control. Then, rather than trying to solve the problem, they threw out the baby with the bath water. Oh, well. I don't run this place.

A comparison was made to Earth Caches. Two of the four that I've done were archived by EarthCaching, as not fitting the new guidelines. (One of which was archived after having been approved under the new EarthCaching guidelines. Go figure.) Frankly, neither of the two were that interesting. I did one of the new ones published by EarthCaching. I suppose that if I had a doctorate in geology, it might have made some sense to me. My bachellor's degree is in a different natural science. The scenery was beautiful, but I could not make any sense of what they were trying to teach me. Measuring the height of a cliff using altitude differences on a hand-held GPS? GPS readings are notoriously bad near cliffs to start with. Throw in the 30' inaccuracy of a hand-held GPS, and my answer was two hundred feet off. (I knew what the answer was.)

Of the two, I'd vote for bring back the Virtual Caches over these avanced geology lessons.

[+JDandDD]

I do both geocaching and Waymarking and I will put in a vote for some limited return of virtuals, more limited than the OP.

 

The most obvious need for virtuals is so there can be caches in places that specifically don't allow real caches. Here I'm thinking of places like theme parks and National and Provincial (maybe state) parks. These areas will allow virtual caches but not real caches for a number of reasons. Allowing virtuals in these sorts of limited spots would let geocachers experience these areas and see these spots.

 

So, I would propose virtuals in areas that do not allow real caches. As with earthcaches, this would allow for more exposure to the interesting sites that you'd like to show people than Waymarking gives. For example, my waymarks in Walt Disney World are visited but not nearly the rates of visits that the former real caches used to get.

 

There is a place, albeit limited, for virtuals.

 

JD

[+OXCACHER]

I just went over to the Waymarking site to kick the tires some and see what it is all about. My intentions were to see what they have done with our virtuals and maybe give it a whirl. NOT!

 

I am now a strong supporter of bringing the Virtuals back to geocaching.

 

A search with my home coords on Waymarking enables me to count 4 Subways, 3 Burgerkings, a watertower on the highway, and a couple of post offices as a waymark.

 

Yeah now there is an exciting day of adventure...

 

Come on gang, we are going to go look at some fast food restaurants! I'm excited!

[+sbell111]

I just went over to the Waymarking site to kick the tires some and see what it is all about. My intentions were to see what they have done with our virtuals and maybe give it a whirl. NOT!

 

I am now a strong supporter of bringing the Virtuals back to geocaching.

 

A search with my home coords on Waymarking enables me to count 4 Subways, 3 Burgerkings, a watertower on the highway, and a couple of post offices as a waymark.

 

Yeah now there is an exciting day of adventure...

 

Come on gang, we are going to go look at some fast food restaurants! I'm excited!

Did you look to see if there were categories that you were interested in supporting?

[+The Leprechauns]

Gosh, I guess there is a "super ignore" feature that I inadvertently activated on the Waymarking site. That's because I couldn't find a category for Burger King.

 

And, therein lies one of the hidden secrets about how the Waymarking site is a superior solution. Don't like a category, such as Subway or Water Towers or Post Offices? Add the entire category to your ignore list, and you never see it again. Since I like eating at Subway, I would appreciate knowing where the nearest one is located, and a review from a fellow waymarker, when I'm traveling out of town. So I wouldn't ignore that. I've put other categories on my ignore list because I have no interest in them.

 

At the same time, I have a "favorites" list full of categories like fountains, ginormous everyday objects and odd-shaped buildings. I have the capability to search and download only those waymarks on my favorites list.

 

TalesFromTheSurface, what sort of categories would be on YOUR favorites list? I would be happy to help you find them in the Waymarking directory. And if there are no waymarks in those categories near your home, then you can be the person to write them up as the waymark founder.

 

I am busy marking waymarks in the categories that interest me, and ignoring everything that isn't of interest. And I am having fun.

[+tozainamboku]

I just went over to the Waymarking site to kick the tires some and see what it is all about. My intentions were to see what they have done with our virtuals and maybe give it a whirl. NOT!

 

I am now a strong supporter of bringing the Virtuals back to geocaching.

 

A search with my home coords on Waymarking enables me to count 4 Subways, 3 Burgerkings, a watertower on the highway, and a couple of post offices as a waymark.

 

Yeah now there is an exciting day of adventure...

 

Come on gang, we are going to go look at some fast food restaurants! I'm excited!

 

Waymarking is new, so there may not be many waymarks were you are. And it's true that it is easier to create a waymark in categories like fast food restaurants and historical markers than finding a grave of a Medal of Honor winner or a view that Ansel Adams once captured in a photograph. Look for categories that you find interesting. If there are no waymarks nearby in these categories to visit, try to find ones and create waymarks there. Waymarking has some well kept secrets too, that may be more to your liking.

[+carleenp]

I just went over to the Waymarking site to kick the tires some and see what it is all about. My intentions were to see what they have done with our virtuals and maybe give it a whirl. NOT!

 

I am now a strong supporter of bringing the Virtuals back to geocaching.

 

A search with my home coords on Waymarking enables me to count 4 Subways, 3 Burgerkings, a watertower on the highway, and a couple of post offices as a waymark.

 

Yeah now there is an exciting day of adventure...

 

Come on gang, we are going to go look at some fast food restaurants! I'm excited!

 

When I search for waymarks near one of your caches, I get more historical markers and memorials than other items.

 

Also, I'm pretty confident that no matter how loudly a few people complain, that virtuals are not coming back. So I suggest that instead of complaining about a lack of content on Waymarking, that the better course would be to do something positve, such as adding to the content there.

Edited December 28, 2006 by carleenp

[+gpsblake]

Here's an example of virtual caches being out of control.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...9&lon=-82.4

[+Ambrosia]

Here's an example of virtual caches being out of control.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...9&lon=-82.4

I clicked on your link, and was expecting to see this.

[+OXCACHER]

Nope I don't live in Columbia and there is 1 historical marker on my list. The rest are either Fast Food Restaurants, post offices, Fire Departments, and just junk.

 

The Virtuals in Greenville area are faily entertaining or educational, now I realize you can't get a hamburger at a cache like this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...75-8ab51d7b9f2e, or a milkshake at a cache like this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ef-ac4a8da61c94, but hey when I am hungry I'll know where to go.

 

I really don't want to "Improve" Waymarking. I hope it goes away. It hasn't attracted a lot of interest.

 

 

Hi welcome to Waymarking...do you want fries with that?

Edited December 28, 2006 by TalesFromTheSurface

[+OXCACHER]

Here's an example of virtual caches being out of control.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...9&lon=-82.4

 

I asked some experienced cachers about this. When these caches were placed there was a serial muggler picking up new caches so, the group hid some virtuals that he couldn't get. Still what you call out of control is better than than the fast food run I can enjoy on Waymarking.

 

HOLD THE PRESS!

 

This just in... you can look for manhole covers or composting toilets on Waymarking! Woo Hoo!

 

Hi welcome to Waymarking...doyou want fries with that?

Edited December 28, 2006 by TalesFromTheSurface

[+OXCACHER]

Ok I did find some interesting Waymarks from GPSBlake.

 

But a majority are still passing out ketchup...

[+Markwell]

<geezer voice>

 

Back in the day....

 

When virtuals first came out, there was someone that was putting a virtual cache at each of their favorite coffee houses. I kid you not.

 

Caches like this were discussed in the earliest forums with threads like this.

</geezer voice>

 

How about that quote from Jeremy:

There's been new virtual caches lately which are more like interesting waypoints than true geocaches. It's sort of what Groundspeak is - sharing interesting places. Once I get Groundspeak running I'll transfer "caches" like this one into their own categories.

 

More than that, he transferred them to a sister website owned by Groundspeak.

 

More from Jeremy in that thread:

Yes. It seems that geocaching is becoming a commercialized pastime. Soon you'll do a search on geocaching.com and see all the local pizza huts and taco bells in your area, and you can log each one after you purchase a nacho belgrande and personal pan pizza from each one of them. Of course you'll need your geocaching.com discount card found at any participating McDonalds.

 

Come on people... It's pretty rediculous to think that this is the way the sport is going. Obviously I wouldn't want this sort of thing to happen.

 

Before this goes too overboard, I just wanted to see how this thread was going. My personal opinion is that many different ideas should be explored. Is a really good coffee shop considered a virtual cache? What is a virtual cache anyway? Should it have some kind of criteria to be considered a virtual cache?

 

Interesting stuff.

 

But to the point, virtuals - even in their early days - pushed the limits of commercialism and what was good and bad. People didn't like the "WOW" aspect of virtuals for approval because it was too subjective. Jeremy saw to it that there was a way to submit virtuals and locationless caches WITHOUT the WOW factor necessity.

 

So - we're back to what it was in 2001. Coffee Houses and French Fries. BUT THERE'S ALSO COOL LOCATIONS ON THAT SITE. And they're separate.

 

Based on the previous posts linked by Quiggle, virts ain't coming back.

 

=========================

 

For those that chuckle about some of these things, I also loved the post by Guppy a little down the page, where s/he said "What's next, a Wal*Mart cache?"

Edited December 28, 2006 by Markwell

[+OXCACHER]

That's funny because I adopted a Wal-Mart cache and I don't even like it. As a matter of fact I may archive it for my New Years resolution.

 

Was there an attempt at placing guidelines on Virtuals? Like historical places, Natural landmarks, etc...

 

It appears there has been a great deal of thought put into the guidelines for placing a physical cache, why were the virtuals cast aside? A business decision maybe? A way to create a new avenue of .... profit?

 

I get the commercial issue, I think this was one of the contributing factors to the micro revolution. Instead of a virtual at the Taco Bell now we have a 35mm and still lost the good Virtuals.

 

Long live the 35mm!

[+Markwell]

Was there an attempt at placing guidelines on Virtuals? Like historical places, Natural landmarks, etc...

 

Yep - that was the "wow factor" mentioned above. I looked on the "Internet Archive" (archive.org) and found these guidelines from Dec 2003...

 

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

 

1. A virtual cache must be a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) generally do not qualify as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the Geocaching.com web site. (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle might be acceptable, but contact your local approver first before posting it as a virtual cache to work out the details.) If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should "WOW" the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

3. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

 

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

That item 2 was an attempt to increase the minimum standard for virtuals. What it did was cause a lot of angst and TONS of threads whining about "My virtual wasn't published" blah, blah, blah. So, Jeremy created another site for people to post waypoints willy-nilly. And what you get is McDonalds and Burger King.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Markwell

[+OXCACHER]

Awesome, me and the Burger King can go on a ride through town, collect all the waymarks that have NEVER been visited as we pass the drive- thrus and rule Waymarking!

 

I'll have a Number 7...no regular please, I have to eat 37 more of these tonight.

 

I think I will pass...

 

I actually pay to access this stuff, I am insane.

Yet another New Years resolution, don't renew the Premium Membership.

[+The Leprechauns]

Total number of active virtual caches in Pennsylvania, which made it past the "Wow" test, of all types, and published between 2001 and 2005: 112.

 

Total number of active waymarks in just the Pennsylvania Historical Marker category alone, and created during the past 16 months: 916.

 

I much prefer saying "yes" to a historical marker waymark than saying "no" to a historical marker virtual cache. The train's left the station. At least in Pennsylvania, Waymarking has left virtual caches in the dust.

 

Historical markers were among the most commonly submitted virtual cache targets. Somebody must have liked 'em. Now they're the most common Waymarking target. Worldwide, there are 6667 historical marker waymarks. That's five for every restaurant listing. So filter out the restaurants and go find something that you enjoy seeing.

[+tozainamboku]

Here's an example of virtual caches being out of control.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...9&lon=-82.4

I clicked on your link, and was expecting to see this.

 

And how is this any different from Waymarking?

 

The fact that you could make any statue, historic plaque, or your favorite hamburger joint a virtual cache is part of the problem. In the early days there was a flood of virtual caches because virtual caches were a cheap and easy way to hide a cache. No container to buy, nothing to hide, and low maintenance - unless the muggles kept stealing that street sign. So the requirements were tightened. The subjective "Wow" factor was added and in addition to checking for Wow, reviewers would often question why a physical cache couldn't be placed there. For a lot of urban virtuals - why didn't people make an offset. Get some information from the virtual to compute the coordinates of a physical container hidden elsewhere.

 

I find it odd that one of the biggest objections that people have to Waymarking is that there are a few categories associated with commercial locations. In some areas it seems that a few active waymarkers have decided to list all the McDonalds and Starbucks - so these may show up more frequently in searches for all nearby waymarks. You have to learn to use the ignore feature to find waymarks in categories you do find interesting. Waymarking is not just a substitute for locationless and virtual caches. It is a new way to share geographic information (latitude and longitude) about thing you and others find interesting. Some may turn it iinto a game to find waymarks in every category. Others will use it selectively.

 

One difference I found between waymarks and virtual caches was that Waymarking didn't have a way to replicate the virtual caches that seemed to me to be true caches. These are the virtuals where you had to find something. You go to the location not knowing exactly what it is you will find and you may need to search around for awhile to find it. So I started a Waymarking group to explore what could be done about this. We finally came up with the Best Kept Secrets category. These are places that are not well known even to locals but have something interesting about it. In the description of a Best Kept Secret, the waymark founder is encouraged not to tell the waymark visitor what he will find at the location. The waymark visitor must answer one or more verification questions like a virtual cache. It is my hope that this category, and others like it, can replicate the experience of a good virtual cache.

[+OXCACHER]

So I had dinner with six other cachers this evening and I gained a new perspective on this subject.

Without mentioning the details in this thread, Waymarking was slid into the conversation.

It appears the public perception on this topic is more like Markwell's post. The virtual caches were getting out of hand and restrictions on what qualified as a virtual cache with respect to the "wow" factor became more of a hassle for reviewers and endless debates followed with what qualified as a virtual and what didn't.

Most of the opinion at the table was Waymarking was a way to remove "silly" or "commercial" caches from geocaching and protect the integrity of the game.

 

I don't agree, but I was only one against six.

 

You must be correct and I guess I should thank Waymarking for taking out the trash.

Edited December 29, 2006 by TalesFromTheSurface

[+JDandDD]

TalesFromtheSurface, I notice you've just been mugged by the Waymarking patrol. Been there myself. I do Waymarking and will say a couple of things:

 

The posse's argument that Waymarking is new is old. In fact, Waymarking is about 18 months on and still really hasn't gotten off the ground. I find myself in the same situation as yourself, nothing in my area.

 

The second argument that there are a 'few' commercial waymarks is a bit specious. Its not that there are a few commercial waymarks its the fact that anything can be called a waymark. For example, there is a International Space Station siting category (how's that a waymark). Then there is Starbuck's, Tim Horton's, McDonald's. In other words, its pretty hard for any idea, no matter how flaky to get turned down.

 

My enthusiasm for Waymarking goes up and down. Sometimes up but then I go through a period of being asked to vote for or against categories that simply cheapen the game and my enthusiasm goes away.

 

The big problem with Waymarking, there are no quality controls in practice (supposed to be in theory) for category creation. If locationaless and virtuals got out of control, so has Waymarking because it can't be defined any better than they were. That lack of definition and associated quality control will keep the game from really getting credibility. And it has been 18months.

 

I will maintain my position, which is, Waymarking does have its place and it keeps the nonsense out of geocaching. At the same time, a very limited type of virtual COULD be defined in terms of areas that specifically do not allow real caches and I maintain more people would be interested in them than waymarks.

 

Ok waymarkers, flame away but I'm out of this discussion.

 

JD

Edited December 29, 2006 by JDandDD

[+Ambrosia]

How are waymarkers mugging or flaming? We love Waymarking, or at least see it as a viable site. Each time this subject comes up, we discuss it from our point of view. Are we supposed to not post in these threads? How are we posting in a way that is upsetting you enough that you would say things like that? There's a lot of rudeness in these forums over time. I have not been seeing it from people who like Waymarking.