Jump to content

Bring Back Virtuals To The Cities


outdoorsaddix

Recommended Posts

I do see some, and I don't know the correct term, "groups" that look interesting. There are a lot of nonsense waymarks in my area. There is one that I absolutley do not agree with. We had an issue with an SC rep from the lower part of our state draft a bill that would put an end to geocaching. This all started from a geocacher posting an image of himself laying next to a grave with his arms crossed. This was a serious issue that almost came to pass. Luckily there was a group in place to defend geocaching and explain the true nature of the sport to their rep's and this bill died before it got to the house. Details can be found here http://www.noh3777.org/.

 

There is a waymark of a grave in this reps back yard http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/details.aspx?...81.0571&t=5 here are the logging requirements;

 

A respectful photograph of the grave marker, headstone, or general area of the grave, which includes either you or your GPSr. Logs which include photographs representing any form of disrespectful behavior will be subject to deletion.

 

One lapse of judgement on a waymarkers behalf and we will be right back where we started trying to defend geocaching. What happens if one state actually bans geocaching? How will it effect others states? Is Waymarking and the loose guidelines for listing just about anything worth it?

 

At least when they were virtuals there was some integrity.

 

I truly hope Waymarking and its nonsense doesn't cause harm to geocaching.

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

Why is there a need to bring pure virtuals back when you can always do a multi-cache (offset) with virtual legs? Even in urban areas, there's got to be at least one big park in the city, or at least on the outskirts, where the final cache can be hidden. I like Waymarking -- it's gotten a lot easier to use -- but I still don't know quite what to make of it. Seems to me, at this stage, to be more of a tool than a game or hobby (except for creating waymarks -- that's very hobby-ish).

Link to comment

Why is there a need to bring pure virtuals back when you can always do a multi-cache (offset) with virtual legs? Even in urban areas, there's got to be at least one big park in the city, or at least on the outskirts, where the final cache can be hidden. I like Waymarking -- it's gotten a lot easier to use -- but I still don't know quite what to make of it. Seems to me, at this stage, to be more of a tool than a game or hobby (except for creating waymarks -- that's very hobby-ish).

 

That is what we do now. Virtual locations are incorporated into puzzles and multis.

 

Waymarking can cause us serious problems in SC. Please check out my previous post.

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

Why is there a need to bring pure virtuals back when you can always do a multi-cache (offset) with virtual legs? Even in urban areas, there's got to be at least one big park in the city, or at least on the outskirts, where the final cache can be hidden. I like Waymarking -- it's gotten a lot easier to use -- but I still don't know quite what to make of it. Seems to me, at this stage, to be more of a tool than a game or hobby (except for creating waymarks -- that's very hobby-ish).

 

That is what we do now. Virtual locations are incorporated into puzzles and multis.

 

Waymarking can cause us serious problems in SC. Please check out my previous post.

 

I see your previous post. I don't understand (I've been trying to figure it out). Waymarking isn't Geocaching.

Link to comment

Why is there a need to bring pure virtuals back when you can always do a multi-cache (offset) with virtual legs? Even in urban areas, there's got to be at least one big park in the city, or at least on the outskirts, where the final cache can be hidden. I like Waymarking -- it's gotten a lot easier to use -- but I still don't know quite what to make of it. Seems to me, at this stage, to be more of a tool than a game or hobby (except for creating waymarks -- that's very hobby-ish).

 

That is what we do now. Virtual locations are incorporated into puzzles and multis.

 

Waymarking can cause us serious problems in SC. Please check out my previous post.

 

I see your previous post. I don't understand (I've been trying to figure it out). Waymarking isn't Geocaching.

 

The bill as written will ban the use of a GPS for both recreational activities. It will also ban the use of a GPS for the purpose of geneology.

 

One disrespectful image of a gravesite from a waymarker or a geocacher can set this bill back into motion.

The SCreviewer for geocaching is aware of this, you will not find cemetery caches being published in SC.

 

Waymarking IS publishing these types of "finds?" and we are all looked at as the same group.

 

This was a serious issue with cachers at the original state site investing much of their own time and resources to keep from having geocaching ban. If that would have happened then you wouldn't be Waymarking either in SC. ALL GPS recreational activity would have been harmed.

 

This bill does not seperate geocachers and waymarkers. To them we are a group of people who hunt or hunted gravesites with a GPS to post disrespectful images.

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

from the verbage of the bill "...in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker..."

 

it would be against the law for you to even gather information from a gravestone if you were using a GPS.

 

For geocachers it was a matter of not placing cemetery caches.

 

For waymarkers it covers many of your categorys. Cemetery and Historical markers are a no-no in SC.

 

Waymarking needs to prohibit listing anything that will compromise our ability to play both games.

 

If the reps pick up on Waymarking, they will tie it to geocaching.

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

Waymarking.com is exactly what you make of it. The beauty of it, it caters to everyone.

 

I like hunting benchmarks. I've recovered several 100 of them in SC. Frankly, I like hunting them now more than geocaches. There are some BM that are not in geocaching.com database and thus I upload benchmarks there.

 

I like reading roadside historical markers. I've thought about simply opening up my own site dedicated to them. But with Waymarking.com, I can upload the ones I see and photograph. Although I do welcome anyone to go visit them, I really care less if they do or not nor care about my finds/hunts on Waymarking.com

 

Without Waymarking.com and continuing the old system of allowing unlimited virtual geocahes, you would get situatiosn where there are 3 virtual geocaches within 200 feet of each other. Greenville is a lovely town but obviously putting virtuals so close together is only meant to boost numbers. Geocaching.com did the right by putting a throttle on them.

 

I do have ONE adapted virtual geocache I own. It sits on the South Carolina statehouse grounds and is the only one there. Under the old rules, I could have done 30 virtuals there with all the history of that area. I keep that virtual going just to get people to visit the Statehouse grounds.

 

If geocaching.com archived away with all virtuals including mine one, I wouldn't be at all upset. I wouldn't be upset if geocaching.com did away with all the micros at strip malls and Walmarts. I care less about the numbers & would rather see caches in more scenic or rural areas.

Link to comment

How can they ban gps from cemeteries? A lot of phones have them now. Do they ban phones? Who's sitting at the entrance to the cemetery taking your gps and phone while you go in?

 

The bill is outrageous. How they would identify you is beyond me. According to the verbage of the bill you could...

 

Be fined 100 dollars

Spend 30 days in a state hotel

or serve 100 hours of community service

 

This bill is tabled now, but NOBODY needs to be playing a game that involves a GPS and anything to do with a cemetery in SC.

 

You don't need to use a GPS to letterbox, and that group was even tied in with this bill.

Link to comment

from the verbage of the bill "...in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker..."

 

For geocachers it was a matter of not placing cemetery caches.

 

For waymarkers it covers many of your categorys. Cemetery and Historical markers are a no-no in SC.

 

Waymarking needs to prohibit listing anything that will compromise our ability to play both games.

 

If the reps pick up on Waymarking, they will tie it to geocaching.

 

--I still don't view this as a good reason to bring back virtuals. I found some virtuals before the switch and liked them, but I prefer the waymark listings. In my opinion, that's where they best fit and it allows for more variety. They are especially helpful on trips, from libraries to theaters and yes, even fast-food restaurants, often providing more detail/reviews than a local phone book. If you don't like what they list in your area, make them better by creating your own. Follow Lep's advice.

 

--In reference to the SC issue, you can find hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on that subject over a matter of months during the last two years by performing a search of this forum. Most longtime forumites are very aware of it. As I recall, the legislators were also aware of the forum discussion. Personally, I'm not sure that geocaching and Waymarking would be viewed as the same thing even if a waymarker did something stupid, but I realize there's the Groundspeak connection and could be wrong. Perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid it in SC, at least for now. However, I'd also like to hear the view of someone with legal experience and background knowledge of the SC issue like CoyoteRed or another of the SC cachers. Right now, I concur with Ambrosia, they're not banning Waymarking as it's defined.

Link to comment

Waymarking can cause us serious problems in SC. Please check out my previous post.

 

The problem with the cemetery geocaches in SC was that shrubbery was being torn apart looking for micros and photos were published of geocachers sitting on top of tombstones, walking all over gravesites, and such. In one case by a historic church, a cache was placed inside a loose brick, then inside a wall. Obviously, geocachers would have to be pulling on bricks to retrieve the cache. The naming of the geocaches were also disrespectful looking back in hindsight. Several church groups got all upset about these geocaches.

 

I was guilty of going to look for them myself but looking back, I'm ashamed I did.

 

I get a bunch of flack from my fellow SC geocachers over this but Geocaching did the right thing by banning them in SC cemeteries. Had geocaching not done this on their own, I would have supported the bill. But geocaching.com did the right thing by archiving all of them.

 

What HB3777 said was

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3777.htm

"It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property"

 

What's so horribly wrong about getting permission??

 

It mentions nothing about banning the use of a GPS unit on those properties, only the use of a GPS to hunt a geocache.

 

But I do agree with the USCGA leader that you do have to be responsible for Waymarking points of interest in those areas by not disrespecting the area. In Waymarking for South Carolina historical markers, they do not want photos of you or the GPS in them.

Link to comment

Waymarking can cause us serious problems in SC. Please check out my previous post.

 

The problem with the cemetery geocaches in SC was that shrubbery was being torn apart looking for micros and photos were published of geocachers sitting on top of tombstones, walking all over gravesites, and such. In one case by a historic church, a cache was placed inside a loose brick, then inside a wall. Obviously, geocachers would have to be pulling on bricks to retrieve the cache. The naming of the geocaches were also disrespectful looking back in hindsight. Several church groups got all upset about these geocaches.

 

I was guilty of going to look for them myself but looking back, I'm ashamed I did.

 

I get a bunch of flack from my fellow SC geocachers over this but Geocaching did the right thing by banning them in SC cemeteries. Had geocaching not done this on their own, I would have supported the bill. But geocaching.com did the right thing by archiving all of them.

 

What HB3777 said was

http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3777.htm

"It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property"

 

What's so horribly wrong about getting permission??

 

It mentions nothing about banning the use of a GPS unit on those properties, only the use of a GPS to hunt a geocache.

 

But I do agree with the USCGA leader that you do have to be responsible for Waymarking points of interest in those areas by not disrespecting the area. In Waymarking for South Carolina historical markers, they do not want photos of you or the GPS in them.

 

Yep, that's what I remember. Thanks for sharing and providing USCGA info on Waymarking historical markers. Makes good sense.

Link to comment

from the verbage of the bill "...in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker..."

 

For geocachers it was a matter of not placing cemetery caches.

 

For waymarkers it covers many of your categorys. Cemetery and Historical markers are a no-no in SC.

 

Waymarking needs to prohibit listing anything that will compromise our ability to play both games.

 

If the reps pick up on Waymarking, they will tie it to geocaching.

 

--I still don't view this as a good reason to bring back virtuals. I found some virtuals before the switch and liked them, but I prefer the waymark listings. In my opinion, that's where they best fit and it allows for more variety. They are especially helpful on trips, from libraries to theaters and yes, even fast-food restaurants, often providing more detail/reviews than a local phone book. If you don't like what they list in your area, make them better by creating your own. Follow Lep's advice.

 

--In reference to the SC issue, you can find hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on that subject over a matter of months during the last two years by performing a search of this forum. Most longtime forumites are very aware of it. As I recall, the legislators were also aware of the forum discussion. Personally, I'm not sure that geocaching and Waymarking would be viewed as the same thing even if a waymarker did something stupid, but I realize there's the Groundspeak connection and could be wrong. Perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid it in SC, at least for now. However, I'd also like to hear the view of someone with legal experience and background knowledge of the SC issue like CoyoteRed or another of the SC cachers. Right now, I concur with Ambrosia, they're not banning Waymarking as it's defined.

 

CR is a good source of info on this topic.

Do you use a GPS to waymark?

Do you gather information from that location?

 

It would be against the law to even gather information from a plaque using a GPS playing a game.

 

Example:

 

You are holding a GPS and gathering information from a plaque at the battery in Charleston.

 

A police officer questions what you are doing.

 

Hi, I am a waymarker using my GPS and gathering information for a historical find.

 

Do you think he is going to understand the difernce between Waymarking and geocaching?

 

His only concern would be...you have a GPS and you are playing a GPS game for which you would get a fine.

 

That sounds silly, but that is the way the bill is worded.

 

 

From the bill

 

(2) 'Geocaching' means the activity of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device to locate the geocache or another specific location that contains information on the geocache.

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

Just use a gps phone and make a call very quickly. :D

 

Sounds like the best option in a sticky situation.

 

Thanks for the additional info, TalesFromTheSurface, complementing gpsblake's thoughts. Better safe than sorry might be the best answer for SC's cemeteries and markers, even for Waymarking.

 

However, in regard to the original topic, I'm still not seeing how virtuals are preferable to waymarks (other than one's love of smileys), so I'll defer to TPTB. I don't love waymarks, but I do like them and see their development as a positive solution (to the virtual problems referenced earlier) that is continuing to improve. Waymarking may allow for categories some may consider lame, but I think the variety is more of a pro than a con.

Link to comment
I get a bunch of flack from my fellow SC geocachers over this...

Mostly you get a lot of flak because of your mis-representation, or mis-understanding, of the facts and your efforts, if successful, would have destroyed geocaching in this state. We've gone round and round on this before. You simply can't fathom the magnitude or the breadth of what this bill would have done.

 

It's amazing as someone who was in the middle of the issue I've not seen many, if any, of the allegations you come up with. Heck, the brick one is new to me.

 

What's so horribly wrong about getting permission??

There's nothing wrong with getting permission. It's the requirement of getting "express written permission"--whether the land owner wants to have it written or verbal didn't matter--that is the main problem.

 

There's many more problems with the bill, both for us and for more sensible lawmakers.

 

However, suffice it to say that irresponsible behavior on the part of geocachers or waymarkers could very well see an addition to the bill to include the activity of Waymarking. While I'm sure the authors of the bill will have a grand time trying to figure out how to limit the publication of grid coordinates of certain places, this doesn't diminish the amount of effort that will have to go into defending our hobby in the next round--an effort hard enough without having to deal with those within our own ranks.

Link to comment

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

Not I. As several other posters have reminded you, the virtuals are still there, and there are now more than ever; they are simply listed on Waymarking.com. I am glad that they are gone; they were starting to proliferate to the point that they were cluttering the geocaching.com website and also offered the potential to block geocache placements in some areas (due to land manager decisions.) Bottom line is that they are not geocaches.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

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.

The very voting process that you describe is one of the quality controls. Did you vote "no" on the categories that are poorly defined, or which do not fit the spirit of the game?

 

Once a category is set up, it has rules for creating waymarks that are tailored to that type of location. There is much more infrastructure than ever existed for virtual caches. Each waymark is reviewed by someone who has an interest in the underlying subject. There is a built-in voting mechanism for questionable submissions. This is far preferable than having every virtual cache submission go through a single volunteer reviewer for the area, who may or may not like or know about the subject matter.

 

Want more quality control? Try the "wow" test. That might could work really well. :D

 

For those of you who don't have many waymarks near them, I encourage you to go out and create them. There were none when I started, and now there are hundreds. Not all mine, either, by any stretch. The majority in my area are history-related. If that is more appealing to you than Starbucks locations, then go find the history spots and write them up.

Link to comment

When I talk to local cachers, the predominant feeling is that virtuals are cool. To there is nothing wrong with answering a question on a highway historical marker or plaque someplace, especialy if it's in a National Park.

 

Inject the idea of making these waymarks and there are two basic responses.

First, it's too complicated. You can't just type in coordinats and go. You can't just come across a location and submit it. Catagories must be approved, submissions need to go through a committee, blah blah blah.

 

The second and most predominant is... it doesn't increase my count. It IS about the numbers. I realize this is is a sensitive statement and not politicaly correct to state this in these forums, but numbers do count. As one guy said... "I am caching. I am not going to take pictures and get the coordinates for a McDonalds or a flagpole if it doesn't increase my count. If it does, then I will waymark every pizza parlor and roadside marker in the state."

 

So, my thought is to put your waymarks found / owned on the profile page somehow. Like benchmarks, they don't increase your geocaches count, but they are there.

 

Another idea is to put in a "locations visited" total which includes all geocaches, benchmarks, waymarks, etc and incorporate that into your stats.

 

Personaly, I like Waymarking. Although I also have trouble "just browsing" the site, the concepts are good. Perhaps when I have a little guidebook to carry with me that has a list of catagories, I will participate more.

Link to comment

Whenever the subject of Waymarking is brought up there always seems the same, few staunch defenders of it on the forums expousing its' "merits", which also seems to be made up by quite a few moderators. But as with the previous poster, when I talk to locall cachers most enjoy virtuals and many are in favor of them being restored.

 

Also, if this any indication of the "popularity" of Waymarking the last posting to the WMIng dedicated forum was Dec. 9th at the time of this posting, while most other forums receive new post and interest daily.

 

Sure, many virtuals were "out of control" but there are also some really, really bad traditional caches out there too.

Edited by Bill & Tammy
Link to comment

Whenever the subject of Waymarking is brought up there always seems the same, few staunch defenders of it on the forums expousing its' "merits", which also seems to be made up by quite a few moderators. But as with the previous poster, when I talk to locall cachers most enjoy virtuals and many are in favor of them being restored.

Unfortunately, the people who enjoy virtuals haven't expressed a real good reason for bringing them back. The only reasons I see are 1) I want to combine my geocaching and Waymarking and get a PQ that list both geocaches and waymarks I am interested in visiting. 2) I want my Waymarking statistics to count in my geocaching statistics. If you enjoyed virtuals because they took you to an interesting place or because you learned something, you can still do this with Waymarking.

 

Also, if this any indication of the "popularity" of Waymarking the last posting to the WMIng dedicated forum was Dec. 9th at the time of this posting, while most other forums receive new post and interest daily.

One reason waymarkers have become staunch defenders of the move is that they get to see new feature before they show up on geocaching. In part because Waymarking is newer code and its easier to make changes there first, and also because geocachers would likely complain "why are you adding new features when the site is so slow?" Waymarking forums are quite active on the new Groundspeak Portal.

 

Sure, many virtuals were "out of control" but there are also some really, really bad traditional caches out there too.

At least with Waymarking you can ignore "lame" categories. Perhaps Geocaching needs categories so you can ignore lamppost hide if they are not your thing. :D

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Unfortunately, the people who enjoy virtuals haven't expressed a real good reason for bringing them back. The only reasons I see are 1) I want to combine my geocaching and Waymarking and get a PQ that list both geocaches and waymarks I am interested in visiting. 2) I want my Waymarking statistics to count in my geocaching statistics. If you enjoyed virtuals because they took you to an interesting place or because you learned something, you can still do this with Waymarking.

Oh, give me a break. Not just you, but all of the Eternal Defenders of Waymarking.

 

This is well past the "I don't understand" phase and into the realm of intentional misunderstanding.

 

I mean, it's not like the difference between Waymarking and virtuals hasn't been expressed what seems like a few hundred times by many different people. Some of them have been quite clear and eloquent.

 

Look, I will try to explain it one last time. Not likely to make any difference, but maybe another concise statement of it will finally get through.

 

A geocache is an implicit challenge: "I have hidden X; can you find it?" The best virtuals were challenges. The challenge is what draws me to geocaching.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, is about sharing. "I've found a cool spot. Come look at it." A completely different gestalt. While sharing spots is nice, it doesn't excite the same kind of passsion in me that the challenge does.

 

Now, I understand that many caches are not, in fact, real challenges. That's not the point. The point is that caching is set up as a challenge, and Waymarking is not. People have tried to express this in many different ways, including the loss of "mystery," etc. I appreciate that you have tried to build a Waymarking category that captures a little of what is missing, but, in my opinion, it will not work, because Waymarking is simply not about challenge. And it can't be made that way.

 

The Eternal Defenders of Waymarking flock to every thread of this kind, explaining in detail how Waymarking is just like virtuals, until somebody points out that they are not the same, at which point the EDW group explains that Waymarking is not the same as virtuals, but better, and then somebody else points out that you can't do a PQ of waymarks, at which point the EDW group explains that Waymarking is still incredibly new and that its deficiencies are somehow all our fault. The whole process is astonishingly predictable, and incredibly tedious.

 

Oh, and for the record, please listen to this very, very carefully:

 

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBERS!

Link to comment

I'm not sure what the difference is. With virts, you were challenged to go find the historical marker. With Waymarking, you are offered the opportunity to go look at the same marker. Just because you say that it is a lesser task does not make it so. In fact, it's the very same task.

 

Either way, TPTB have made it very clear that virts will not come back to GC.com. All the parsing in the world is not going to bring them back.

Link to comment

 

A geocache is an implicit challenge: "I have hidden X; can you find it?" The best virtuals were challenges. The challenge is what draws me to geocaching.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, is about sharing. "I've found a cool spot. Come look at it." A completely different gestalt. While sharing spots is nice, it doesn't excite the same kind of passsion in me that the challenge does.

 

 

I agree with fizzymagic. A properly done virtual involves having to find something. Most Waymarking categories are simply "here's a place to visit". Waymarking does support challenges in that a waymark founder can specify logging requirements that need to be met to claim a visit. There are a lot of categories with no requirements and many others that only require a picture. Only a few - and these mostly show up in the Waymarking games area - have requirements to answer verification questions that require you to find the answers by visiting the site. I had this difference in mind when I started the Best Kept Secrets category. I wish there were other categories that emphasized this aspect of virtual caching. I also wish that the category managers could specify the log type for the waymarks so that waymarks that require meeting a challenge would have "found" logs instead of "visit" logs.

Link to comment
Unfortunately, the people who enjoy virtuals haven't expressed a real good reason for bringing them back. The only reasons I see are 1) I want to combine my geocaching and Waymarking and get a PQ that list both geocaches and waymarks I am interested in visiting. 2) I want my Waymarking statistics to count in my geocaching statistics. If you enjoyed virtuals because they took you to an interesting place or because you learned something, you can still do this with Waymarking.

Oh, give me a break. Not just you, but all of the Eternal Defenders of Waymarking.

 

This is well past the "I don't understand" phase and into the realm of intentional misunderstanding.

 

I mean, it's not like the difference between Waymarking and virtuals hasn't been expressed what seems like a few hundred times by many different people. Some of them have been quite clear and eloquent.

 

Look, I will try to explain it one last time. Not likely to make any difference, but maybe another concise statement of it will finally get through.

 

A geocache is an implicit challenge: "I have hidden X; can you find it?" The best virtuals were challenges. The challenge is what draws me to geocaching.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, is about sharing. "I've found a cool spot. Come look at it." A completely different gestalt. While sharing spots is nice, it doesn't excite the same kind of passsion in me that the challenge does.

 

Now, I understand that many caches are not, in fact, real challenges. That's not the point. The point is that caching is set up as a challenge, and Waymarking is not. People have tried to express this in many different ways, including the loss of "mystery," etc. I appreciate that you have tried to build a Waymarking category that captures a little of what is missing, but, in my opinion, it will not work, because Waymarking is simply not about challenge. And it can't be made that way.

 

The Eternal Defenders of Waymarking flock to every thread of this kind, explaining in detail how Waymarking is just like virtuals, until somebody points out that they are not the same, at which point the EDW group explains that Waymarking is not the same as virtuals, but better, and then somebody else points out that you can't do a PQ of waymarks, at which point the EDW group explains that Waymarking is still incredibly new and that its deficiencies are somehow all our fault. The whole process is astonishingly predictable, and incredibly tedious.

 

Oh, and for the record, please listen to this very, very carefully:

 

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBERS!

 

 

I agree and support everything said here except ...

I know that Numbers are important to many many many cachers!

Link to comment

A geocache is an implicit challenge: "I have hidden X; can you find it?"

Which is why virtuals aren't really geocaches. I have yet to encounter one virtual cache where the owner had hidden something for me to find....

Since my philosophy is that geocaching takes me to places of interest, then from my perspective, virtuals are geocaches. The challenge is to find the information from that plaque or whatever it is I am looking for. This is why I am an advocate of the total count of places visited.

 

I like numbers. I like them a lot.

Link to comment
Unfortunately, the people who enjoy virtuals haven't expressed a real good reason for bringing them back. The only reasons I see are 1) I want to combine my geocaching and Waymarking and get a PQ that list both geocaches and waymarks I am interested in visiting. 2) I want my Waymarking statistics to count in my geocaching statistics. If you enjoyed virtuals because they took you to an interesting place or because you learned something, you can still do this with Waymarking.

Oh, give me a break. Not just you, but all of the Eternal Defenders of Waymarking.

 

This is well past the "I don't understand" phase and into the realm of intentional misunderstanding.

 

I mean, it's not like the difference between Waymarking and virtuals hasn't been expressed what seems like a few hundred times by many different people. Some of them have been quite clear and eloquent.

 

Look, I will try to explain it one last time. Not likely to make any difference, but maybe another concise statement of it will finally get through.

 

A geocache is an implicit challenge: "I have hidden X; can you find it?" The best virtuals were challenges. The challenge is what draws me to geocaching.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, is about sharing. "I've found a cool spot. Come look at it." A completely different gestalt. While sharing spots is nice, it doesn't excite the same kind of passsion in me that the challenge does.

 

Now, I understand that many caches are not, in fact, real challenges. That's not the point. The point is that caching is set up as a challenge, and Waymarking is not. People have tried to express this in many different ways, including the loss of "mystery," etc. I appreciate that you have tried to build a Waymarking category that captures a little of what is missing, but, in my opinion, it will not work, because Waymarking is simply not about challenge. And it can't be made that way.

 

The Eternal Defenders of Waymarking flock to every thread of this kind, explaining in detail how Waymarking is just like virtuals, until somebody points out that they are not the same, at which point the EDW group explains that Waymarking is not the same as virtuals, but better, and then somebody else points out that you can't do a PQ of waymarks, at which point the EDW group explains that Waymarking is still incredibly new and that its deficiencies are somehow all our fault. The whole process is astonishingly predictable, and incredibly tedious.

 

Oh, and for the record, please listen to this very, very carefully:

 

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBERS!

 

 

I agree and support everything said here except ...

I know that Numbers are important to many many many cachers!

I also agree but see the handwriting on the wall. You can't fight Geo Hall so new virtuals are a thing of the past. I will miss them. (No I'm not going over to Waymarking to do them for a lot of reasons already stated in this thread) My head is also not in the sand so I too realize numbers are important to most cachers whether they want to admit it or not.

Edited by n0wae
Link to comment

The first 25 Waymarks that appear near my home coords are anywhere from 2weeks to several months old and have 0 finders.

 

A Virtual Geocache placed in this radius would have had a visit in the first 24 hours.

 

It looks like the Waymarkers are trying to locate every twig and blade of grass possible, but few are actually finding them compared to the number claiming the location. It is a numbers game to them in regrads to claiming.

 

Why don't more Waymarkers start playing this game?

 

Why should I start playing it?

 

I have discovered a place where Virtuals can still be hidden. I would be more inclined to hide and seek there then Waymarking.

 

It may have appealed to me more if there was more "Quality" in the locations.

 

There are some Waymarkers who have listed interesting waymarks, but right from the start the fast food restaurants and silly locations are dominating this area.

 

Ok lets see, thats a number 2 value meal, supersized, with a cola and a Waymark...pull around to the first window please... <_<

 

Note: If I filter out the Fast food joints, I have to travel a good distance to find a Waymark of any value, but its not worth the gas. I can get a value meal!

or buy this nifty new shirt Nifty Shirt

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

Up until now, I had never really gotten on the bandwagon for Waymarking. The first couple of times I went to the site when it first came out, it was clunky and I couldn't navigate the site easily. So I gave up. I haven't been to the Waymarking site since because I never really felt the need to find that kind of stuff (nor the stuff that used to pass as most of the mundane virtuals).

 

But this thread prompted me. I popped over there and did a search on some of the categories that would interest me. You know what? There were quite a few interesting categories that didn't have ANYTHING near me. So - what's a cacher to do? Come back over to the forums and complain about how Waymarking "draws-air-rapidly" because there's nothing there near me?

 

No.

 

I took two of the categories and submitted waymarks for them. I'll be doing many more.

 

Like Geocaching.com in the beginning, Waymarking.com will only succeed if people who enjoy GPS gaming take the time to fill in interesting information to the site. If Geocachers had left Geocaching.com because they had an entitlement attitude of "there's no caches out there for me to find", caches would never have been placed, and Geocaching.com would still have been Mike Teague and his mailing list.

 

In the end, everything that's been posted in the forums from the main Groundspeak HQ has indicated that virtuals are not coming back to the site. So we have a choice as GPS gamers:

A) Complain about the situation and bemoan the fact that it's not the same, or

B) Find a way to make what we have work

 

I'm leaning toward the second.

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

In the end, everything that's been posted in the forums from the main Groundspeak HQ has indicated that virtuals are not coming back to the site. So we have a choice as GPS gamers:

A) Complain about the situation and bemoan the fact that it's not the same, or

B) Find a way to make what we have work

 

I'm leaning toward the second.

 

I like this--be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Remember when just one one or two new caches in your area was more than just a race for FTF?

 

In response to TalesFromTheSurface's criticism of the fast-food restaurant waymarks, I see two choices:

1. Ignore them just like some cachers do lamp-post micros;

2. When traveling, use them. By waymarks, I have found it valuable to know not only location, but that one McDonalds (or similar spot) has wi-fi and another doesn't. That's not always in the phone book or even on my 60csx.

 

Here's another thought concerning virtuals. Reviewers will help you see how a proposed virtual can instead be an offset cache and still achieve the same goal if the view/information is that important. Yes, this is quite possible even in urban areas full of tall buildings and muggles. However, if it's primarily the smiley factor, you probably wouldn't get as many takers, but surely that's not the reason. <_<

Link to comment
In the end, everything that's been posted in the forums from the main Groundspeak HQ has indicated that virtuals are not coming back to the site. So we have a choice as GPS gamers:

A) Complain about the situation and bemoan the fact that it's not the same, or

B) Find a way to make what we have work

You forgot the third option:

C) Accept the situation and enjoy what geocaching has to offer, ignoring Waymarking because it is an entirely different activity.

 

That's the one I have chosen. I only pop into these threads every so often because I find the constant insistence that Waymarking is better than virts ever were and that it's all our fault that it isn't wonderful (which, by the way, your post is a good example of) quite annoying. I don't think the loss of virtuals has really impacted geocaching significantly.

 

The main reason I supported virtuals was to allow the development of geocaching in remote places that don't have the population of relatively wealthy people required to get caching started. And the absurd requirement that cachers "maintain" virtual caches eliminated their ability to solve that problem anyway. So the only real negative impact from the elimination of new virtuals has been the relentless pushing of Waymarking as some kind of replacement. But that's relatively easy to ignore until I stumble onto one of these threads and lose my ability to remain silent! <_<

Link to comment
... I only pop into these threads every so often because I find the constant insistence that Waymarking is better than virts ever were and that it's all our fault that it isn't wonderful (which, by the way, your post is a good example of) quite annoying. I don't think the loss of virtuals has really impacted geocaching significantly. ...

Better? More like 'exactly the same as'.

Link to comment

 

You forgot the third option:

C) Accept the situation and enjoy what geocaching has to offer, ignoring Waymarking because it is an entirely different activity.

 

I like this option. Waymarking does have its pros. It is a good training ground for new geocachers. Once they learn how to use their equipment and navigate to a location, they can graduate to finding an object smaller than a building and logging their find. <_<

 

...wheres that milkshake?

Link to comment

Never mind. some people just like to complain unless they need a favor.

 

Sort of like "Geocide in the morning," huh?

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I pay for a service, and I should have some sort of input to that service.

When you take our money, and then say that our opinion doesn't matter, then you will lose money eventually.

 

That being said...I am going caching. NOT "Waymarking,"....*CACHING!*

Link to comment

Whenever the subject of Waymarking is brought up there always seems the same, few staunch defenders of it on the forums expousing its' "merits", which also seems to be made up by quite a few moderators. But as with the previous poster, when I talk to locall cachers most enjoy virtuals and many are in favor of them being restored.

 

Also, if this any indication of the "popularity" of Waymarking the last posting to the WMIng dedicated forum was Dec. 9th at the time of this posting, while most other forums receive new post and interest daily.

 

Sure, many virtuals were "out of control" but there are also some really, really bad traditional caches out there too.

While it's true that the same forum posters tend to show up in Waymarking threads to offer their opinions in support of the new site, it's also true that misinformation is often spread by posts like yours, made by those who are less familiar with the Waymarking site.

 

The misinformation in this post is that the Waymarking forums are active daily. Right now there is a lively discussion about whether franchise stores ought to be accepted as new Waymarking categories. A few months ago I would've said "no," but then the Starbucks category came along and I am having fun with it.

 

Anyways I cannot figure out where this misleading December 9th date is coming from. The new forums have had posts every day this week. And here in the old forums, where the geocachers are still stuck temporarily, the last post to the discontinued Waymarking section was December 3rd.

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

I think this alone is one of the greatest aspects of Waymarking. I think the McDonalds, Post Office, and other similar categories are some of the mostest stupidestest things ever. But if the site gives a home to everyone with a crazed need to be an amateur volunteer Yellow Pages research assistant, and that site also gives me the power to ignore all current and future such individuals with just one click, then more power to it.

 

Also, there are very few waymarks in my area right now (there is a grand total of 87 within 100 miles of here). You can view this as a problem (there's nowhere to visit) or an opportunity (hey! I could be the first one to write up the spots I think are interesting!). I've taken the latter approach. Snag those low numbered waymark waypoints before it's too late!

 

-eP

Link to comment

I don't know about the rest of you, but I pay for a service, and I should have some sort of input to that service.

Really?

 

Do you really think because you buy gas at the corner station every week you get to tell the station owner how to run his business?

 

Do you tell the supermarket what food they have to carry?

 

Do you tell your accountant what size tax return you demand?

 

Yes, you have a way of providing input; if you don't like a product or service, dont use it.

That's the way a free-market economy works. If most people like my product/service I make a profit. If people dont I go bankrupt and out of business.

 

From all appearances Groundspeak is quite successful. Seems like they have a pretty good grasp of what the market (not just a small percentage of people) wants.

Link to comment
... I don't know about the rest of you, but I pay for a service, and I should have some sort of input to that service.

When you take our money, and then say that our opinion doesn't matter, then you will lose money eventually.

 

That being said...I am going caching. NOT "Waymarking,"....*CACHING!*

How can you say that we haven't had input? There were a million threads in the forums over the years about the need to come up with a solution to virtuals and LCs. Eventually, WM.com was introduced to be that solution. Since that site began, there have been many threads regarding it's improvement and bringing back virts to GC.com.

 

Just because TPTB haven't brought virtuals back to GC.com, doesn't mean that they haven't heard your input. Will some subscribers quit GC.com because virts aren't brought back. I doubt it, but possibly. However, I suspect that WM.com will appeal to some people who have know interest in geocaching. Some people will no doubt like Wherigo, but not care for geocaching or Waymarking.

Link to comment

If sbell111 were here, he would probably post about how the Waymarking site has evolved as a result of user input. The site was pretty plain vanilla when rolled out in August 2005. A lot of the interface wasn't very intuitive, and features were lacking. But as a result of user feedback, the site has evolved and improved. It is nice when one of my specific suggestions is implemented weeks later. I find this form of criticism to be more constructive than "bring back virtuals."

Link to comment

I don't know about the rest of you, but I pay for a service, and I should have some sort of input to that service.

Really?

 

Do you really think because you buy gas at the corner station every week you get to tell the station owner how to run his business?

 

Do you tell the supermarket what food they have to carry?

 

Do you tell your accountant what size tax return you demand?

 

Yes, you have a way of providing input; if you don't like a product or service, dont use it.

That's the way a free-market economy works. If most people like my product/service I make a profit. If people dont I go bankrupt and out of business.

 

From all appearances Groundspeak is quite successful. Seems like they have a pretty good grasp of what the market (not just a small percentage of people) wants.

 

This is all true, but unless there is a vast pool of eager waymark loggers who don't post to Groundspeak forums, it appears the vast majority of Groundspeak's customers don't use Waymarking and yet TPTB seem to ignore this completely. And I think the lack of Waymarking logs proves this further; just look at the popularity of Earthcaches on GC.com vs. WM.com. And if all this was true, why were existing virtuals "grandfathered" instead of archived like Locationless?

 

So I'll turn the "free-market economy" argument on its head; in a free-market economy what it really sounds like is Groundspeak keeps wasting funds on developing and promoting Waymarking, and eventually the losses from this affect the ability to enhance and promote GC.com. It really is more like "new Coke" 20 years ago, where it keeps getting shoved down the throats of a non-buying public until it gets to a point where it really hurt the manufacturer because of their blissful ignorance of the desires of the target market.

 

And Groundspeak is more of an "accidental near-monopoly" like Microsoft. In a true free-market, someone out there with the time, means and will wouldcome out with an alternate site that included virtuals (and perhaps locationless), and people just go there. But you can look up all the threats and lawsuits that emerged from any major attempt to compete with Groundspeak even well before Waymarking. In this sense Groundspeak is successful for the same reasons that Microsoft is; they provided a niche want when no one else foresaw the growth, and was able to grow big enough in a short enough time to make it almost impossible for competitive entry. While that happens from time to time in a free-market, that is not a free-market.

 

Earthcaches came back not because Groundspeak answered the demands of their market (though that was there), but because the organization that sponsors them demanded it.

Edited by HaLiJuSaPa
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...
×
×
  • Create New...