Virtuals VS Waymarking

[+tozainamboku]

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

 

The problem doing that is that Waymarking has little if anything in common with virtual caches. There is just no way to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

 

Imagine that geocaching doesn't exists. There is only a website called Waymarking.com where you can list the coordinates of anything you like so long as there is a category for it. You can create a new category if you have an idea for one that isn't already represented so long as you can come up with a good description of the category.

 

One day, Dave decides to hide a bucket in the woods with a log book and some small items in it. He want to post the coordinates for his bucket on the internet so that other people with GPS units can go looking for his bucket to sign the log, take something from the bucket, and leave something in its place. Dave could go to Waymarking.com and create a category call "Geocaches". The description of a geocache would be a container hidden someplace with a log and perhaps some items for trade. The waymark would have variables for the size of the container, the difficulty, and the terrain. It might even have a cache type variable - although Dave would probably start with only traditional caches in his category. Once the category exists, Dave could hide his cache and report it as a waymark in the Geocache category. When someone finds Dave's cache they could log a visit. If they look but did not find the cache, they could write a note to let Dave know there may be a problem with his cache.

 

It is not that Waymarking has little in common with virtual caches. The Waymarking site is setup to provide a directory of categories of things with their geographic coordinates. Categories can be anything that a group finds interesting and can pass peer review. And it is not as hard to pass peer review as you think. The section of the Waymarking directory called Waymarking Games is very open ended. I created one category to try to capture what I think are some of the qualities that make a good virtual cache. But I suspect that other people have a different idea of what makes a quality virtual. I truely expect other categories to be proposed.

 

One other note. Jeremy has said there will never be a Geocaching category on Waymarking since Geocaching.com already exists there is not a a need to have that as Waymarking category. And there will probably never be a category called "Virtual Geocaches" because the "Wow" requirement might not get through peer review. One goal is to create category descriptions that are well defined. It is impossible to have a definition of Wow that we all agree on. On the other hand, Waymarking has recently added the capability to approve waymarks by a vote of officers of the category group. Perhaps a Virtual Geocache category where "Wow-ness" is decided by a vote of the officers could pass muster.

[+TrailGators]

One other note. Jeremy has said there will never be a Geocaching category on Waymarking since Geocaching.com already exists there is not a a need to have that as Waymarking category.

New virtuals are not allowed on Geocaching so there is a need.

 

And there will probably never be a category called "Virtual Geocaches" because the "Wow" requirement might not get through peer review.

You keep bringing up the "wow" factor. Virtuals never had that requirement until right before their demise. So forget about the "wow" factor and let the Waymark approvers review and decide which ones they want for their category. It could work with this review system!

[+tozainamboku]

My only concern about a virt category is that the objects would often fit nicely into other, more descriptive, categories.

A location that fits multiple categories can be listed as a separate waymark in each category. I recently create 5 waymarks all for the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. The only problem may be that someone looking at the virtual could check the nearest waymarks to find the same object in another category with either pictures or descriptions that give away the answer to the verification question. I figure, if someone wants to do armchair visits to virtual geocache waymarks there is not much you can do to stop them.

[+TrailGators]

My only concern about a virt category is that the objects would often fit nicely into other, more descriptive, categories.

A location that fits multiple categories can be listed as a separate waymark in each category. I recently create 5 waymarks all for the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. The only problem may be that someone looking at the virtual could check the nearest waymarks to find the same object in another category with either pictures or descriptions that give away the answer to the verification question. I figure, if someone wants to do armchair visits to virtual geocache waymarks there is not much you can do to stop them.

Holy cow! I thought logging was sometimes a chore in geocaching. Now you could be logging several waymarks for one spot? I understand the logic but you would think they would be linked somehow so you wouldn't have to do that. The attribute that I was brainstorming would solve that issue. You would just have to decide which main category best suited the waymark.

 

If the attribute idea doesn't fly then, it sounds like it would be possible to create a category for Virtual Geocaches if it were allowed.

Edited January 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

 

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

[+TrailGators]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference.

[+sbell111]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference.

Ummm, I enjoy virts. Yet, I asked the question.

[+robert]

One other note. Jeremy has said there will never be a Geocaching category on Waymarking since Geocaching.com already exists there is not a a need to have that as Waymarking category.

New virtuals are not allowed on Geocaching so there is a need.

But how do you decide what goes in that category? How do you define a virtual cache? Is it a cool covered bridge? Already a category for that. A cool historic marker? Already a category for that. Cool statue or monument? Already a category for that. Seems to me there already is a category for virtuals, and it's the entire wm.com database.

 

And there will probably never be a category called "Virtual Geocaches" because the "Wow" requirement might not get through peer review.

You keep bringing up the "wow" factor. Virtuals never had that requirement until right before their demise. So forget about the "wow" factor and let the Waymark approvers review and decide which ones they want for their category. It could work with this review system!

Isn't that exactly what was happening on gc.com? Loads of virts were submitted that were just plain crap. Because of this, the reviewer team started to apply the Wow factor to "decide which ones they wanted for their category", and these so-called caches were declined. Really it seems you've just suggested taking a step back instead of forward. Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

[+robert]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference.

sbell111 has a valid point, though. There is a category for virtual type locations, it's just not called that. It'll be a bit closer to the 'surprise' that you're looking for, though I prefer the category structure myself.

 

edit: fixing a mistake.

Edited January 10, 2007 by robert

[+tozainamboku]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference.

 

I would suggest looking at the description of the Best Kept Secrets category to get some idea of what difference is between a "virtual" cache type category and one that tells you what you will find.

 

I agree with sbell111 that putting something in a category that lets you know what's there allows a waymarker to choose the categories that s/he finds interesting. It really should be the first choice for Waymarking something. However, the this thread and others bemoan the loss of something that virtual caches provided. It may be the surprise of not knowing what you found or the fact that a reviewer was convinced that the location was so unique and interesting as to meet the "wow" requirement, or that there was something at the site you needed to find to get credit for your visit. The Best Kept Secrets category came out of discussions I had with geocachers as to what they thought made the best virtuals. The most common answer I got was that it took them to a place they didn't know about. So we came up with the definition of Best Kept Secret.

 

TrailGators says he doesn't want a "wow" requirement. But it sounds like what he wants is for the managers of his virtual category to be gatekeepers and select only the waymarks that they think make a good virtual. I wouldn't mind seeing something like bookmark lists where individiuals or groups could recommend waymarks. I think one generic virutal category is too broad and would be too controversial for either allowing too many lame virtuals or for being too restrictive and rejecting good virtuals. Having several categories with more specific requirements would allow people to find the category they fit best in. It would allow visitors (finders) to select the those categories that best fit their idea of what make a good virutal cache.

[+TrailGators]

Isn't that exactly what was happening on gc.com? Loads of virts were submitted that were just plain crap. Because of this, the reviewer team started to apply the Wow factor to "decide which ones they wanted for their category", and these so-called caches were declined. Really it seems you've just suggested taking a step back instead of forward. Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is? Anyhow, this is not true. Waymarks are all reviewed. The problem that happened on GC is that the limited volunteer reviewers were overwhelmed and didn't have time to review virts. This is not the case with Waymarking....

[+tozainamboku]

But how do you decide what goes in that category? How do you define a virtual cache? Is it a cool covered bridge? Already a category for that. A cool historic marker? Already a category for that. Cool statue or monument? Already a category for that. Seems to me there already is a category for virtuals, and it's the entire wm.com database.

Where is there a category for cool covered bridges? I see one for covered bridges. Where is the category for cool historic marker? I see several for historic markers, but none say cool. Virutals caches that passed the wow test were wow. Waymarks might be wow - if you like covered bridges or historic markers. You have no way of knowing otherwise. Perhaps we need a waymark rating system

 

I wouldn't mind something like bookmark lists controlled by either individuals or groups to recommend waymarks that are particularly cool or Wow!.

 

In a recent post I ask you how to define a "virtual", but I see in this post you've defined it as a surprise. In that case, there is a category for virts, it's just not called that.

Best Kept Secrets is not a suprise category. While we encourage write-up that don't give away what you'll find thats not a requirement. Look at the waymarks in this category and see that several tell you right in the description what you will find.

[+robert]

Isn't that exactly what was happening on gc.com? Loads of virts were submitted that were just plain crap. Because of this, the reviewer team started to apply the Wow factor to "decide which ones they wanted for their category", and these so-called caches were declined. Really it seems you've just suggested taking a step back instead of forward. Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is?

Not quite sure what your question is. If you're saying Waymarking is crap, you missed my point entirely.

 

Anyhow, this is not true. Waymarks are all reviewed. The problem that happened on GC is that the limited volunteer reviewers were overwhelmed and didn't have time to review virts. This is not the case with Waymarking....

Maybe sometime there will be a case where there isn't time to review multis, wonder what those threads will be like!

 

Waymarks aren't reviewed for how cool or crappy they are, they're reviewed for how well they fit the guidelines category requirements. If they fit, they get added. If not, they don't.

 

Edited January 10, 2007 by robert

[+TrailGators]

The surprise element is the one key thing that Waymarking is missing that is at the heart of geocaching. I know that there is a category called "Best Kept Secrets," but it seems to be a secret itself because there are still only nine waymarks in that category. No offense Mr. T. I know you have been promoting that category and I really like that category. I thought that if there was a Virtual category with a requirement for an enjoyable surprise, it could work and bring back new true virtuals. The peer review could decide, which submittals were worthy. Since that is all that they are managing, they wouldn't be overwhelmed and could do a good job at it. Since geocachers understand what virtuals are maybe this category would grow faster and attract more geocachers to Waymarking....

[+robert]

But how do you decide what goes in that category? How do you define a virtual cache? Is it a cool covered bridge? Already a category for that. A cool historic marker? Already a category for that. Cool statue or monument? Already a category for that. Seems to me there already is a category for virtuals, and it's the entire wm.com database.

Where is there a category for cool covered bridges? I see one for covered bridges. Where is the category for cool historic marker? I see several for historic markers, but none say cool. Virutals caches that passed the wow test were wow. Waymarks might be wow - if you like covered bridges or historic markers. You have no way of knowing otherwise. Perhaps we need a waymark rating system

I don't feel a Wow feeling looking at benchmarks, so I ignore the category. I think covered bridges and historic markers are cool so I do look at those.

 

In a recent post I ask you how to define a "virtual", but I see in this post you've defined it as a surprise. In that case, there is a category for virts, it's just not called that.

Best Kept Secrets is not a suprise category. While we encourage write-up that don't give away what you'll find thats not a requirement. Look at the waymarks in this category and see that several tell you right in the description what you will find.

My bad, I drew the wrong parallel--I'll edit my post. I see you agreed with me that the category would be as close to the "Virtual cache" category as TG is looking for.

 

edit: dadgum tags

Edited January 10, 2007 by robert

[+TrailGators]

Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is?

Not quite sure what your question is. If you're saying Waymarking is crap, you missed my point entirely.

Let's keep this civil. I never said that Waymarking was crap. My point was that geocachers were told that virtuals and locationless caches were being moved to Waymarking. So if you think that most virtuals were crap then it is you that is implying what the new waymarks will be like. Like I said before the peer review could have solved the issue on GC with poor virts being approved. So I think Waymarking has a better chance of getting good virts to fly.

[+sbell111]

Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is?

Not quite sure what your question is. If you're saying Waymarking is crap, you missed my point entirely.

Let's keep this civil. I never said that Waymarking was crap. My point was that geocachers were told that virtuals and locationless caches were being moved to Waymarking. So if you think that most virtuals were crap then it is you that is implying what the new waymarks will be like. Like I said before the peer review could have solved the issue on GC with poor virts being approved. So I think Waymarking has a better chance of getting good virts to fly.

It still seems like what you are suggesting is what Waymarking already is.

[+TrailGators]

Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is?

Not quite sure what your question is. If you're saying Waymarking is crap, you missed my point entirely.

Let's keep this civil. I never said that Waymarking was crap. My point was that geocachers were told that virtuals and locationless caches were being moved to Waymarking. So if you think that most virtuals were crap then it is you that is implying what the new waymarks will be like. Like I said before the peer review could have solved the issue on GC with poor virts being approved. So I think Waymarking has a better chance of getting good virts to fly.

It still seems like what you are suggesting is what Waymarking already is.

I'm not. I thought the point of this thread was to figure out how to get virts going again. I was addressing other people's concerns about crappy virts being created on Waymarking.

[+robert]

Now everything can be listed, and you can filter out what you feel to be crap.

If this were true than isn't that what Waymarking is?

Not quite sure what your question is. If you're saying Waymarking is crap, you missed my point entirely.

Let's keep this civil. I never said that Waymarking was crap. My point was that geocachers were told that virtuals and locationless caches were being moved to Waymarking. So if you think that most virtuals were crap then it is you that is implying what the new waymarks will be like. Like I said before the peer review could have solved the issue on GC with poor virts being approved. So I think Waymarking has a better chance of getting good virts to fly.

But how do YOU, TrailGators, determine what is a "good virt"? Personal preference? If you think a covered bridge makes a cool virt, but I don't, we have a problem. Waymarking gives you the chance to list it, regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's cool ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and all that jazz) Then it's up to those who do think it's cool to add more and visit the ones that are already listed. Those who don't think so can move on to another category they find interesting. Rating waymarks would help the good ones rise to the top, but in a lot of ways it's still all entirely subjective.

[+robert]

It still seems like what you are suggesting is what Waymarking already is.

I'm not. I thought the point of this thread was to figure out how to get virts going again. I was addressing other people's concerns about crappy virts being created on Waymarking.

That's an easy issue to address with a function already available on Waymarking:

[+sbell111]

I'm not. I thought the point of this thread was to figure out how to get virts going again. I was addressing other people's concerns about crappy virts being created on Waymarking.

Perhaps that is another point we disagree on. I thought this was yet another thread about bringing back virts to GC.com.

 

I just went back and reread the OP. I am even more convinced that the thread is about returning virts to GC.com, not bringing more mystery to WM.com.

Edited January 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I'm not. I thought the point of this thread was to figure out how to get virts going again. I was addressing other people's concerns about crappy virts being created on Waymarking.

Perhaps that is another point we disagree on. I thought this was yet another thread about bringing back virts to GC.com.

 

I just went back and reread the OP. I am even more convinced that the thread is about returning virts to GC.com, not bringing more mystery to WM.com.

Virts aren't coming back to GC so the thread was steered into a direction that was possible: Put good virts on Waymarking! Jeremy even commented that someday there would be some better linkage between the sites. Right now all we have are 9 best kept secrets and a bunch of grandfathered virts on GC. Besides that, it didn't sound like the OP was opposed to having virts on Waymarking. He was just noticing what other geocachers have noticed. There aren't many good virts on Waymarking.... Edited January 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Okay, call me an ignoramous, but can you tell me:

 

1) The number of visits to those 339 waymarks

 

and

 

2) The number of logs on those 18 virtuals

To compare apples to apples, you would need to make sure you keep the time frame the same. You cannot look at the total visits to the virtuals. You have to compare the same time frame. Most people forget that. In addition, you should only look at the virtuals that were created in the first year of geocaching.com since Waymarking is barely a year old. If you are going to ask for a comparison, make sure it is an accurate one.

 

 

Before you can compare the apples it would help to get some accurate data.

 

We just checked several categories and waymarks and found quite a few listed visits, but when you clicked to see the visits there were none to see.

 

Also, you may find THIS interesting. It shows 2 finds when the page says there are 3, but that is not what's the best part. Check the date the waymark was listed and then check the dates for the 2 visits!

 

I guess that the waymark "owner" isn't following through with his "Locationless Find" (Category=locationless cache & category finder=waymark owner).

 

John

[+TrailGators]

Also, you may find THIS interesting. It shows 2 finds when the page says there are 3, but that is not what's the best part. Check the date the waymark was listed and then check the dates for the 2 visits! I guess that the waymark "owner" isn't following through with his "Locationless Find" (Category=locationless cache & category finder=waymark owner). John

I guess you are allowed to find waymarks before they were created and back to 1999. Somebody explained that previously in this thread. Edited January 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

One other note. Jeremy has said there will never be a Geocaching category on Waymarking since Geocaching.com already exists there is not a a need to have that as Waymarking category.

New virtuals are not allowed on Geocaching so there is a need.

But how do you decide what goes in that category? How do you define a virtual cache? Is it a cool covered bridge? Already a category for that. A cool historic marker? Already a category for that. Cool statue or monument? Already a category for that. Seems to me there already is a category for virtuals, and it's the entire wm.com database....

 

In that light, there is probably a catagory for any cool thing worthy of a cache. And yet caching remains it's own thing.

 

If geocache became a waymark catagory I'd probably take up letterboxing.

[Jeremy]

 

Also, you may find THIS interesting. It shows 2 finds when the page says there are 3, but that is not what's the best part. Check the date the waymark was listed and then check the dates for the 2 visits!

 

Holy crap! Call the cops.

[+Ambrosia]

I don't remember TPTB lamenting about the poor performance of WM.com. Can you post a link?

Of course they aren't going to publicly lament any such thing. Whether it's the truth or not, it's counter productive to say that an active project isn't working. However, by any measure that I'm able to ascertain (traffic to the site, growth, the number of people who actually visit the countless created waymarks,) it doesn't seem that way to me. If it's "meeting expectations" in these ways, those expectations must have been mighty low to start with.

 

The GSA didn't ask to have Earthcaches put back on gc.com because they were working out so well on Waymarking, they did it because traffic to their placements dropped like a rock (pun intended.) That, in itself, says a lot.

 

You sound like another big poster who insisted early on that 'his' money not be spent on WM.com. I think that it's a silly idea to try to split the fees when the resources all come out of the same bucket and create code that will support both sites, however. Also, Would you really want to pay seperate membership fees for GC.com, WM.com, Wherigo.com, LB.com, ???.com, etc? Not me, if I can avoid it.

Of course you don't, because you use them. The vast majority do not use them, but willingly underwrite them in order to have the gc.com site, and I count myself among them. As for resource and code sharing, gc.com's issues (according to posts in the forums) are largely based on scalability and stability, solutions to which are coming from an outside consultant, not from the single guy working on Waymarking.

 

It's funny how even thoughtful threads on this subject eventually work their way down to posters being told "you're stupid", "you're selfish" or "you're a child (or dancing mouse.)"

 

Never in this discussion did I say that Waymarking should be shut down. Never did I say that it doesn't work because I don't like it. Never did I say that virtuals should be brought back. Never did I say that I want funding changed.

 

Maybe Fizzymagic's "ironic" post is closer to the truth than I'd thought. I won't bother you with any further observations on the subject.

I thought the dancing mouse was cute.

[+QuesterMark]

 

So please, archive "waymaking.com" and bring back virts

 

 

Regardless of whether virtuals came back to geocaching or not, why do you think "Waymarking.com" has to be archived?

 

I like Waymarking.

[+QuesterMark]

 

I hate that I have to buy groceries at the grocery store and clothe in the department store. Oh wait, I fogot can go to Super Wal*Mart. Maybe geocaching.com could be the Super Wal*Mart of location based activities. I don't find it that hard to log visits to waymarks and geocaches and there are links that take me back and forth between the sites. But perhaps there could be better coordination. I may be reading between the lines and think this is also a complaint that waymarks don't count in your geocaching stats.

 

I'm reasonably new to geocaching and Waymarking. It seems to me that geocaching COULD be a subset of Waymarking, but Waymarking is way too broad to be a subset of geocaching.

 

Just sayin'. Not requesting anything.

 

I love 'em both! (And if I come across a detail I don't like, well, I ignore it, one way or the other).

[+QuesterMark]

I wonder if a consolidated "Nearest List" which included not just the geocaches, but also the nearest waymarks (as filtered by the user's preferences) would eliminate this issue of "I want my virtuals back!"

 

As for the issue of having to log onto different sites to log caches, my solution is built right into GSAK. It's pretty much straight forward. I can skip from site to site at will.

 

That might be nice. Maybe a preferences where you can toggle the "Nearest List" to include geocaches and/or waymarks and/or benchmarks (from geocaching.com).

[+QuesterMark]

[

 

That's not entirely valid, as the number of people that knew about geocaching.com in the first year was probably pretty small. Every premium member, I assume, got the email announcing Waymarking.com and inviting them to check it out.

 

I wasn't a premium member when Waymarking came out. (I wasn't a member at all.) When I became a premium member, I don't recall getting any notifications about Waymarking.com. At some point -something- brought it to my attention...

[+QuesterMark]

Just trying a basic search from a cache page (the "Nearby...all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com" link) it takes you to a rather intimidating category list. Maybe collapse this by default, with a bolder 'Search by Category' link to expand it?

 

It would certainly assist with the confusion issue noted previously.

 

Agreed. I'd rather have the list of specific waymarks. The collapse idea is good. Maybe columns? I dunno, but I'm not very fond of that category list when I hit the Nearby Waymarks link.

[+QuesterMark]

Scroll down or hide the directory list. The waymark results are below the category list.

 

I default the directory list to close. Like you I prefer seeing the waymarks first.

 

COOL! I didn't see the little "Hide" button until I read your post and went and looked for it.

 

But then I never saw any geocaches until I went and looked for them.

 

And I had no idea there were so many Texas Historical Markers either, until I -looked for- them. Or historic graveyards. Or Civil War memorials. Or...

[+QuesterMark]

[ Every morning I wake up and say, "Oh crap, I have to go to work..."

 

Me too!... But most of those days -would- have been great days for Waymarking. Work got in the way.

[+tozainamboku]

In that light, there is probably a catagory for any cool thing worthy of a cache. And yet caching remains it's own thing.

 

If geocache became a waymark catagory I'd probably take up letterboxing.

I don't know if you missed my post at the top of the page 2656385[/snapback] where I described how if Waymarking had existed first, geocaches could be a Waymarking category. It seems a lot of people have trouble with Waymarking having too much stuff in it. They see McDonald's and decide that Waymarking is a wasteland. That's like rejecting the Internet as having nothing but porn. The idea in Waymarking is to be able to select the categories you are interested in and ignore the rest. I can't speak to why TPTB chose to not allow new virtuals on Geocaching and grandfathered the existing ones. But they certainly saw that 99.99% of the locations people submitted as virtual caches could be created as waymarks in an existing or future category. I think what they may have overlooked are the people who like looking for virtuals. It may be that it is just to much trouble to look through the diretory to find the categories you are interested. Perhaps, it is just that peole want someone else to provide a list of cool places. It is not unreasonable to ask for the capability to see a list of "cool" waymarks that someone else put together. If Waymarking is not providing a satisfactory experience to the virtual cache hunter maybe some new features could be added along with new categories that address the specific issues. This might even include better integration between the Waymarking and geocaching sites.

Edited January 11, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

In that light, there is probably a catagory for any cool thing worthy of a cache. And yet caching remains it's own thing.

 

If geocache became a waymark catagory I'd probably take up letterboxing.

I don't know if you missed my post at the top of the page 2656385[/snapback] where I described how if Waymarking had existed first, geocaches could be a Waymarking category. It seems a lot of people have trouble with Waymarking having too much stuff in it. They see McDonald's and decide that Waymarking is a wasteland. That's like rejecting the Internet as having nothing but porn. The idea in Waymarking is to be able to select the categories you are interested in and ignore the rest. I can't speak to why TPTB chose to not allow new virtuals on Geocaching and grandfathered the existing ones. But they certainly saw that 99.99% of the locations people submitted as virtual caches could be created as waymarks in an existing or future category. I think what they may have overlooked are the people who like looking for virtuals. It may be that it is just to much trouble to look through the diretory to find the categories you are interested. Perhaps, it is just that peole want someone else to provide a list of cool places. It is not unreasonable to ask for the capability to see a list of "cool" waymarks that someone else put together. If Waymarking is not providing a satisfactory experience to the virtual cache hunter maybe some new features could be added along with new categories that address the specific issues. This might even include better integration between the Waymarking and geocaching sites.

I agree that there are interesting waymarks categories but most waymarks seem like something you would use a resource. Geocaches on the other hand have a hidden treasure element. You never know exactly what you're going to get. A treasure doesn't have to be a physical thing. A lot of people disagree with me on that point but that's my opinion. Anyhow, I think you missed my earlier post, but the only true virtuals that geocachers have now are your nine "Best Kept Secrets" waymarks and the grandfathered virtuals that still exist on GC. So I would like to see more good virtuals being created than the nine in the past 3 years.

[+Ambrosia]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference.

I enjoy virts, I've done 100 of them. And I'll enjoy the ones that I do in the future. But I've already pointed out that with quite a few of them I did know what to expect. It doesn't make that much difference to me. Virts to me were just like caches, but without the physical cache. They took you somewhere. The only reason that they had something you had to find to email an owner, was to have proof that you had gone to them. If you look at very old virts, a lot of them do not have email requirements. But then people (Groundspeak?) figured out that caches have logbooks to prove you were there, and so virts had to have something as well. So these tasks aren't there for enjoyment, they are there for proof. I don't understand why they are cited as a reason to enjoy virts above waymarks. There are some categories in Waymarking that require you to get your picture at the waymark, but those are being weeded out and it isn't very common anymore because people are realizing that it's counterintuitive to an enjoyable experience.

[+TheBeanTeam]

So I would like to see more good virtuals being created than the nine in the past 3 years.

 

So...go create some and add to the nine.

 

(general comments on the thread)

I too like Waymarking. Quite a bit actually.

 

I had a hard time at first getting past the geocache mindset. I loved locationless caches and did several so the transition was difficult but not as difficult as it might have been if I hadn't had that previous exposure but I still had to realize "this isn't a cache". I had to think outside of the ammo box to finally get it.

 

The argument that the mystery of virtuals is lost at Waymarking.com doesn't quite make sense to me either. I knew what I was looking for prior to going out and looking for most of the virtuals that I ever did up to this point. Some of these surprised me...most didn't. Several of them had a photo requirement much like the ones most of the waymarks now have. As far as the surprise factor goes I wouldn't have minded if I had known before hand when I went looking for the plaque on the bench or the trashed yard full of toilet bowls that were being used as flower pots.

 

I suppose that someday someone may have a bench plaque category or a toilet bowl yard art category at Waymarking.com but at least if they do I can ignore it before hand...like I have several other categories so far. I have tried to come up with a WOW virtual for the Best Kept Cat. but haven't been able to so far. I wish I could think of something but it has evaded me so far.

 

For those who accuse waymarkers of thinking they are better than thou. I would venture to say most of the elitist rhetoric is done tongue in cheek. I know the remarks that I have made that may be misinterpreted that way have been made in fun. I wish I could say the same about all of the waymark bashing that has gone on in the past.

 

I tried in my latest category creation to institute a verification question option. The waymarkers that are active have not liked it and have not wanted to incorporate that aspect into their waymark listings. One even voted no to the category during peer review because I had listed it in a fashion that encouraged alternate "virtual" methods of logging. I will be removing the option soon as a result and mark it up to a failed effort.

 

the mantra has been "locationless and virtuals were broken" well they were. Waymarking may not have restored the virtual & locationless experience as a cloned experience but it did at ;east fix many of the problems associated with them.

 

I'll stop rambling.

[+TrailGators]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference.

I enjoy virts, I've done 100 of them. And I'll enjoy the ones that I do in the future. But I've already pointed out that with quite a few of them I did know what to expect. It doesn't make that much difference to me. Virts to me were just like caches, but without the physical cache. They took you somewhere. The only reason that they had something you had to find to email an owner, was to have proof that you had gone to them. If you look at very old virts, a lot of them do not have email requirements. But then people (Groundspeak?) figured out that caches have logbooks to prove you were there, and so virts had to have something as well. So these tasks aren't there for enjoyment, they are there for proof. I don't understand why they are cited as a reason to enjoy virts above waymarks. There are some categories in Waymarking that require you to get your picture at the waymark, but those are being weeded out and it isn't very common anymore because people are realizing that it's counterintuitive to an enjoyable experience.

Virts are easy to attack because so many were not very entertaining. But some of them are really fun! Mr. T. addressed this already by pointing out that Waymarking has the ability to bring out the best qualities in Virts. I think his "Best Kept Secrets" category strives to do this but it is falling short because there are still only nine in the entire country. Why do you think this is?

 

Anyhow, you bring up a good point with the proof thing. Virts can be a PITA when it comes to emailing a lot of stuff to the owner prove you were there. The better Virts made this a simpler task. TC.com uses a six-digit code you have to get from GZ and enter into your log. I really love that idea! I wish GC would do something like that!

[+TrailGators]

So I would like to see more good virtuals being created than the nine in the past 3 years.

So...go create some and add to the nine.

So create one and then go find my own waymark! Wow! What a surprise that would be! My point was that masses are not creating them.....

[+Ambrosia]

I'm having difficulty with the point of creating a virt category.

Let's say that I wanted to create a virt of the observatory. Why would I want this in 'virts' instead of in 'observatories'? If I put it in 'observatories' people will know what to expect. If I put it in 'virts' some will complain that it was lame.

The whole point of virts is that you don't know exactly what to expect. Virts are a surprise. People that enjoy virts understand the difference.

I enjoy virts, I've done 100 of them. And I'll enjoy the ones that I do in the future. But I've already pointed out that with quite a few of them I did know what to expect. It doesn't make that much difference to me. Virts to me were just like caches, but without the physical cache. They took you somewhere. The only reason that they had something you had to find to email an owner, was to have proof that you had gone to them. If you look at very old virts, a lot of them do not have email requirements. But then people (Groundspeak?) figured out that caches have logbooks to prove you were there, and so virts had to have something as well. So these tasks aren't there for enjoyment, they are there for proof. I don't understand why they are cited as a reason to enjoy virts above waymarks. There are some categories in Waymarking that require you to get your picture at the waymark, but those are being weeded out and it isn't very common anymore because people are realizing that it's counterintuitive to an enjoyable experience.

Virts are easy to attack because so many were not very entertaining. But some of them are really fun! Mr. T. addressed this already by pointing out that Waymarking has the ability to bring out the best qualities in Virts. I think his "Best Kept Secrets" category strives to do this but it is falling short because there are still only nine in the entire country. Why do you think this is?

 

Anyhow, you bring up a good point with the proof thing. Virts can be a PITA when it comes to emailing a lot of stuff to the owner prove you were there. The better Virts made this a simpler task. TC.com uses a six-digit code you have to get from GZ and enter into your log. I really love that idea! I wish GC would do something like that!

If many virts were not entertaining, and only some of them were fun, then I don't think that they are good enough to bring back to gc.com. That "some" can be put into "Best Kept Secrets" and we've solved our problem. I don't really care that there are only 9 in that category. Perhaps that proves that it's not something that people really need in Waymarking....perhaps when people get into Waymarking they see that. (Not to get on the category...I'm glad that it's available.)

 

I have a waymark that I want to put in there, but trying to come up with a description that doesn't tell what it is but doesn't end up being one sentance has just been too much for me. It's a cool spot, but I've also put a waymark for it in another category, and so now that it's there, there isn't a huge suprise anymore because people can look at that waymark nearby when they are looking at my "Best Kept Secrets" waymark.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Ambrosia

[Edgemaster]

Here's a thought, why not allow waymarks to exist in multiple categories? (within reason of moderators of course)

 

Flame me down if you want, this topic always seems heated.

[+TrailGators]

I have a waymark that I want to put in there, but trying to come up with a description that doesn't tell what it is but doesn't end up being one sentance has just been too much for me. It's a cool spot, but I've also put a waymark for it in another category, and so now that it's there, there isn't a huge suprise anymore because people can look at that waymark nearby when they are looking at my "Best Kept Secrets" waymark.

I think we are slowly coming to the conclusion that virts are pretty much dead on GS sites unless something happens to kick up interest. I still like the code idea I mentioned before. That makes it fun to "find" a virt!

 

For the time-being, I'll go back to hiking in scenic areas and hunting for hidden ammo cans. I'll be sure to visit award winning waymarks whenever that happens....

Edited January 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

Here's a thought, why not allow waymarks to exist in multiple categories? (within reason of moderators of course)

 

Flame me down if you want, this topic always seems heated.

I like the idea. I don't think that things are heated. Try re-reading the posts giving everyone a calm tone of voice...

[+Ambrosia]

Here's a thought, why not allow waymarks to exist in multiple categories? (within reason of moderators of course)

 

Flame me down if you want, this topic always seems heated.

I like the idea. I don't think that things are heated. Try re-reading the posts giving everyone a calm tone of voice...

Yeah. Jumping mice are cute, not heated.

[+TrailGators]

Here's a thought, why not allow waymarks to exist in multiple categories? (within reason of moderators of course)

 

Flame me down if you want, this topic always seems heated.

I like the idea. I don't think that things are heated. Try re-reading the posts giving everyone a calm tone of voice...

Yeah. Jumping mice are cute, not heated.

[+HkrChris]

 

3. Earthcaches were brought back, so I dont see why this can't be either.

 

I personally think this was a mistake. Some day I believe the GSA will realize this as well. They had an agreement with geocaching to list Earthcaches. In spite of this, they initially agreed to move to Waymarking. When they saw waymarks getting fewer visits and had complaints from people who had earthcaches, they invoked their original agreement to get move back. Perhaps if you had a Virtual Caching Association and got corporate sponsorship and would have the the VCA approve the virtuals (with formal permission from land managers for virtuals in National Parks and the like) you could make a similar agreement with geocaching.

 

 

I would think that most of the land managers for national parks and historical locations would prefer virtuals to physical caches, which can't or shouldn't even be placed at many very cool places, and would support them if asked.

 

Geocaching for me has always been about the interesting people I meet and the special places it takes me, rather than the trinkets I collect. I think scouring a museum for information about an historical figure is more of a "find" than a park and grab micro any day. It certainly requires more effort and thought on the finder's behalf to find and send in the required answers for a virtual than it does to scribble your name on a cache log hidden on the guardrail of a stripmall parking lot. I am glad virtuals are grandfathered in, and I truly hope at some point they bring them back, maybe with different guidelines for placement...but for me the value is there, and I will seek out the virtuals whenever I have the opportunity.

 

My two cents...

[+TrailGators]

Geocaching for me has always been about the interesting people I meet and the special places it takes me, rather than the trinkets I collect. I think scouring a museum for information about an historical figure is more of a "find" than a park and grab micro any day. It certainly requires more effort and thought on the finder's behalf to find and send in the required answers for a virtual than it does to scribble your name on a cache log hidden on the guardrail of a stripmall parking lot. I am glad virtuals are grandfathered in, and I truly hope at some point they bring them back, maybe with different guidelines for placement...but for me the value is there, and I will seek out the virtuals whenever I have the opportunity. My two cents...

Very well said!

[+tozainamboku]

Virts are easy to attack because so many were not very entertaining. But some of them are really fun! Mr. T. addressed this already by pointing out that Waymarking has the ability to bring out the best qualities in Virts. I think his "Best Kept Secrets" category strives to do this but it is falling short because there are still only nine in the entire country. Why do you think this is?

 

Anyhow, you bring up a good point with the proof thing. Virts can be a PITA when it comes to emailing a lot of stuff to the owner prove you were there. The better Virts made this a simpler task. TC.com uses a six-digit code you have to get from GZ and enter into your log. I really love that idea! I wish GC would do something like that!

If many virts were not entertaining, and only some of them were fun, then I don't think that they are good enough to bring back to gc.com. That "some" can be put into "Best Kept Secrets" and we've solved our problem. I don't really care that there are only 9 in that category. Perhaps that proves that it's not something that people really need in Waymarking....perhaps when people get into Waymarking they see that. (Not to get on the category...I'm glad that it's available.)

 

I have a waymark that I want to put in there, but trying to come up with a description that doesn't tell what it is but doesn't end up being one sentance has just been too much for me. It's a cool spot, but I've also put a waymark for it in another category, and so now that it's there, there isn't a huge suprise anymore because people can look at that waymark nearby when they are looking at my "Best Kept Secrets" waymark.

 

Ambrosia makes some good points on why there are so few Best Kept Secrets. The reason for hiding a virtual cache was to share an interesting place with other geocachers. That shouldn't be hard for TrailGators to understand since in other threads he has expressed that for him this is important even for physical caches. With Waymarking you can share a place by listing in the appropriate category. People who might also be interested will have an easier time finding that category. Best Kept Secrets requires more work. You have to write up the location in a way to sell it to people who might not be as interested and you have to come up with a way to verify the visit. Trying to describe the place without giving a way too much about what you will find is particularly difficult. It's not a requirement, but it is suggested as a way to get people curious enough to visit the location.

 

The management group has also turned down waymarks that might have made good virtuals. I think we were a little to strict with the "Wow" requirement in the beginning. But most of the what we have turned down was either because the write up didn't really sell the location or because we didn't think the object was really a best kept secret that locals would not know about. In the first case, I always make suggestion on how to reword the description. Some people have taken my suggestion and resubmitted the page while others give up on that first rejection. In the second case I will suggest another category where the waymark might be listed.

 

It just much easier to list a waymark in it's natural category than as a Best Kept Secret.

 

Here's a thought, why not allow waymarks to exist in multiple categories? (within reason of moderators of course)

Waymarks can exist in multiple categories. I gave an example above where I created waymarks in 5 different categories for the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. Ambrosia is free to submit her waymark in Best Kept Secrets even though she has waymarked that location in another category. As she points out a person can look at nearby waymarks and see what is there. I guess this is like looking at the spoiler before hunting a cache. If a person wants to be surprised they won't look. If they don't like surprises they can look and decide if they want to visit one, both, or neither of the waymarks.

[+TrailGators]

If a person wants to be surprised they won't look. If they don't like surprises they can look and decide if they want to visit one, both, or neither of the waymarks.

This is a good point!

 

By the way, I never said I wouldn't like interesting waymarks. I have now ignored a ton of categories in my profile. This was a good tip! Now I only see the waymark categories that I am truly interested in. There aren't many waymarks left in my area that I haven't been to already.... However, these would be great to know when I go on a roadtrip/vacation!

Edited January 11, 2007 by TrailGators