Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
sacred6

Virtual Cache Comback

Recommended Posts

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

I say NO.

 

Visit Waymarking.com if you like that sort of thing. I believe geocaches should be a physical container.

Share this post


Link to post

The virtuals are being granted by Groundspeak....submit one, and you have a very fair shot of it getting published! Because they are so popular, they have their own website.....it is: www.Waymarking.com

 

On Waymarking, you have a VAST database of virtuals to hunt right at your fingertips....try it sometime! Their are some fantastic places to visit :D

 

:laughing: Like........McDonald's :D

Edited by Super_Nate

Share this post


Link to post

Because they are so popular, they have their own website.....it is: www.Waymarking.com

 

On Waymarking, you have a VAST database of virtuals to hunt right at your fingertips....try it sometime! Their are some fantastic places to visit :laughing:

 

 

Unfortunately Waymarking.com isn't one of them.

 

Waymarking.com IS the reason I do not do Virtuals. They had such a good fundamental idea here and they completely disregarded it when designing that (insert explative here) site. Just my opinion.

 

--MGb

 

Edit: And the point of the topic...Absolutely yes bring them back and do away with wm.com. Or redo the site so it actualyl...uh. I dson't know...makes sense. )I don't care aout entertainment waymarks that are 2,000 miles from my home. I want the ones near me....) one of the two.

Edited by mgbmusic

Share this post


Link to post

If you want some cool waymarks in your area, you should create some. Do it in a creative way that opens the door for others to make waymarks, and you can find your virtuals.

 

The point is, no matter how much begging and pleading that goes on...the virtual cache is not going to return to Geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :laughing:

 

horse.gif

 

I want 10 million US dollars, in small bills, tax free.

 

I'll probably get my wish before you get yours.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see the Virtual Caches come back too. But I agree, its not likely. I think the problem most people find when placing a cache in an awesome spot is that it is usually owned by a State Park or State Forest, or Historical Society etc. , which we all know is not allowed without permission. The best solution is to contact your department of natural resources or historical society and work with them to place a cache. It is time consuming. It took me several months of correspondence to get permission for one. States have different guideline and fees. Yep, the alternative is Waymarking! Try it! It is as addicting as Geocaching!

Share this post


Link to post

The virtuals are being granted by Groundspeak....submit one, and you have a very fair shot of it getting published! Because they are so popular, they have their own website.....it is: www.Waymarking.com

 

On Waymarking, you have a VAST database of virtuals to hunt right at your fingertips....try it sometime! Their are some fantastic places to visit :)

 

:lol: Like........McDonald's :)

 

Waymarking isn't, as you insinuate, simply a collection of virtual Geocaches. Waymarking.com has a collection of waymarks the way that Geocaching.com has a collection of geocaches.

 

In my opinion virtual caches were being abused, used for the wrong reasons and over used in some places. Some cachers were too lazy to place and maintain a physical cache or were placing virtuals to hold a spot so someone else couldn't place a physical cache there first and then there were the vacation virtuals being placed by people who have never vacation to or otherwise visited the area. The reaction to this was to put virtual caches through a process where the placer had to prove that the virtual had a "WOW factor". But what one person considered wow someone else may not. A lot of virtuals were not being published and arguments were happening between approvers and caches that didn't see eye to eye on the WOW factor.

Share this post


Link to post

Well.... you could virtually submit it to a virtual approver and then have virtual geocachers virtually find it.

 

Heck, you could even do some virtual maintenance from time to time to keep it from getting virtually muggled!

 

(of course, like Mopar, I'd rather have 10 million bucks....)

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :cool:

 

horse.gif

 

I want 10 million US dollars, in small bills, tax free.

 

I'll probably get my wish before you get yours.

 

That's not what the odds say.

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :cool:

 

horse.gif

 

I want 10 million US dollars, in small bills, tax free.

 

I'll probably get my wish before you get yours.

Please keep this on topic. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :cool:

 

horse.gif

 

I want 10 million US dollars, in small bills, tax free.

 

I'll probably get my wish before you get yours.

Please keep this on topic. :cool:

He was on topic. And to add I would be happy with only 9.8 million.

Share this post


Link to post

how many times must this dead horse be beaten into the ground?

This one is deader than Barbaro, I really wish I did not have to read the same lame plea to bring them back every time I visit the forums.

NO VIRTUALS ON GC.COM

Enjoy the grandfathered ones.

Perhaps if people had not tried to make every lame stupid thing in the world a virt they'd still be around.

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :cool:

 

horse.gif

 

I want 10 million US dollars, in small bills, tax free.

 

I'll probably get my wish before you get yours.

Please keep this on topic. :cool:

 

Your "Just say what you want here." comment kinda made it wide open. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :wub:

 

horse.gif

 

I want 10 million US dollars, in small bills, tax free.

 

I'll probably get my wish before you get yours.

Please keep this on topic. :cool:

 

Your "Just say what you want here." comment kinda made it wide open. :D

When you asked for a pony, you made the mistake of saying if it had to be alive or not :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Bring them back.

 

I'm with RK, bring 'em back! If a swagless total non-wow micro in a freaking parking lot is allowed on GC.com than a cool virtual in a national park or historic site should be allowed too. :cool:

 

Edit: Also please spare me the Waymarking sales pitch. I'm not buying...

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Bring them back.

 

I'm with RK, bring 'em back! If a swagless total non-wow micro in a freaking parking lot is allowed on GC.com than a cool virtual in a national park or historic site should be allowed too. :blink:

 

Edit: Also please spare me the Waymarking sales pitch. I'm not buying...

No worries, for you WM.com is free.

Share this post


Link to post
Bring them back.

 

I'm with RK, bring 'em back! If a swagless total non-wow micro in a freaking parking lot is allowed on GC.com than a cool virtual in a national park or historic site should be allowed too. :blink:

 

Edit: Also please spare me the Waymarking sales pitch. I'm not buying...

No worries, for you WM.com is free.

I was speaking figuratively and not literally.... :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Bring them back.

 

I'm with RK, bring 'em back! If a swagless total non-wow micro in a freaking parking lot is allowed on GC.com than a cool virtual in a national park or historic site should be allowed too. :blink:

 

Edit: Also please spare me the Waymarking sales pitch. I'm not buying...

Jeremy used to ask people to define what made something a virtual cache as opposed to just a POI or waymark. Nobody was ever able to give him a satisfactory answer. It's easy to define a physical cache - it has a log to sign. There is nothing requiring a physical cache to be "Wow" or take you to a "Wow" location. Of course many people would prefer if all physical caches were "Wow" or took you to a "Wow" location. In any case, virtual caches have shown that there is no agreement as to what is wow. And there are people who don't care whether or not a cache is "wow" or in a "wow" location - perhaps they are just interested in getting a smiley or perhaps they find it sufficient that they found the cache. Not eveyone caches for the kind of experience TrailGators is looking for.

 

Waymarking is based on the idea of defining categories to put waymarks in. Most categories have a very clear definition. In any case, each category has a group of individuals that sponsor the category, and the officers of the group decide if a submitted waymark belongs in that category.

 

I started the "Wow" waymarkers group to see if we could define a category of waymarks that approximated virtual caches. As we discussed what the definition of a virtual cache was it became apparent that no one Waymarking category could represent all virtuals caches - or even all "good" virtual caches. We eventually defined a category called "Best Kept Secret", for places that would interesting enough for most people to want to visit but that are generally not known even to the locals. They should make you go "Wow, I didn't know this was here". We also require a verification question that can only be answered by visiting the waymark. I had hoped that others would follow our lead and come up with categories like this to represent what they thought made the best virtual caches. As it turns out, most people visit virtual caches just because they're places you can go to using a GPS that may be interesting and you get a smiley on geocaching.com for visiting them. Yes - people visit virtual caches for the same reason they find parking lot micros. On Waymarking at least, you can select the categories that you find interesting annd ignore the rest. The places you will visit will be interesting to you.

Share this post


Link to post

Edit: Also please spare me the Waymarking sales pitch. I'm not buying...

 

^

X2

Share this post


Link to post
Bring them back.

 

I'm with RK, bring 'em back! If a swagless total non-wow micro in a freaking parking lot is allowed on GC.com than a cool virtual in a national park or historic site should be allowed too. :blink:

 

Edit: Also please spare me the Waymarking sales pitch. I'm not buying...

Jeremy used to ask people to define what made something a virtual cache as opposed to just a POI or waymark. Nobody was ever able to give him a satisfactory answer. It's easy to define a physical cache - it has a log to sign. There is nothing requiring a physical cache to be "Wow" or take you to a "Wow" location. Of course many people would prefer if all physical caches were "Wow" or took you to a "Wow" location. In any case, virtual caches have shown that there is no agreement as to what is wow. And there are people who don't care whether or not a cache is "wow" or in a "wow" location - perhaps they are just interested in getting a smiley or perhaps they find it sufficient that they found the cache. Not eveyone caches for the kind of experience TrailGators is looking for.

 

Waymarking is based on the idea of defining categories to put waymarks in. Most categories have a very clear definition. In any case, each category has a group of individuals that sponsor the category, and the officers of the group decide if a submitted waymark belongs in that category.

 

I started the "Wow" waymarkers group to see if we could define a category of waymarks that approximated virtual caches. As we discussed what the definition of a virtual cache was it became apparent that no one Waymarking category could represent all virtuals caches - or even all "good" virtual caches. We eventually defined a category called "Best Kept Secret", for places that would interesting enough for most people to want to visit but that are generally not known even to the locals. They should make you go "Wow, I didn't know this was here". We also require a verification question that can only be answered by visiting the waymark. I had hoped that others would follow our lead and come up with categories like this to represent what they thought made the best virtual caches. As it turns out, most people visit virtual caches just because they're places you can go to using a GPS that may be interesting and you get a smiley on geocaching.com for visiting them. Yes - people visit virtual caches for the same reason they find parking lot micros. On Waymarking at least, you can select the categories that you find interesting annd ignore the rest. The places you will visit will be interesting to you.

I have already done that. I help manage a Waymarking category called New World Ancient Evidence, which now has 24 waymarks. All of these take you very interesting locations. But nobody ever visits them! I think the real problem is that the sites need to be better linked. It would be great to run a PQ and pull waymarks and geocaches for the categories that I enjoy the most at the same time. If there were categories for geocaching, then I could blow out all the Wal-Marts and McDonalds categories like I do for Waymarking. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post

-- long post removed ---

I have already done that. I help manage a Waymarking category called New World Ancient Evidence, which now has 24 waymarks. All of these take you very interesting locations. But nobody ever visits them! I think the real problem is that the sites need to be better linked. It would be great to run a PQ and pull waymarks and geocaches for the categories that I enjoy the most at the same time. If there were categories for geocaching, then I could blow out all the Wal-Marts and McDonalds categories like I do for Waymarking. :wub:

So by not buying... you don't mean literally or figuratively :blink:

Yes - the sites need to be better integrated. You can find the nearest waymarks from the geocache page and the nearest geocache from the waymark page, but you can't really get a list of all geocache and waymarks that meet your criteria in some area. Waymarking does need PQ and Waymarking GPX - I think until this happens some waymarks will not get visited very often. People tend to load up an area they will be visiting into their GPSr. Waymarking does have a .loc files now, so you can get the coordinates into your GPSr but you won't know what you're looking for (other than a waymark) or what the requirements for logging a visit might be unless you print out every page.

I was thinking the same thing. If we had groups in geocaching that defined the caches they like to find, cachers could submit their cache to various groups and the group managers would decide to list it in their category or not. I guess we have bookmark lists that could be used like this. This would be a place for cache owners to nominate their own cache for a certain list and a group management for the list to review the cache and decide it meets that list's requirements.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches have enabled us to find spots that we otherwise wouldn't have found.....but then again geocaching in general has done this. If it doesn't have a checkmark next to it, it will eventually.

 

I believe that there could be a revival of virtuals, but then again I would also like to see webcams and reverse locationles brought back also. Even though TPTB have decided to do away with them they had also decided to do away with earthcaches at one point.

 

My $.02 would have been to keep ALL reverse locationless, webcams, and virts currently operating on the system active with a feature that would have allowed them to be adopted by local cachers if the owners didn't want to maintain them anymore. Yes, I know that GC.com allows them to be adopted by the cache owner voluntarily, but this is not always feasible. When we lose a game piece due to archival we lose it for good. Bad mojo!

 

I know that while traveling we will seek out the cams, virts, and earthcaches first. We enjoy them.

 

Oh well, perhaps there can be an approver for these three types of caches similar to the one responsible for earthcaches.

 

LPYF

 

Flame on.

Share this post


Link to post

...Jeremy used to ask people to define what made something a virtual cache as opposed to just a POI or waymark. Nobody was ever able to give him a satisfactory answer....

 

That's strange since he's the guy who put them on this site and in turn created a buch of people who liked them.

 

In my opinion a virtual cache allows an online log like other caches and there is some kind of hunt involved once you get to the site. It's not just about Yet Another Statue, it's figururing out that the date the statue was dedicated never was a real date. Virtual caches use something already existing in the world as the basis of the hunt. Bechmarks are a special case of virtual caches. Waymarking is a variation of the entire virtual cache concept, but as a variation it's not the same as the orginal.

 

Ironicly if they got rid of Waymarking to bring back virtuals and locationless, I'd champion keeping Waymarking for what it was. It runs both directions. If Waymarking isn't virtuals as we knew them, virtuals as we knew them can't replace Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the real problem is that the sites need to be better linked. It would be great to run a PQ and pull waymarks and geocaches for the categories that I enjoy the most at the same time. If there were categories for geocaching, then I could blow out all the Wal-Marts and McDonalds categories like I do for Waymarking. :wub:
I was thinking the same thing. If we had groups in geocaching that defined the caches they like to find, cachers could submit their cache to various groups and the group managers would decide to list it in their category or not. I guess we have bookmark lists that could be used like this. This would be a place for cache owners to nominate their own cache for a certain list and a group management for the list to review the cache and decide it meets that list's requirements.
I like this idea!

Here's an idea.....[putting on flameproof suit---OK I'm ready :blink: ]

Why not allow people to submit their existing geocaches as a waymark? Many geocaches would fit nicely into existing categories....

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the folks who so desperately crave the return of the virtual could band together, hold a bake sale, and fund the development of a web app dedicated to publishing virtuals, locationless, webcams, etc.

 

Betcha $10 that it would end up looking awfully similar to Waymarking or Navicache.

Share this post


Link to post

...Jeremy used to ask people to define what made something a virtual cache as opposed to just a POI or waymark. Nobody was ever able to give him a satisfactory answer....

 

That's strange since he's the guy who put them on this site and in turn created a buch of people who liked them.

 

In my opinion a virtual cache allows an online log like other caches and there is some kind of hunt involved once you get to the site. It's not just about Yet Another Statue, it's figururing out that the date the statue was dedicated never was a real date. Virtual caches use something already existing in the world as the basis of the hunt. Bechmarks are a special case of virtual caches. Waymarking is a variation of the entire virtual cache concept, but as a variation it's not the same as the orginal.

 

Ironicly if they got rid of Waymarking to bring back virtuals and locationless, I'd champion keeping Waymarking for what it was. It runs both directions. If Waymarking isn't virtuals as we knew them, virtuals as we knew them can't replace Waymarking.

I never saw in the threads where nobody could explain the the difference between virtual cache versus a POI (markwell me please). Anyhow as RK points out there is a difference. Geocaching is about finding something and Waymarking is about visiting something. Maybe if they created validation code that you had to find at the coords and enter on the log page; it would help recapture the hunting aspect of the virtual that is missing from Waymarking....

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe the folks who so desperately crave the return of the virtual could band together, hold a bake sale, and fund the development of a web app dedicated to publishing virtuals, locationless, webcams, etc.

 

Betcha $10 that it would end up looking awfully similar to Waymarking or Navicache.

No need to get personal with the "desperately" comment....

Let's keep this a friendly discussion. :blink:

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
No need to get personal with the "desperately" comment....

Let's keep this a friendly discussion. :(

Oh, that wasn't directed at you! That was more just a response for the seemingly nonstop stream of threads that petition for the return of virtuals.

 

I like the idea of automating the verification process, though. Not sure how to generalize it, but if it could be done I bet it would make Waymarking a lot more popular than it is today.

 

-eP

Share this post


Link to post
No need to get personal with the "desperately" comment....

Let's keep this a friendly discussion. :(

Oh, that wasn't directed at you! That was more just a response for the seemingly nonstop stream of threads that petition for the return of virtuals.

 

I like the idea of automating the verification process, though. Not sure how to generalize it, but if it could be done I bet it would make Waymarking a lot more popular than it is today.

 

-eP

No problem. There are some subjects that will never die. On a positive note these threads can lead to new ideas. I think some interesting ones have come up in this thread.

 

I think the popularity of Waymarking hinges on people wanting to visit places. Geocaching alllows you to visit places but adds a hide-n-seek game to it. I think that's a lot more fun. However, Waymarking has come up with some implementation ideas that would work very well on Geocaching.com. Plus Waymarking would be nice if you are going on vacation and want to plan a bunch of sites to see. The bottomline is that a waymark is a completely different animal than a geocache.

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :laughing:

 

horse.gif

 

I want 10 million US dollars, in small bills, tax free.

 

I'll probably get my wish before you get yours.

Please keep this on topic. :laughing:

 

Your "Just say what you want here." comment kinda made it wide open. :laughing:

When you asked for a pony, you made the mistake of saying if it had to be alive or not :laughing:

True. :laughing::laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

...Jeremy used to ask people to define what made something a virtual cache as opposed to just a POI or waymark. Nobody was ever able to give him a satisfactory answer....

 

That's strange since he's the guy who put them on this site and in turn created a buch of people who liked them.

 

In my opinion a virtual cache allows an online log like other caches and there is some kind of hunt involved once you get to the site. It's not just about Yet Another Statue, it's figururing out that the date the statue was dedicated never was a real date. Virtual caches use something already existing in the world as the basis of the hunt. Bechmarks are a special case of virtual caches. Waymarking is a variation of the entire virtual cache concept, but as a variation it's not the same as the orginal.

 

Ironicly if they got rid of Waymarking to bring back virtuals and locationless, I'd champion keeping Waymarking for what it was. It runs both directions. If Waymarking isn't virtuals as we knew them, virtuals as we knew them can't replace Waymarking.

I never saw in the threads where nobody could explain the the difference between virtual cache versus a POI (markwell me please). Anyhow as RK points out there is a difference. Geocaching is about finding something and Waymarking is about visiting something. Maybe if they created validation code that you had to find at the coords and enter on the log page; it would help recapture the hunting aspect of the virtual that is missing from Waymarking....

OK, I'll bite too.

 

Virtual cache - find a location and do something (code, date, project) in other words enjoy the location, but prove you were there. Works great in places where you can't/wouldn't place a cache, like the National Mall.

 

POI/Waymark - "hey, there's a mcdonalds and I've been there." :unsure: OK, maybe it's a little better than that, but not by much.

 

Some of the old Locationless caches were harder to find than the real ones. You try to find a weiner mobile in the freakin' ozarks. It took me nearly a year, and then I still didn't get the smiley, because they wanted a picture of the license plate. Like a photo of me and my GPSr in front and beside a huge Hot Dog mobile wasn't good enough.

 

anyway... :P

 

bring them back, but increase the reviewer oversight and screening process. Prove that this virtual is worthy of being a cache.

Share this post


Link to post
bring them back, but increase the reviewer oversight and screening process. Prove that this virtual is worthy of being a cache.

 

But that was the problem.

 

These are portions of the earliest versions of the Listing Guidelines I could find on the internet archive. Note the sections on virtuals that I've highlighted in red.

 

Virtual Caches

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a very unique and compelling nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there. Note, however, that new virtual cache proposals are only approved if they meet the all of conditions listed in the guidelines below. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page.

Virtual and Reverse Virtual (or Locationless) Caches

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. While previous guidelines for these categories were somewhat loose to encourage innovation, it is now appropriate to add clarification... The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane.

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines...

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

 

Now do a search in the forums with the subject "virtual" and see how many people were whining because their virtual of an obscure memorial wasn't "wow" enough. :unsure:

 

Prove that this virtual is worthy of being a cache.

Worthy in whose eyes? How do you prove it?

Share this post


Link to post

* nevermind *

Edited by Jhwk

Share this post


Link to post

Because they are so popular, they have their own website.....it is: www.Waymarking.com

 

On Waymarking, you have a VAST database of virtuals to hunt right at your fingertips....try it sometime! Their are some fantastic places to visit ;)

 

 

Unfortunately Waymarking.com isn't one of them.

 

Waymarking.com IS the reason I do not do Virtuals. They had such a good fundamental idea here and they completely disregarded it when designing that (insert explative here) site. Just my opinion.

 

--MGb

 

Edit: And the point of the topic...Absolutely yes bring them back and do away with wm.com. Or redo the site so it actualyl...uh. I dson't know...makes sense. )I don't care aout entertainment waymarks that are 2,000 miles from my home. I want the ones near me....) one of the two.

 

A man of my own words. Thank you. Bring them back. I love history and loved Virtuals. I really enjoyed these and even went so far as to create a few when I got back from the sandbox only to get on geocaching.com to "place" them and then found out they had been deleted!!

Share this post


Link to post

I used to get annoyed with Waymarking.com until I figured out how to create a query that used my home coordinates as a starting point.

 

Groundspeak already knows your home coords ... I'd think having the default query use that as a starting point would go a long way towards helping people to feel that WM was more useful to them.

Share this post


Link to post

Even those who miss virtuals here might come around to Waymarking once Waymarking has gpx and PQ's. Another issue is that the Waymarking site is not as clear and intuitive to use as the geocaching site. It is easy to get frustrated at first over there!

Share this post


Link to post

Even those who miss virtuals here might come around to Waymarking once Waymarking has gpx and PQ's. Another issue is that the Waymarking site is not as clear and intuitive to use as the geocaching site. It is easy to get frustrated at first over there!

 

Definitely agreed! We did lots of virtuals and locationless last winter (at least before Jan. when the locationless disappeared <_< ) when cold and sometimes snow cover made standard caching tough to take our small kids along. The lack of visits and activity on Waymarking has kind of turned us off for the most part and if there were more we'd be doing this part of every winter weekend instead of only doing the very occasional visit to an above ground urban micro, virtual that we haven't been to yet (not too many close by ones left unless we want to trek to Manhattan), or very occasional "armchair virtual" that we feel is OK by the owner until spring.

Share this post


Link to post

As I have probably said more than you a few times I am one that laments the end of creating new virtuals. I would like to see them come back but with an added, more intensive review process in the mold of Earthcaches. It is beyond my limited brain capacity to demonstrate just how it would work but I think a virtual submission would require a good and solid argument just why the proposed virtual would be of value to the caching community. I know this would create quite a bureaucracy and allegations of unfairness but at least it may hinder the "lameness factor" we saw in some virtuals (and a lot of Waymarks).

 

Dang, where did I put my Nomex trousers again?

Share this post


Link to post

Even those who miss virtuals here might come around to Waymarking once Waymarking has gpx and PQ's. Another issue is that the Waymarking site is not as clear and intuitive to use as the geocaching site. It is easy to get frustrated at first over there!

 

Some might. And some will find and enjoy Waymarking who would have never liked an actual virtual. Still since waymarks and virtual caches are both different the people who use and like them may overalap but they won't be the same overall audience.

 

As for the folks who want them back but with WOW added. I'm just not agreeing here. WOW was always a big problem. It was subjective and a PITA for both the reviewers and the people trying to get their virtual cache listed. If they come back they should come back free of WOW. The people who whined about them with WOW will still whine about them after it's gone but at least the reivewers and people who listed them will have less headaches.

Share this post


Link to post

When we joined geocaching.com last month, we took a good look at all the types of caches currently listed. When we came across the ghost icon and read the definition to it, my wife and I were both really excited about this one...only to read 20 minutes later that only grandfathered geocaches are allowed. This style of cache is certainly worth having on gc.com. Im gald to see a poll on here for this subject. You have 2 yes votes here to bring it back. The people on this tread voting no could always nto bother going to look for these types...I bet most that disagree with this type of cache would go out and hunt a few locals anyway just to up their found counts.

 

Muddy and Amused (Husband and Wife Team).

Petition signed.

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is about finding something and Waymarking is about visiting something.

That's the way I see it to. I just recently tried Waymarking and am already addicted. We only have one earthcache in our area, but it is no different to any waymark. Whether you found the location through geocaching or Waymarking makes no difference. I'm sure Waymarking will become more integrated with geocaching as more people start participating.

Share this post


Link to post

Even those who miss virtuals here might come around to Waymarking once Waymarking has gpx and PQ's. Another issue is that the Waymarking site is not as clear and intuitive to use as the geocaching site. It is easy to get frustrated at first over there!

 

Some might. And some will find and enjoy Waymarking who would have never liked an actual virtual. Still since waymarks and virtual caches are both different the people who use and like them may overalap but they won't be the same overall audience.

 

As for the folks who want them back but with WOW added. I'm just not agreeing here. WOW was always a big problem. It was subjective and a PITA for both the reviewers and the people trying to get their virtual cache listed. If they come back they should come back free of WOW. The people who whined about them with WOW will still whine about them after it's gone but at least the reivewers and people who listed them will have less headaches.

 

But that's why TPTB will probably never bring them back no matter how much we beg them too. Because virtuals are easy to setup (i.e. don't need to buy a container and "supplies" and find a place to put it, I realize that micros are almost as easy to start in that sense but that's another story althogether :huh: )

and usually a lot easier to find and log a smiley than a "regular" cache, I'm sure to some degree they fear the massive increase of traffic on this site that would result from this. It's a shame, and I almost sometimes think that Waymarking is designed not to be as popular as virts were to minimize server overload, but I guess that's the way it is. :huh:

Edited by HaLiJuSaPa

Share this post


Link to post

Even those who miss virtuals here might come around to Waymarking once Waymarking has gpx and PQ's. Another issue is that the Waymarking site is not as clear and intuitive to use as the geocaching site. It is easy to get frustrated at first over there!

 

And the secoind time and the third time and the....werll you get the idea...

 

Let's address some issues here -

 

first and foremost - the reason I want to bring them back is the same reason why I do all my banking in one place - I don't want to have to go anywhere else. Let's set aside the fact that Waymarking.com is the most horribly designed concept since "the Phantom Menace"...(there's your wow factor...) The fact that I have to run two separate searches - one in an easy to use and understand format, and one at Waymarking....well sucks...

 

Point 2 - I've been visiting WM.com for aobut 4 months or so and am only just recently starting to get a handle on the site - this is coming from someone who works in technical support for a web company whose job it is to learn and understand web interfaces inside and out. If I can't get it...jeez.

 

Ok - wow factor - There's nothing wow about the mcdonalds down the road and there's nothing wow about the micro I found under the lampskirt. where's the difference? I piece of paper? Give me something else cuz that shpeep don't fly.

 

WM.com categories - we already have a system like that here - they're called attributes.

 

Geocaching, at least the hobby that most of us seem to want is about placing boxes/containers in places we never would've visited without the hobby to take us there, have a nice hike, enjoy the scenery, and go home with a nice sense of accomplishment. Waymarking is about placing boxes/containers in oops....going to places we never would've visited without the hobby to take us there, have a nice hike, enjoy the scenery, and go home with a nice sense of accomplishment.

 

Finally the last reason for integration - One subscription (I don't even know if WM.com has a subscription - shows much I give [potty mouth stuff removed by moderator]), one PQ, one trip out, one set of smileys. Nuff said.

 

We could argue about this till we're all blue in the face. Some have opinions, some disagree. I have seen some many forum topics about lame micros, and LPM's, etc and the general response is - that's what the ignore button is for. My position for all those out there who don't want Virtuals back - that's what the ignore button is for.

 

I could go on, but I seem to be repeating myself...

 

I could go on, but I seem to be repeating myself...

 

--MGb

 

--MGb

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

Let's address some issues here -

 

first and foremost - the reason I want to bring them back is the same reason why I do all my banking in one place - I don't want to have to go anywhere else. Let's set aside the fact that Waymarking.com is the most horribly designed concept since "the Phantom Menace"...(there's your wow factor...) The fact that I have to run two separate searches - one in an easy to use and understand format, and one at Waymarking....well sucks...

Sounds like a personal issue. Thankfully AOLs plans of Internet domination never happened.

 

Point 2 - I've been visiting WM.com for aobut 4 months or so and am only just recently starting to get a handle on the site - this is coming from someone who works in technical support for a web company whose job it is to learn and understand web interfaces inside and out. If I can't get it...jeez.

Again this is a personal preference issue and I wouldn't want Waymarking.com changed to operate like geocaching.com because of the differences in the two games.

 

Ok - wow factor - There's nothing wow about the mcdonalds down the road and there's nothing wow about the micro I found under the lampskirt. where's the difference? I piece of paper? Give me something else cuz that shpeep don't fly.

You may have noticed that Waymarking is a little different than geocaching. If you have the attitude that you must clear all waymarks in a 30 mile radius of your home you will drive yourself crazy visiting uninteresting waymarks.

 

To enjoy Waymarking you need to find the category that interest you and find the waymarks or add your own waymarks to that category.

 

One thing that I learned from virtual caches on Geocaching.com is that what is WOW to someone is ho-hum to someone else. And who says that McDonalds restaurant are all the same.

 

WM.com categories - we already have a system like that here - they're called attributes.

You can't be serious?

 

Geocaching, at least the hobby that most of us seem to want is about placing boxes/containers in places we never would've visited without the hobby to take us there, have a nice hike, enjoy the scenery, and go home with a nice sense of accomplishment. Waymarking is about placing boxes/containers in oops....going to places we never would've visited without the hobby to take us there, have a nice hike, enjoy the scenery, and go home with a nice sense of accomplishment.

Waymarking is not Geocaching hence the different websites.

 

Finally the last reason for integration - One subscription (I don't even know if WM.com has a subscription - shows much I give [potty mouth stuff removed by moderator]), one PQ, one trip out, one set of smileys. Nuff said.

Since both sites are run by Groundspeak there is a single log in (you may have noticed that when you logged on to the Waymarking site) and a single subscription.

 

One PQ for both sites is being looked in to. You would have see this if you simply did a search of forum topics.

 

One trip out. Well, that is pretty much up to you isn't it?

 

One set of smilies. Does it really matter. I guess my drive to get out is different than others. I don't need to have a large find count to feel important.

 

We could argue about this till we're all blue in the face. Some have opinions, some disagree. I have seen some many forum topics about lame micros, and LPM's, etc and the general response is - that's what the ignore button is for. My position for all those out there who don't want Virtuals back - that's what the ignore button is for.

If the two games were combined it would make more sense to fold Geocaching in to the Waymarking site. Geocaching would fit very nicely as a Waymarking category with sub categories for each cache type.

 

I could go on, but I seem to be repeating myself...

 

I could go on, but I seem to be repeating myself...

 

--MGb

 

--MGb

Share this post


Link to post

Let's address some issues here -

 

first and foremost - the reason I want to bring them back is the same reason why I do all my banking in one place - I don't want to have to go anywhere else. Let's set aside the fact that Waymarking.com is the most horribly designed concept since "the Phantom Menace"...(there's your wow factor...) The fact that I have to run two separate searches - one in an easy to use and understand format, and one at Waymarking....well sucks...

I guess you can have your opinion. I actually find the concept behind Waymarking simple and well thought out. The Waymarking site allows for communities (groups) to define a category of things that are associated with a geographical location. The groups manage which waymarks are listed in their category. If you want to visit something in a category you can enter coordinates and see if there any it that are close by. If Waymarking had existed before geocaching, someone might have suggested a category for hidden caches and it would have fit the Waymarking model just fine.

 

Point 2 - I've been visiting WM.com for aobut 4 months or so and am only just recently starting to get a handle on the site - this is coming from someone who works in technical support for a web company whose job it is to learn and understand web interfaces inside and out. If I can't get it...jeez.

That might explain it :huh: . I will admit that the Waymarking user interface was initially quite hard to navigate and that it still can use some improvement. Sometimes I think they are more interested in some flashy looking site then considering how user friendly they are. But the site continues to see improvements and ideas for improvements are discussed in the Waymarking forums.

 

Ok - wow factor - There's nothing wow about the mcdonalds down the road and there's nothing wow about the micro I found under the lampskirt. where's the difference? I piece of paper? Give me something else cuz that shpeep don't fly.

The wow factor was something that was applied to virtuals because people who were too lazy to hide a 35mm in the parking lot would submit the parking lot as virtual cache. Before the wow requirement there were some really stupid virtual caches. You should've been around to how many were "cache is missing so instead of replacing it, I'm making this a virtual cache." There is no "wow" requirement for physical caches and there is no "wow" requirement for Waymarking categories. To be a category, you only need to have enough people form a group and elect officers who support the category. There is a peer review process to avoid having duplicate categories and to make sure the categories are well defined.

 

WM.com categories - we already have a system like that here - they're called attributes.

I suppose you could create Waymarking categories for each cache attribute (assuming that geocaches were listed on Waymarking.com) - more likely you would use what are called category variables on Waymarking.com. You are trying to fit Waymarking to your model of geocaching. That won't work because Waymarking is the more generic view of the data.

 

Geocaching, at least the hobby that most of us seem to want is about placing boxes/containers in places we never would've visited without the hobby to take us there, have a nice hike, enjoy the scenery, and go home with a nice sense of accomplishment. Waymarking is about placing boxes/containers in oops....going to places we never would've visited without the hobby to take us there, have a nice hike, enjoy the scenery, and go home with a nice sense of accomplishment.

Again, you miss the reason for Waymarking (and geocaching too). Waymarking is about listing things that have a location value and possibly visiting those things because they fit in a category you are interested in. There are many whose definition of geocaching is going to find a hidden container regardless whether or not it takes you to any place interesting. I understand that some people would like geocaches to be only hidden in wow places. This is not what geocaching.com does. If you want all geocaches to be "wow", you should hate geocaching.com as much as you hate Waymarking.

 

Finally the last reason for integration - One subscription (I don't even know if WM.com has a subscription - shows much I give [potty mouth stuff removed by moderator]), one PQ, one trip out, one set of smileys. Nuff said.
Your Groundspeak account works on both geocaching and Waymarking. If you are premium member for one you are a premium member of both. This, of course, has the effect of getting those that have already made up their mind about Waymarking to have something else to complain about. Seems they don't like that their money went to support something other than geocaching. I do agree that it would be nice to get a combined pocket query so you can load geocaches and the waymarks you are interested in in your GPS together. Perhaps seeing the stats combined would be nice as well. As I mentioned above, had Waymarking come first, it would be easy to add geocaching as a category of waymarks. There has been some talk that when Waymarking has matured, with stable code and a good user interface, that the geocaching database may be migrated over to the Waymarking base. There would still be a geocaching.com that would provide a tailored interface to Waymarking that emphasizes geocaches, but the other types of integration you talk about would be available to anyone using the Waymarking interface. This kind of integration is probably several years away.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...