Virtual Caches

[+briansnat]

Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Then you should be Waymarking.

Groundspeak doesn't get it - we dislike Waymarking.com as much as y'all dislike virtuals!

 

 

If we got a smiley for finding a waymark most people would think it was the best thing since sliced salami.

[+mtn-man]

After seeing your note, I decided I should give Waymarking another test, so I clicked on the nearest waymarks link from that virtual cache page to check it out. After scrolling down far enough to see that there was actually local information (off-screen at the bottom) I see that near the airport there are:

• an indoor McDonalds (never visited, but I actually walked right by it without knowing it was a waymark )
  
• another McDonalds (never visited)
  
• some benchmarks (not interesting to me, but maybe to others)
  
• the Pentagon (I already knew that...)
  
• the Jefferson Memorial (ditto...)
  
• the FDR Memorial (ditto...plus it's a virtual cache, I think)
  
• some interesting historical markers and statues (maybe cool; I might have investigated)
  

This is a small test, but it's pretty representative of my feelings about Waymarking: it's hard to navigate, and there's not enough quality control. Most of it looks dull.

Let me help explain a bit. The reason you had to scroll down is because the top category list shows you local waymarks from the search point. Categories can be ignored, so the list could be shorter if you were to ignore the "dull" ones. While you are not interested in benchmarks, they are wildly popular with others. These are not just regular benchmarks, these are ones that have been recovered by people. These are ones that are not listed on the benchmarking part of geocaching.com. Finding them is quite a feat. The beauty of Waymarking is that while they might not interest you, the do interest other people. The site gives you the ability to ignore them if you don't want them to sort out in searches. Stuff you like bubbles up to the top.

 

I hope if you log the virtual cache for the FDR site, you will also log the waymarks too. While the proximity rule made it so there could only be one virtual for the site, there are six waymarks you can log. This one example shows the freedom you have within the Waymarking site.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Then you should be Waymarking.

Groundspeak doesn't get it - we dislike Waymarking.com as much as y'all dislike virtuals!

 

 

If we got a smiley for finding a waymark most people would think it was the best thing since sliced salami.

I seriously doubt that anywhere near as many cachers as you seem to think are numbers-driven.

 

I know I don't care if I can even log them, I just want to see them in my PQ and go to the ones that interest me!

[+TrailGators]

Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Then you should be Waymarking.

Groundspeak doesn't get it - we dislike Waymarking.com as much as y'all dislike virtuals!

 

 

If we got a smiley for finding a waymark most people would think it was the best thing since sliced salami.

This is very true. However, maybe Groundspeak isn't allowing a smiley because they know the cheating that would take place would taint Waymarking. Right now nobody cheats at Waymarking because there are no smileys. You find something because you want to find it and you don't have to log it. Maybe this is a good thing....

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Right now nobody cheats at Waymarking because there are no smileys. You find something because you want to find it and you don't have to log it. Maybe this is a good thing....

I am totally in favor of eliminating numbers, or at least their public disclosure, from both sites - keeping score with numbers has brought nothing but trouble.

[Keystone]

Thanks for that post on the bottom of page one, mtn-man. You've echoed my sentiments exactly.

 

I'll share a story I've posted before to the forums. I first had the pleasure of going caching with Jeremy and Hydee in September 2003... less than four months after I joined the volunteer group. I was definitely a newbie when compared to a "veteran" like mtn-man. When I joined, the moratorium on new locationless listings and the stricter standards for reviewing virtuals had just recently been handed down to the reviewers by Groundspeak. I saluted and followed their wishes.

 

Anyhow, during a hike to a cache that day in September 2003, Jeremy described to me with great clarity how virtuals and locationless would work far better, in his opinion, on an entirely separate website. He then went on to describe what we now know as the basic structure of the Waymarking.com site. I was blown away. It was hard to keep that secret for so many years while the site was developed! But, being a volunteer under a strict standard of confidentiality, I managed to keep my mouth shut. Whew! It was great to hear that glimpse of the future, and then to see it become a reality. This is not idle speculation; this is first hand eyewitness facts.

 

So, from our posts, we've established that neither mtn-man nor I are one of the fictional "powerful reviewers" alluded to in The Alabama Rambler's speculative post. I wonder who these folks are.

 

As a reviewer, I do not miss reviewing virtuals one bit. No more arguments about whether a physical cache could be hidden nearby, or whether a target location had "wow factor." No more dealing with subjects that had no personal interest to me, while trying to evaluate their merits objectively.

 

As a player involved in Waymarking, I very much enjoy reviewing the waymarks submitted to the categories where I'm part of the management group. By definition, they're things in which I have a personal interest, and where I possess some knowledge of the subject matter. I enjoy reading the submissions. And, for the most part, the review process is pretty easy. If the submission meets the objective criteria specific to that category, the waymark gets approved. I look with particular pride at the Pennsylvania Historic Markers category, which now contains nearly 1,000 waymarks. Not a single one of them would have passed muster as a virtual cache. I view each published waymark as good karma to balance out one of the many virtual caches that I was obligated to archive under the old standards.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Keystone

[+mtn-man]

As a reviewer, I do not miss reviewing virtuals one bit. No more arguments about whether a physical cache could be hidden nearby, or whether a target location had "wow factor."

I think this is an important point as well.

 

Every now and then, when a virtual was denied, we would get unbelievable emails from people cussing us out and calling us nazi's or power hungry people with words I could not or would not post in these forums. It is amazing how vitriolic and how much venom some people spewed over a game.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Keystone's story supports my supposition, that geocachers desires were not much considered in eliminating virts. Groundspeak wanted them gone, they're gone. Cool - it's their business.

 

Creating Waymarking and expecting us to use it, however, is more than just their business... to make it work they need our buy-in.

 

It's too bad that Groundspeak developed the site in secret then presented it as fait accompli to us members, because the objections I hear to Waymarking are almost all about two things - the site is confusing and difficult to manuever, and we want one site for our listings.

 

I have been in software systems development and implementation a very long time and have seen this mistake time and time again - it's developed without much actual user input and then rammed down their throats. Fails every time.

[Mr.Yuck]

Personally, I don't care much if there's a physical cache -- I like great locations, not log books and trinkets.

Then you should be Waymarking.

Groundspeak doesn't get it - we dislike Waymarking.com as much as y'all dislike virtuals!

 

 

If we got a smiley for finding a waymark most people would think it was the best thing since sliced salami.

 

This is true. But I've always contended that them showing up in your stats page the same as Benchmarks currently do would help Waymarking big time. Any word on this? It's become rather obvious that practically no one is ever going to visit these things, despite a few hundred people having the time of their lives submitting them.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As a reviewer, I do not miss reviewing virtuals one bit. No more arguments about whether a physical cache could be hidden nearby, or whether a target location had "wow factor."

I think this is an important point as well.

 

Every now and then, when a virtual was denied, we would get unbelievable emails from people cussing us out and calling us nazi's or power hungry people with words I could not or would not post in these forums. It is amazing how vitriolic and how much venom some people spewed over a game.

So now you get that over a film can on a dumpster instead of a virtual!

[Keystone]

My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that certain vocal Reviewers (read powerful, all Reviewers are not equal!) drove out virts.

Keystone's story supports my supposition, that geocachers desires were not much considered in eliminating virts. Groundspeak wanted them gone, they're gone. Cool - it's their business.

My, how quickly we change our tune once confronted with facts!

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I still say there is a real need for Virtual caches in any area where physical caches are banned. I know Jeremy likes Waymarking but I personally have no desire to juggle two sites and learn a whole new game when the solution was already here and abandoned.

Plus the little ghost icon is ultra cool.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that certain vocal Reviewers (read powerful, all Reviewers are not equal!) drove out virts.

Keystone's story supports my supposition, that geocachers desires were not much considered in eliminating virts. Groundspeak wanted them gone, they're gone. Cool - it's their business.

My, how quickly we change our tune once confronted with facts!

No change in tune, as far as I am concerned the Reviewer community and Groundspeak are one and the same, which is what I meant by "Groundspeak wanted them gone".

 

My point was that TPTB, be they Reviewers or Jeremy or whoever, decided that virts were wrong for geocaching.com without a lot of membership input.

 

But yes, when 'confronted' with facts I do change my tune... if I am wrong I never mind being corrected!

 

When I am not positive about my assertions I word them in that way; "My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that..." makes it clear that I am not stating my memory as fact.

[+mtn-man]

As a reviewer, I do not miss reviewing virtuals one bit. No more arguments about whether a physical cache could be hidden nearby, or whether a target location had "wow factor."

I think this is an important point as well.

 

Every now and then, when a virtual was denied, we would get unbelievable emails from people cussing us out and calling us nazi's or power hungry people with words I could not or would not post in these forums. It is amazing how vitriolic and how much venom some people spewed over a game.

So now you get that over a film can on a dumpster instead of a virtual!

The game is what you make it. If you want to find film cans by dumpsters, so be it. It is YOUR choice to find it or walk away. Sounds like you found it.

 

I am not as picky as some, but these pictures are all from geocaches.

These are all shown on my website.

 

 

 

Click these picture for the large version...

 

 

 

 

The view was SO big here, it took five pictures to capture it.

It is a big image, 750 kb. You are warned if you click on it.

You might just actually want to go to Vegas for something other than gambling.

 

Funny, I don't see a dumpster near us in this photo.

This game is what YOU make it.

None of these photos is at a virtual cache, nor could should they be listed as one.

[+mtn-man]

My point was that TPTB, be they Reviewers or Jeremy or whoever, decided that virts were wrong for geocaching.com without a lot of membership input.

 

But yes, when 'confronted' with facts I do change my tune... if I am wrong I never mind being corrected!

Good. You won't mind me correcting you then.

 

When I am not positive about my assertions I word them in that way; "My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that..." makes it clear that I am not stating my memory as fact.

I accept your apology.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

My point was that TPTB, be they Reviewers or Jeremy or whoever, decided that virts were wrong for geocaching.com without a lot of membership input.

 

But yes, when 'confronted' with facts I do change my tune... if I am wrong I never mind being corrected!

Good. You won't mind me correcting you then.

 

When I am not positive about my assertions I word them in that way; "My memory and insight may both be way off, but it was my impression that..." makes it clear that I am not stating my memory as fact.

I accept your apology.

You didn't correct me, you confirmed what I said.

 

I didn't apologize. I stand by my assertion that it was a mistake, or at best handled poorly, done without much consideration for what we members of the site might have wanted, and driven in large part by certain Reviewers.

[Keystone]

Your assertion regarding the reviewers' role in the movement of virtuals and locationless to a separate website is a falsehood and has been demonstrated as such. Since you continue to disrespect the volunteer reviewers by flinging this poo, you've earned a ticket out of this thread. Do not post to it again.

[+mtn-man]

I accept your apology.

I didn't apologize.

In addition to what Keystone said, I would suggest you research the forums on "I accept your apology" to understand why I posted that. Obviously, you don't get it.

[+tozainamboku]

If we got a smiley for finding a waymark most people would think it was the best thing since sliced salami.

This is very true. However, maybe Groundspeak isn't allowing a smiley because they know the cheating that would take place would taint Waymarking. Right now nobody cheats at Waymarking because there are no smileys. You find something because you want to find it and you don't have to log it. Maybe this is a good thing....

The Waymarking site does track both the number of waymarks one has created and the number of waymarks one has visited. There is a Waymarking stats banner just like the geocaching stats banner. In addition, since each Waymarking category has it's own icon, Waymarking is the icon junkies candy store - even better than discovering geocoins Some waymarkers even play a version of bingo by filling in a row or column of the category grid that appears in their waymark profile. So there is plenty of competition within Waymarking and probably lots of people getting accused of cheating. For example there is an on going discussion on whether you can claim a visit that you made in the past to waymark. Originally, you were allowed to visit a waymark as many times as you liked, but some fool puritan convinced TPTB to change the Waymarking code to allow only one visit per waymark - something the the puritans have been calling for on geocaching.com for a long time. BTW, some puritans object to logging finds on virtual caches on geocaching.com since you really didn't find anything - you just took a picture or found some words on a sign.

[Clan Riffster]

I am what you could call, "Technologically Challenged". Anything more complicated than flashlight causes my brain to heat up. When Waymarking first showed up, I had finally figured out most of the great tools on this site, (thanx largely to folks willing to explain them in words of less than 3 syllables), and I simply couldn't figure out how to navigate WC to find things that interest me. I'm slowly learning the ins & outs, and once I have it down pat, I'm sure I'll be hunting some. Virts never held a lot of interest for me, but I do agree, the ghost is kewl. I actually logged one virt just so I could add that icon to my list.

 

I think Waymarking was a great idea whose time has come.

[+TrailGators]

If we got a smiley for finding a waymark most people would think it was the best thing since sliced salami.

This is very true. However, maybe Groundspeak isn't allowing a smiley because they know the cheating that would take place would taint Waymarking. Right now nobody cheats at Waymarking because there are no smileys. You find something because you want to find it and you don't have to log it. Maybe this is a good thing....

The Waymarking site does track both the number of waymarks one has created and the number of waymarks one has visited. There is a Waymarking stats banner just like the geocaching stats banner. In addition, since each Waymarking category has it's own icon, Waymarking is the icon junkies candy store - even better than discovering geocoins Some waymarkers even play a version of bingo by filling in a row or column of the category grid that appears in their waymark profile. So there is plenty of competition within Waymarking and probably lots of people getting accused of cheating. For example there is an on going discussion on whether you can claim a visit that you made in the past to waymark. Originally, you were allowed to visit a waymark as many times as you liked, but some fool puritan convinced TPTB to change the Waymarking code to allow only one visit per waymark - something the the puritans have been calling for on geocaching.com for a long time. BTW, some puritans object to logging finds on virtual caches on geocaching.com since you really didn't find anything - you just took a picture or found some words on a sign.

We were talking about a "geocaching" smiley . I have already visited all the waymarks in my area before they were waymarks. It's too bad that some people have to cheat and make people write a bunch of extra code because of it. But if you really think about it, who cares how many waymarks you found? It seems very petty....

[+tozainamboku]

We were talking about a "geocaching" smiley . I have already visited all the waymarks in my area before they were waymarks. It's too bad that some people have to cheat and make people write a bunch of extra code because of it. But if you really think about it, who cares how many waymarks you found? It seems very petty....

briansnat was talking about a "geocaching" smiley. You argued that you didn't get a geocaching smiley because Groundspeak wants to avoid the controversies over "cheating" that some say we have with geocaching. My post simply points out that Waymarking already has it's own controversies. Whether you get a "geocaching" smiley or not has nothing to do with that. briansnat is right in that some people found virtual caches even though they didn't like doing them all that much because they were worth the same as finding any other cache.

 

<off topic rant>

I find the change in the code at Waymarking to allow only one visit the silliest example of trying to stop "cheating" I can think of. When the Waymarking site was rolled out Jeremy and OpionNate stressed that you visited a waymark and didn't find it like a geocache. The objection to multiple finds is that once you find somethime how could you find it again. The only reasonable exception was for moving caches. Waymarks on the other hand could be visited over and over again. But some puritans must've have complained about people "inflating" their "visted" count by logging every time they had lunch at McDonalds. So the change was made. And I didn't know about it, so when I used the example of "non-competive" Waymarking in a thread on mulitple logs on Geocaching, I was called out on this fact. So I'm pissed at Waymarking.com for making this change both because I think it is stupid but also because it ruined a perfectly good argument I was trying to make in the Geocaching forums on why you shouldn't care if someone logs attended an event multiple times.

</off topic rant>

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

<off topic rant>

I find the change in the code at Waymarking to allow only one visit the silliest example of trying to stop "cheating" I can think of. When the Waymarking site was rolled out Jeremy and OpionNate stressed that you visited a waymark and didn't find it like a geocache. The objection to multiple finds is that once you find somethime how could you find it again. The only reasonable exception was for moving caches. Waymarks on the other hand could be visited over and over again. But some puritans must've have complained about people "inflating" their "visted" count by logging every time they had lunch at McDonalds. So the change was made. And I didn't know about it, so when I used the example of "non-competive" Waymarking in a thread on mulitple logs on Geocaching, I was called out on this fact. So I'm pissed at Waymarking.com for making this change both because I think it is stupid but also because it ruined a perfectly good argument I was trying to make in the Geocaching forums on why you shouldn't care if someone logs attended an event multiple times.

</off topic rant>

I didn't know about that . . . I "own" some Waymarks that could be visited different times with unique experiences each time, which, if someone ever visited those Waymarks , could be interesting reading . . .

 

Weird that you can log an Event on GC.com as Attended many, many times, but you cannot revist a Waymark . . .

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

<off topic rant>

I find the change in the code at Waymarking to allow only one visit the silliest example of trying to stop "cheating" I can think of. When the Waymarking site was rolled out Jeremy and OpionNate stressed that you visited a waymark and didn't find it like a geocache. The objection to multiple finds is that once you find somethime how could you find it again. The only reasonable exception was for moving caches. Waymarks on the other hand could be visited over and over again. But some puritans must've have complained about people "inflating" their "visted" count by logging every time they had lunch at McDonalds. So the change was made. And I didn't know about it, so when I used the example of "non-competive" Waymarking in a thread on mulitple logs on Geocaching, I was called out on this fact. So I'm pissed at Waymarking.com for making this change both because I think it is stupid but also because it ruined a perfectly good argument I was trying to make in the Geocaching forums on why you shouldn't care if someone logs attended an event multiple times.

</off topic rant>

I didn't know about that . . . I "own" some Waymarks that could be visited different times with unique experiences each time, which, if someone ever visited those Waymarks , could be interesting reading . . .

 

Weird that you can log an Event on GC.com as Attended many, many times, but you cannot revist a Waymark . . .

You really are only supposed to log an event as attended one time, but that is the subject of many other threads....

[+ke6n]

I accept your apology.

I didn't apologize.

In addition to what Keystone said, I would suggest you research the forums on "I accept your apology" to understand why I posted that. Obviously, you don't get it.

I'd sure like to think that there is some other explanation rather than just being flippant. For those of us "not in the know", it sounds very disrespectful and I would caution against such usage on the assumption that everyone knows what it is about.

 

Perhaps you could provide a link or two for those of us who don't spend so much of our lives in the forums.

Edited April 23, 2007 by n6mhg

[+mtn-man]

Use the forum search button or send me a private message.

 

Please stay on topic.

[+geodarts]

I enjoy finding the grandfathered virtuals and would like to see them return as part of this game, particularly since I have never been able to develop much of an interest in the Waymarking site. I was happy when Groundspeak returned earthcaches to the geocaching side of things, but think that other forms of virtuals could offer the same educational benefit.

 

A history virtual category would be interesting if it were restricted to places where a physical cache cannot be placed and the approval process took into account the importance (or interest) of the caches. It could be approved and incorporated the same as earthcaches.

[+StarBrand]

There are many fine "history" categories on the Waymarking site. They all have coordinates and a brief description of what you will find there. All allow you to log them and add photos and comments. All VERY much the same as on Geocaching web site.

 

Is the problem simply that we no longer call them a "geocache" and now call them a "waymark"?

 

Or are you just concerned with using 2 sites to record all your "stats"?

 

You can still visit them under any name.

[+tozainamboku]

I enjoy finding the grandfathered virtuals and would like to see them return as part of this game, particularly since I have never been able to develop much of an interest in the Waymarking site. I was happy when Groundspeak returned earthcaches to the geocaching side of things, but think that other forms of virtuals could offer the same educational benefit.

 

A history virtual category would be interesting if it were restricted to places where a physical cache cannot be placed and the approval process took into account the importance (or interest) of the caches. It could be approved and incorporated the same as earthcaches.

Added the highlighting. The importance or interest of a historical cache is very much a subjective criteria. So the question is who would enforce it. Earthcaches are actually approved by the Geological Society of America - not by Groundspeak or any of the volunteer reviewers. Geoaware - the earthcache reviewer - is a GSA member who reviews each Earthcache to see that it demonstrates something about geological science. Earthcaches have very specific requirements for educational content. No longer is it enough to explain the geology of the location on the cache page but there must be some activity or verification question that involves learning something about that geology. I personally believe that the Earthcache concept is a better fit for Waymarking. In Waymarking, each category is managed by a group that has a special interest in that category. The group can specify requirments for the listing of waymarks in that category including that they must be educational or that they must be especially interesting. However, for reasons known only to the GSA and Groundspeak, Earthcaches were move back to Geocaching from Waymarking. If an establish historical society were to approach Groundspeak with a proposal for history caches with similar requirements as Earthcaches, perhaps Groundspeak would list these in much the same manner as Earthcaches. Until then, if you are interested in visiting historic locations where a physical cache could not be places, you will have to use one of the Waymarking historical categories.

[+ar_kayaker]

<snip>

 

<off topic rant>

I find the change in the code at Waymarking to allow only one visit the silliest example of trying to stop "cheating" I can think of.

<snip>

</off topic rant>

I didn't know about that . . . I "own" some Waymarks that could be visited different times with unique experiences each time, which, if someone ever visited those Waymarks , could be interesting reading . . .

 

Weird that you can log an Event on GC.com as Attended many, many times, but you cannot revist a Waymark . . .

 

That is weird...and annoying. I haven't actually tried it yet since I have't "found" anyone else's waymarks. (Multiple reasons for that, from the clunky way categories work to the lack of PQ's to the general lack of use of the site) When I do finally find one though I see no reason I shouldn't be able to visit it again. One of the waymarks I posted there is the coordinates for the NPS cancellation station at Cade's Cove which I have already visited myself several times and will probably visit several more since I really like the Smoky Mountains and camp there every few years. For that matter can I even find my own waymark when I return? If not...that sucks.