Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Sabletaurus

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

Share this post


Link to post

Although I agree with you and have greatly enjoyed many of the Virtual caches, their reinstatement on this site is just not gonna happen . . . :)

 

Even though the Earthcaches were moved back to GC.com from Waymarking, I think Virtuals are going to remain on Waymarking.com . . .

Edited by Miragee

Share this post


Link to post

They are not coming back.

 

If you love virtuals, there are still thousands of grandfathered virtuals for you to enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

 

I agree with you, but it won't happen. Grandfathered Virts are still there, everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

 

Thats not true, at least in my case- Smileys aside, Waymarking is a completely differernt thing, on a different site, and of differing interest that geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

While that may be true for you, I don't think that it is true for everyone. I was hoping that WM.com would be a good alternative to virts and LCs, but it isn't the same. It is a different game and it isn't for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

 

I agree,but as everyone stated it's not going to happen.I had a great spot for a virtual in Green mountain national forest....I don't what to put a traditional there as it's right on the forest road,and I don't want folks tearing the surrounding area up,but it's a neat little feature to visit.Maybe a super easy micro with exact location on the cache page?My main focus would be to bring folks there..not a smiley.

 

:ph34r: or mabye first leg of a multi.... :)

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

Why do you find being introduced "to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache" satisfying? If you just like to be taken to interesting places and don't feel the need to find a cache, then I suggest that Waymarking would be a better soluiton for you. With Waymarking you can look for the categories that most interest you and avoid the virtuals that you might have found boring. (I find it hard to believe that you find all virtuals among the most statisfying caches). If you liked the surprise of going to a virtual caches and not knowing exactly what you would find (how often did that happen?) you might look at the Best Kept Secrets category in Waymarking. If you liked the fact that some virtuals required you to look for something (usually text on an interpretive sign or monument) to answer the verification question - there are many waymarks that also require this. (I do wish that there was a way to find waymarks that require a verification answer or finding a specific object for those that like this part of virtuals). How many of the virtuals that you found were truely in a location that would be disturbed by hiding a cache nearby? Could the site be used for an offset to the physical cache? Geocaching is about finding caches. If there was an easy way for the reviewers to tell that you couldn't place a cache at the spot or use it for an offset to a cache nearby, there might be an argument for allowing virtuals in this limited situation. However, it is impossible for a reviewer to tell that the location is both significant enough to warrant a cache and that a physical cache can't be placed there. Some really cool places just won't have caches. But Waymarking provides a way to share these places with other people.

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

Why do you find being introduced "to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache" satisfying? If you just like to be taken to interesting places and don't feel the need to find a cache, then I suggest that Waymarking would be a better soluiton for you. With Waymarking you can look for the categories that most interest you and avoid the virtuals that you might have found boring. (I find it hard to believe that you find all virtuals among the most statisfying caches). If you liked the surprise of going to a virtual caches and not knowing exactly what you would find (how often did that happen?) you might look at the Best Kept Secrets category in Waymarking. If you liked the fact that some virtuals required you to look for something (usually text on an interpretive sign or monument) to answer the verification question - there are many waymarks that also require this. (I do wish that there was a way to find waymarks that require a verification answer or finding a specific object for those that like this part of virtuals). How many of the virtuals that you found were truely in a location that would be disturbed by hiding a cache nearby? Could the site be used for an offset to the physical cache? Geocaching is about finding caches. If there was an easy way for the reviewers to tell that you couldn't place a cache at the spot or use it for an offset to a cache nearby, there might be an argument for allowing virtuals in this limited situation. However, it is impossible for a reviewer to tell that the location is both significant enough to warrant a cache and that a physical cache can't be placed there. Some really cool places just won't have caches. But Waymarking provides a way to share these places with other people.

 

Yet, they allow web cams...

Edited by egami

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yet, they allow web cams...

 

They do?

Well they do allow Earthcaches. :ph34r:

 

Case in point. :)

 

Personally, I don't mind limiting GC.com to traditional caches, but it would be nice if the logic is consistant...and really, why grandfather them?

 

I don't know the history as to why they allowed, then disallowed them, but I hope it wasn't "smiley" driven as briansnats reply seems to indicate.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I don't mind limiting GC.com to traditional caches, but it would be nice if the logic is consistant...and really, why grandfather them?

 

I don't know the history as to why they allowed, then disallowed them, but I hope it wasn't "smiley" driven as briansnats reply seems to indicate.

I have no idea why existing Webcams were grandfathered since there is a Waymarking category for Webcams. But virtuals were grandfathered in part because they could not be automatically changed into waymarks. A waymark must be assigned to a Waymarking category and must meet the requirements for that category. There is no way to automatically assign an existing virtual to a category. So grandfathering them seems like a reasonable compromise. On the other hand many other caches that are no longer allowed by the guidelines have been grandfathered. These included moving caches and code word caches. Some of the later are listed as virtual caches so these are great-grandfathered :)

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

While that may be true for you, I don't think that it is true for everyone. I was hoping that WM.com would be a good alternative to virts and LCs, but it isn't the same. It is a different game and it isn't for everyone.

 

How is it different game than virtuals? You use a GPS to find things, you log your find and usually have to provide some sort of proof you were there. It is identical to virtual caching except for the :) .

Share this post


Link to post

I think most people probably don't like the inconvenience of going to a second site. I know I don't.

 

The thing that I find interesting is...I am not sure that web cams, virtuals and other misc. types really fall into the category of "Waymarking" as I understand it was originally conceived.

 

Maybe some of the Waymarking purists get as bent out of shape about it as some of the people here do though...

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).
Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.
While that may be true for you, I don't think that it is true for everyone. I was hoping that WM.com would be a good alternative to virts and LCs, but it isn't the same. It is a different game and it isn't for everyone.
How is it different game than virtuals? You use a GPS to find things, you log your find and usually have to provide some sort of proof you were there. It is identical to virtual caching except for the :) .
It has a different feel.

 

It's OK that other people have different opinions than you, right?

Share this post


Link to post

...It is identical to virtual caching except for the :) .

 

Is the smiley really what prompted the change?

Share this post


Link to post

...It is identical to virtual caching except for the :ph34r: .

 

Is the smiley really what prompted the change?

No, but it prompts many of Brian's rants. :D:):)

Share this post


Link to post

...It is identical to virtual caching except for the :ph34r: .

 

Is the smiley really what prompted the change?

No, but it prompts many of Brian's rants. :D:):)

 

Then what did? I haven't heard the "official" reasoning...is it noted somewhere by GC.com? Not that it matters...just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
If you liked the surprise of going to a virtual caches and not knowing exactly what you would find (how often did that happen?) you might look at the Best Kept Secrets category in Waymarking. If you liked the fact that some virtuals required you to look for something (usually text on an interpretive sign or monument) to answer the verification question - there are many waymarks that also require this. (I do wish that there was a way to find waymarks that require a verification answer or finding a specific object for those that like this part of virtuals).
Mr. T there are only 11 Best Kept Secrets in the world. I checked several months ago and there were 7. There is one in California. It seems that it is not catching on. Maybe the almighty :) is the engine that drives things around here. :)

 

A while back, I suggested a category called "Virtual Geocaches" be put in Waymarking and show up in your geocaching page/PQs (if you wanted them). That would allow you to see the "true" virtuals that are waymarks so you could one one PQ and go find them. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
...It is identical to virtual caching except for the :ph34r: .
Is the smiley really what prompted the change?
No, but it prompts many of Brian's rants. :D:):)
Then what did? I haven't heard the "official" reasoning...is it noted somewhere by GC.com? Not that it matters...just curious.
As I understand it, there were two reasons (in no particular order):
  • It was often difficult to negotiate with land managers for geocaches to be placed. It was too easy for them to allow virts instead of 'real' caches.
  • The quality of virts was often questionable. Rather than allow every piece of trash and decaying animal to be a virt, they initiated the 'wow' test, but this was difficult (or impossible) for the reviewers to manage and only served to cause additional angst.

Share this post


Link to post

I think most people probably don't like the inconvenience of going to a second site. I know I don't.

 

The thing that I find interesting is...I am not sure that web cams, virtuals and other misc. types really fall into the category of "Waymarking" as I understand it was originally conceived.

 

Maybe some of the Waymarking purists get as bent out of shape about it as some of the people here do though...

Webcams certainly fit what a Waymarking category was originally conceived as. The web camera category was created by Jeremy before Waymarking was even in beta test.

 

As far as virtual caches - I proposed this category in August 2005, just after Waymarking beta was released (sorry TrailGators). Eventually the Best Kept Secrets category was created to support generic category of places similar to many of the virtuals that I most enjoyed. My hope has been to see other categories like this that support what others enjoy about virutals. I think different people like virtuals for different reasons and that not everyone's view is represented in Waymarking (yet!).

 

Earthcaches are another great example. Earthcaches are run by the Geological Society of America to promote an interest in geology and earth science. They are listed on Geocaching.com (and count as regular caches) due to an agreement between Groundspeak and the GSA that predates the release of Waymarking.

 

In Waymarking, any premium Groundspeak member can start a group to manage a category. You only need to recruit two more officers for your group to propose a category and the go through a review process to get it listed. The group sets the requirements for waymarks in their category and manages the category. Beyond the intial review, there is little involvement by Groundspeak. So a GSA managed Earthcache category would be a perfect fit. And in fact, when Waymarking was first released, the GSA set up an Earthcache category. They even began migrating the existing Earthcaches to Waymarking. And that's when Earthcache owners began to complain. People were no longer visting their Earthcaches. It seems that all the people who said they enjoyed learning about geology by visiting some interesting geologic formation were really interested in getting a 'smiley'. So when the Earthcache became a waymark, people stopped visiting. Earthcaches were moved back to Geocaching.com with some changes to the guidelines to enforce quality control. So why not virtuals? Hey, if you want to establish a Virtual Caching Society it can reach a deal with Groundspeak perhaps it will happen. It seems easier to pick reasonable to manage subset of virtuals and manage a Waymarking category.

 

Jeremy has indicated that work is in progress to move the backend of Geocaching.com over to use the same codebase as Waymarking. At that time, it will be easier to do searches (and Pocket queries) that include both sites. Until then, it is difficult to to combine Waymarking an geocaching in one activity. However, some people are doing it by downloading waymarks for an area where they are going to be geocaching and visting them when looking for geocaches.

Share this post


Link to post

Webcams certainly fit what a Waymarking category was originally conceived as. The web camera category was created by Jeremy before Waymarking was even in beta test.

 

Hm, I haven't spent much time there at all...I just know the threads I read, and some of the die-hard waymarker's comments, lead me to believe that "Waymarking" originated from those historical landmarks.

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

 

Thats not true, at least in my case- Smileys aside, Waymarking is a completely differernt thing, on a different site, and of differing interest that geocaching.

Completely true.

 

Geocaches should have a container hidden somewhere.

 

A spot with significance but no cache should be called a Waymark.

Share this post


Link to post
...It is identical to virtual caching except for the :ph34r: .
Is the smiley really what prompted the change?
No, but it prompts many of Brian's rants. :D:):)
Then what did? I haven't heard the "official" reasoning...is it noted somewhere by GC.com? Not that it matters...just curious.
As I understand it, there were two reasons (in no particular order):
  • It was often difficult to negotiate with land managers for geocaches to be placed. It was too easy for them to allow virts instead of 'real' caches.
  • The quality of virts was often questionable. Rather than allow every piece of trash and decaying animal to be a virt, they initiated the 'wow' test, but this was difficult (or impossible) for the reviewers to manage and only served to cause additional angst.

True things and very big issues.

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

 

Thats not true, at least in my case- Smileys aside, Waymarking is a completely differernt thing, on a different site, and of differing interest that geocaching.

Completely true.

 

Geocaches should have a container hidden somewhere.

 

A spot with significance but no cache should be called a Waymark.

 

Agreed. No matter what you call it, "Geocaching" is not = "Waymarking"

Share this post


Link to post

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

 

At the risk of sounding repetitive...

 

I've found there's too much clutter over there. It's much too difficult to find "virts" worth finding. That is to say, worth it to me. And even among those I have found they are all categorized. I find waymarks are more along the lines of locationless caches than virtuals. Where you find something that fits the predefined categories listed. If you find something worth sharing, as a virt used to be, and it doesn't have a category it fits, it seems like a bit of a process to get it listed.

 

I've never liked the functionality of the WM site either. It spawned from GC yet it has a completely different feel and interface which I've always found to be awkward. I imagine the differences were intentional so as to distinguish it from geocaching, but I think that may also have helped alienate it in a way.

 

Overall I just haven't been a big fan. It just seems very removed from what virtuals were IMO, both in form and function.

 

That being said, I still do the occassional waymark if I see one of interest. I'm one of the guys reviewing new submissions one waymark category I've contributed to for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

While that may be true for you, I don't think that it is true for everyone. I was hoping that WM.com would be a good alternative to virts and LCs, but it isn't the same. It is a different game and it isn't for everyone.

 

How is it different game than virtuals? You use a GPS to find things, you log your find and usually have to provide some sort of proof you were there. It is identical to virtual caching except for the :blink: .

 

Actually there are quite a few ways in which they are different and a smiley, or lack thereof, is the least of it...especially now that there is a stat bar that shows your posted waymarks/visited waymarks.

 

Among other things, waymarks have no buffer zone of .1 miles, you can even layer waymarks in one spot (though I think the way it is currently handled needs work.) This means there are some places you could visit and end up logging a dozen waymarks. Great for the numbers lovers out there, and not too bad for the rest of us if those over lapping waymarks add up to someplace interesting.

 

I think with a few more tweaks to the way searches and site navigation are handled Waymarking has promise once it reaches the critical mass to become popular.

 

The only downside I can see is that it took some of the worst parts of virtuals and allowed them to go completely wild. I mean a category for turtle crossings? Why would anyone want to visit the spot a turtle crossed the road? Talk about lack of "wow" factor.

 

Of course it's not too hard to ignore a category like that, though I haven't experimented with it enough yet to see how effective that's going to be when running searches.

 

Personally I plan to get in on the ground floor somewhat over there and start marking places that interest me for which categories exsist that way when it does finally catch on I'll be an old hand at it and have a few "hides" waiting for the newcomers.

 

AK

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

I agree completely, and you can count my voice as being raised.

Trouble is, the only ears with the authority to reverse the ruling aren't listening. Waymarking is their solution, and they don't seemed inclined to listen or respond to folks who aren't satisfied with it.

 

You will, however, receive ample replies from fellow geocachers who think you ought to be satisfied with it. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type.

I wonder how many of these virts were only published because of the highly subjective "wow factor." Would that be why so many seem to be so good?

 

I cast my vote for not bringing them back.

Share this post


Link to post

Trouble is, the only ears with the authority to reverse the ruling aren't listening. Waymarking is their solution, and they don't seemed inclined to listen or respond to folks who aren't satisfied with it.

 

You will, however, receive ample replies from fellow geocachers who think you ought to be satisfied with it. :blink:

I don't think anyone ought to be satisfied with Waymarking. But I do think that instead of raising your voice to deaf ears to bring back virutals, you'd be better off suggesting ways to make Waymarking more useful to geocachers who enjoys virtuals. There are many things that can be done - improved searches, better integration with geocaching, more categories that reflect the what different people look for in a good virtual. Waymarking is still relatively new. Groundspeak has been pretty responsive to ideas brought up in the Waymarking forum on how to improve the user interface and in which new features to implement. Most of this input comes from the core Waymarking community which, for now, is more interested in establishing new waymarks than in visiting them. Establishing a Best Kept Secret is hard, while reporting the location of a McDonalds, a recovered benchmark, or a state historic marker is relatively easy. That's why we have so few Best Kept Secrets. But I haven't lost all hope yet, and think that we will see some changes to encourage visiting of waymarks and perhaps more categories that are made to give the flavor of finding a virutal geocache.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree completely, and you can count my voice as being raised.

Trouble is, the only ears with the authority to reverse the ruling aren't listening. Waymarking is their solution, and they don't seemed inclined to listen or respond to folks who aren't satisfied with it.

 

You will, however, receive ample replies from fellow geocachers who think you ought to be satisfied with it. :blink:

 

I was just thinking that it would be nice to have a central place to look up both GeoCaches and Waymarking. Maybe when you pull up a list of locations near you, you would see a big red W that would show you the location of a waymarker. This would be pulled from the same type of listing that we do with Caches.

 

I know that the two companies are not the same, but it would be nice if they could work together and get more visability to both.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe someday it will work like that. It would be great to set up a Pocket Query on this site and have as one of the options to include certain specific Categories from Waymarking.

 

That way if you were traveling, you could have the caches along your route, but you would also have some Historical Waymarks, or Waterfall Waymarks, or Ancient Evidence Waymarks, or whatever your interests are, included in the PQ results.

Share this post


Link to post

No need for wailing and gnashing of teeth - virtual stages of a multi are fine!

 

Got a virt you want to bring folks to?

 

Fine, make it stage 1 and put a film can under a lamp post down the street for a signable traditional final!

 

All you've lost is the CATEGORY and icon for virtuals, you can still make all the virtual stages you want - just modify your thinking a bit!

Share this post


Link to post

No need for wailing and gnashing of teeth - virtual stages of a multi are fine!

 

Got a virt you want to bring folks to?

 

Fine, make it stage 1 and put a film can under a lamp post down the street for a signable traditional final!

 

All you've lost is the CATEGORY and icon for virtuals, you can still make all the virtual stages you want - just modify your thinking a bit!

I don't know how someone would learn much from that compared to the way this Virtual cache was set up.

 

If someone had to answer all those questions to log the cache, it would have to be listed as an Unknown (Additional Logging Requirements), not a Virtual, and I filter the Puzzles out of my PQs because I cannot ever figure them out . . . :blink:

 

When I am traveling, I also filter out the Multis . . . :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

No need for wailing and gnashing of teeth - virtual stages of a multi are fine!

 

Got a virt you want to bring folks to?

 

Fine, make it stage 1 and put a film can under a lamp post down the street for a signable traditional final!

 

All you've lost is the CATEGORY and icon for virtuals, you can still make all the virtual stages you want - just modify your thinking a bit!

That may work for some, but I wouldn't use it. In my opinion, if a virtual cache passes the "Wow" test, adding an LPC just to make it "legal" would be a desecration rather than a justification for its existence. I'd rather archive my virtual caches than do that.

Share this post


Link to post

No need for wailing and gnashing of teeth - virtual stages of a multi are fine!

 

Got a virt you want to bring folks to?

 

Fine, make it stage 1 and put a film can under a lamp post down the street for a signable traditional final!

 

All you've lost is the CATEGORY and icon for virtuals, you can still make all the virtual stages you want - just modify your thinking a bit!

That may work for some, but I wouldn't use it. In my opinion, if a virtual cache passes the "Wow" test, adding an LPC just to make it "legal" would be a desecration rather than a justification for its existence. I'd rather archive my virtual caches than do that.

Yup. Why make a crappy mulit cache out of a perfectly good virtual?

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

While that may be true for you, I don't think that it is true for everyone. I was hoping that WM.com would be a good alternative to virts and LCs, but it isn't the same. It is a different game and it isn't for everyone.

 

How is it different game than virtuals? You use a GPS to find things, you log your find and usually have to provide some sort of proof you were there. It is identical to virtual caching except for the :blink: .

 

Because with Virts on GC.com, I would find history beyond my wildest dreams. I would see old forts, and climb to the top of the Empire State building. I got up close and personal with a large skyscraper-sized cross along the interstate, and I found one of the best secluded places at Cades Cove that has "picnic with a date" written all over it.

 

Then I discovered the Waymarking categorys....and most of it is random locations that mean nothing to me. I am not dogging WM because their are some parts of it that I actually enjoy, but I can't recall a time that I found a McDonalds restaurant or a Target store to be jaw-dropping amazement to me.

 

I am not pro nor against the virtuals being grandfathered on GC.....and I am not pro nor against the Waymarking site, I am just stating my opinions on the difference between WM and GC virtuals. I enjoyed GC virtuals so much more.

Share this post


Link to post

Trouble is, the only ears with the authority to reverse the ruling aren't listening. Waymarking is their solution, and they don't seemed inclined to listen or respond to folks who aren't satisfied with it.

 

You will, however, receive ample replies from fellow geocachers who think you ought to be satisfied with it. :blink:

I don't think anyone ought to be satisfied with Waymarking. But I do think that instead of raising your voice to deaf ears to bring back virutals, you'd be better off suggesting ways to make Waymarking more useful to geocachers who enjoys virtuals....

 

The easiet way would be to abolish geocaching and stick the various caches as Waymark catagories and the caches themselves as whatever the heck submittals in a catagory is called.

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

So true! Isn't that amazing! That fact never ceases to fascinate me when it comes to my attention! :blink::D As a result of this obsessive and compulsive need for smilies, these folks want to clutter this site with virtuals. How wild! :huh::P:D

Share this post


Link to post
...everything else has gone over to Waymarking (though it's not the same somehow).

 

Because you don't get a smiley. If you got a smiley for finding a waymark a lot of people would think it was the best thing since pre-sliced luncheon meat.

So true! Isn't that amazing! That fact never ceases to fascinate me when it comes to my attention! :blink::D As a result of this obsessive and compulsive need for smilies, these folks want to clutter this site with virtuals. How wild! :huh::P:D

 

Check my stats, if I had an obsessive and compulsive need for smilies don't you think I'd have alot more?

Doesn't stop me from missing virtuals even though I've only found three of them and probably wouldn't place any of my own if I could.

Share this post


Link to post

...Check my stats, if I had an obsessive and compulsive need for smilies don't you think I'd have alot more?

Doesn't stop me from missing virtuals even though I've only found three of them and probably wouldn't place any of my own if I could.

 

It's enough that people who enjoyed them as caches don't enjoy them as waymarks. Simple.

When people try to devalue what others think on something they know they enjoy, that's not kosher.

 

My wife likes Milk Chocolate but not Dark. I like both. You can tell her the only difference is the wrapper, but that's BS. She likes what she likes and it's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post

Trouble is, the only ears with the authority to reverse the ruling aren't listening. Waymarking is their solution, and they don't seemed inclined to listen or respond to folks who aren't satisfied with it.

 

You will, however, receive ample replies from fellow geocachers who think you ought to be satisfied with it. :blink:

I don't think anyone ought to be satisfied with Waymarking. But I do think that instead of raising your voice to deaf ears to bring back virutals, you'd be better off suggesting ways to make Waymarking more useful to geocachers who enjoys virtuals....

 

The easiet way would be to abolish geocaching and stick the various caches as Waymark catagories and the caches themselves as whatever the heck submittals in a catagory is called.

I believe this is exactly what the evil Jeremy Irish plans to do. There will be a Waymarking category called geocaches (or perhaps a category for each cache type: traditional, multi, unknown, etc.) Each cache will become a waymark in that category. Of course geocachers will not know this because the front-end on geocaching.com will make it look like it always has (although performance may improve). Waymarkers on the other hand will be able to find Waymarks of all categories (including geocaches) at one site :huh:

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

Trouble is, the only ears with the authority to reverse the ruling aren't listening. Waymarking is their solution, and they don't seemed inclined to listen or respond to folks who aren't satisfied with it.

 

You will, however, receive ample replies from fellow geocachers who think you ought to be satisfied with it. :blink:

I don't think anyone ought to be satisfied with Waymarking. But I do think that instead of raising your voice to deaf ears to bring back virutals, you'd be better off suggesting ways to make Waymarking more useful to geocachers who enjoys virtuals....

 

The easiet way would be to abolish geocaching and stick the various caches as Waymark catagories and the caches themselves as whatever the heck submittals in a catagory is called.

I believe this is exactly what the evil Jeremy Irish plans to do. There will be a Waymarking category called geocaches (or perhaps a category for each cache type: traditional, multi, unknown, etc.) Each cache will become a waymark in that category. Of course geocachers will not know this because the front-end on geocaching.com will make it look like it always has (although performance may improve). Waymarkers on the other hand will be able to find Waymarks of all categories (including geocaches) at one site :huh:

I hope they have better categories than that! I hope they come up with similar ones to the categories in Waymarking. They could even use the same ones. For example, I hide the McDonald's waymarks, so it would be nice to hide the McDonald's geocaches as well. Then they could have sub-categories for traditional, multi, unknown, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Back in my "babe in the woods" days, I had no idea what a virtual cache was. I read the Q&A page describing geocaching, and from that, assumed that all caches had an actual cache. Makes sense, in a quirky kinda way. Why call it a cache type, when there is no cache there? Then, as my world expanded, I saw my first ghost icon, and clicked on it to check it out.

 

Huh? :P:huh:

 

No cache? :D:D

 

Wazzup wit dat? :D:D

 

After reading it, I decided to pass. I didn't need a smiley that bad. :blink:

 

Later on, when virts were declared persona non grata (sp?), I figured I better log one, (and only one), just to get the icon. B)

If, in the future, I happen to stumble upon a virt that actually sounds interesting, I'll go find it.

 

When Waymarking was announced, it tickled me pink, cuz I realized that all those folks who want to bring others to places that don't have a cache, now have a means to accomplish this. Someday, I might even log one. :D

Share this post


Link to post

deadhorse.gif

 

Perhaps. But thanks to this thread i checked out Waymarking.com again. I see they just posted a major update on 5/8. I see a lot of improvements! I might actually go for a couple waymarks now. It's still missing some very basic usability features which gc.com has, however..But, it has some nice features gc.com lacks, like some basic DHTML and AJAX navigation niceties.

 

I hope when the codebases are merged we get the best of both worlds.

 

Unfortunately the ball clearly hasn't started rolling yet, so it still feels like a ghostland browsing the waymarks. Most i've browsed around my area have one or zero logs. (and this is LA, with 10000+ caches!)

 

oo, stats hounds will love this:

http://www.Waymarking.com/users/profile.as...se&mypage=4

ICONS! COLLECT THEM ALL!

The showing of the icons in chart form is brilliant - it reinforces the idea of doing the activity more to get more icons.

Edited by benh57

Share this post


Link to post
Because with Virts on GC.com, I would find history beyond my wildest dreams. I would see old forts, and climb to the top of the Empire State building. I got up close and personal with a large skyscraper-sized cross along the interstate, and I found one of the best secluded places at Cades Cove that has "picnic with a date" written all over it.

 

Then I discovered the Waymarking categorys....and most of it is random locations that mean nothing to me. I am not dogging WM because their are some parts of it that I actually enjoy, but I can't recall a time that I found a McDonalds restaurant or a Target store to be jaw-dropping amazement to me.

 

Deo you mean totally lame waymarks like this one or this one or awe inspiring virtuls like this one (a plaque commemorating someone's dead dog)?

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...