Virtual Caches

[+TrailGators]

It would be nice if they gave credit for the waymarks on geocaching.com. I have created several waymarks to go along with my geocaches on the same site. They are never logged by anyone uless it is a friend that I asked to do it while they grabbed the caches.

 

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 wouldn't really want Waymark visits to a McDonald's to count towards "Found it" totals on GC.com . . . but it would be nice if people would visit Waymarks. I have several in Balboa Park in San Diego. The many,many caches in that large, beautiful park get found all the time.

 

My Waymarks have never been visited, except by myself, and by a friend who was with me on our last trip there.

 

If some of the "WOW" or "Historical" Categories on Waymarking could be moved back to GC.com, like the Earthcaches were, then people could get PQs of those interesting or informative locations and could find them while they are out caching.

 

I have more Waymarks to place, but as I have already stated, since no one visits them -- and since I'm not into upping my stats for "Waymark Placed" for that reason alone -- what's the point? Why should I go to all the work of creating new Waymarks for no reason whatsoever . . .

I agree but I think they are a few waymark categories that would work well. They could give an option to log them as "visited: or as "found" like a virtual if you answered some questions. Edited September 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

It would be nice if they gave credit for the waymarks on geocaching.com. I have created several waymarks to go along with my geocaches on the same site. They are never logged by anyone uless it is a friend that I asked to do it while they grabbed the caches.

I would vote no. I wouldn't want Waymarks to count as a Geocache find any more than I'd want a Benchmark, Travel Bug, or my car keys to count as a Geocache find.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Granted, Waymarking does need some work to encourage visits to waymarks. Most importantly would be to have PQs to get all waymarks that meet your selection criteria in an area. Even better would be a way to combine these with geocaching PQs so you could load up your GPS with both geocaches and waymarks you want to visit. In addition, for those that like having to search around a virtual cache to find the answers to the verification question, there should be some way to identify the waymarks that have some kind of verification requirements. Most waymarks don't have these requirements since the idea has been to inventory the location and for the vistors to have a less structured visits.

The PQs would help a lot. Less structured visits means that hardly anybody logs them. Perhaps you could log one as "visited" if you don't want to bother with answering questions or you could log it as "found" (and get a smiley) if you did. That would give people the freedom to play the game one of two ways.

There's a discussion going on over in the Waymarking forums that is covering similar ground.

Note: there are some forum slowness issues over there (being worked on), so you might experience some timeouts if you click that link.

[+TrailGators]

Granted, Waymarking does need some work to encourage visits to waymarks. Most importantly would be to have PQs to get all waymarks that meet your selection criteria in an area. Even better would be a way to combine these with geocaching PQs so you could load up your GPS with both geocaches and waymarks you want to visit. In addition, for those that like having to search around a virtual cache to find the answers to the verification question, there should be some way to identify the waymarks that have some kind of verification requirements. Most waymarks don't have these requirements since the idea has been to inventory the location and for the vistors to have a less structured visits.

The PQs would help a lot. Less structured visits means that hardly anybody logs them. Perhaps you could log one as "visited" if you don't want to bother with answering questions or you could log it as "found" (and get a smiley) if you did. That would give people the freedom to play the game one of two ways.

There's a discussion going on over in the Waymarking forums that is covering similar ground.

Note: there are some forum slowness issues over there (being worked on), so you might experience some timeouts if you click that link.

Thanks. I've never posted over there...

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Can I have a cookie?

 

No, this site doesn't list cookies. The decision to stop listing cookies was made a long time ago. All cookie appelals have already been through the supreme court and the answer is "No".

 

If you want a cookie, start your own website, or waymark one.

No no, not correct. We have cookies. You can touch them and hold them and everything. Virtual cookies we don't have. It was decided that the real thing was better than something that isn't there. While some people might like virtual cookies, it appears that most people actually like physical cookies. I know I do.

 

Kind of a good comparison actually, ironically.

 

I will give you a virtual cookie for a thank you.

I am sure you will agree it isn't as nice as a physical one.

 

(By the way, if you think virtual cookies are not out there, just do a Google search. Be sure to have a glass of virtual milk to go with them.)

 

I've had official GC.com cookies and I must say they tasted mighty good!

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I don't think virts and other caches like them will ever come back. I hesitate to say never tho- remember when it was said that there would be NO off topic forum? I like virts etc. and it's good when I can slip one in as part of a days caching, but I've accepted that there won't be any new ones listed. There are still a good many out there to find tho. IMO Waymarking doesn't quite do as a replacement but it is a good alternative concept. I know a few people that do it and I am involved as a manager in several groups. That part of it seems more interesting to me as it gives a slight insight into what a reviewer does and helps me to see things from their perspective. If Jeremy thinks it's best to not list any more non physical caches so the effort put into them can be channeled into other things, then so be it. He and everyone else that run things here do a really great job way more often than not so I figure they can all be cut a little slack and this area is a good one, in part, to do that.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

It would be nice if they gave credit for the waymarks on geocaching.com. I have created several waymarks to go along with my geocaches on the same site. They are never logged by anyone uless it is a friend that I asked to do it while they grabbed the caches.

I would vote no. I wouldn't want Waymarks to count as a Geocache find any more than I'd want a Benchmark, Travel Bug, or my car keys to count as a Geocache find.

 

I always thought that could be a great compromise. Integrate the 2 sites somehow and make it so that waymark finds are like Benchmarks.....they show up in your GC.com profile but not your official "smiley count". I would be a lot more into Waymarking if they weren't treated like 2 entirely separate sites, the "smiley factor" is a very minor issue for me if at all (only that you used to get one and it has been mostly "taken away"......if they were always treated like Benchmarks but still all integrated on one site I'd still do them a lot).

[+Glenn]

It would be nice if they gave credit for the waymarks on geocaching.com. I have created several waymarks to go along with my geocaches on the same site. They are never logged by anyone uless it is a friend that I asked to do it while they grabbed the caches.

I would vote no. I wouldn't want Waymarks to count as a Geocache find any more than I'd want a Benchmark, Travel Bug, or my car keys to count as a Geocache find.

 

I always thought that could be a great compromise. Integrate the 2 sites somehow and make it so that waymark finds are like Benchmarks.....they show up in your GC.com profile but not your official "smiley count". I would be a lot more into Waymarking if they weren't treated like 2 entirely separate sites, the "smiley factor" is a very minor issue for me if at all (only that you used to get one and it has been mostly "taken away"......if they were always treated like Benchmarks but still all integrated on one site I'd still do them a lot).

 

Actually the way what the Waymarking website is set up it would be really easy to create a geocaching category on the Waymarking website. Then import all geocaches from Geocaching.com in to the Waymarking.com geocaching category. Each cache type would be a subcategory under the geocaching category. This would allow favorite cache types like virtual, locationless, and camera caches to return as subcategories. A perfect solution as long as you don't obsess over the collection of . If the smiley icon is used for the geocaching category then those obsessed with collecting them will still be able to collect large numbers them! It almost seems like the perfect solution but you always have those that will complain just to complain.

[+Renegade Knight]

...No no, not correct. We have cookies. You can touch them and hold them and everything. Virtual cookies we don't have. It was decided that the real thing was better than something that isn't there. While some people might like virtual cookies, it appears that most people actually like physical cookies. I know I do.

 

Kind of a good comparison actually, ironically.

 

I will give you a virtual cookie for a thank you.

I am sure you will agree it isn't as nice as a physical one.

 

Oh I agree, real is better than virtual. It's just that virtual (like you posted) isn't quite as good as a waymark.

Here is a waymark to a virtual cookie.

http://grammahugs.com/cookies/ty/ghty1.gif

[+tozainamboku]

Actually the way what the Waymarking website is set up it would be really easy to create a geocaching category on the Waymarking website. Then import all geocaches from Geocaching.com in to the Waymarking.com geocaching category. Each cache type would be a subcategory under the geocaching category. This would allow favorite cache types like virtual, locationless, and camera caches to return as subcategories. A perfect solution as long as you don't obsess over the collection of . If the smiley icon is used for the geocaching category then those obsessed with collecting them will still be able to collect large numbers them! It almost seems like the perfect solution but you always have those that will complain just to complain.

I have a sneaky suspicion that Geocaching V.2 may be nothing more that portal to the Geocache category on Waymarking.com. Don't be too surprised if we see more integration between Geocaching and Waymarking when V.2 comes out. (I am not a reviewer or a Groundspeak lackey. This is simply my guess based on things that Jeremy has posted in the forums).

[+TrailGators]

Actually the way what the Waymarking website is set up it would be really easy to create a geocaching category on the Waymarking website. Then import all geocaches from Geocaching.com in to the Waymarking.com geocaching category. Each cache type would be a subcategory under the geocaching category. This would allow favorite cache types like virtual, locationless, and camera caches to return as subcategories. A perfect solution as long as you don't obsess over the collection of . If the smiley icon is used for the geocaching category then those obsessed with collecting them will still be able to collect large numbers them! It almost seems like the perfect solution but you always have those that will complain just to complain.

I have a sneaky suspicion that Geocaching V.2 may be nothing more that portal to the Geocache category on Waymarking.com. Don't be too surprised if we see more integration between Geocaching and Waymarking when V.2 comes out. (I am not a reviewer or a Groundspeak lackey. This is simply my guess based on things that Jeremy has posted in the forums).

We already saw a sneak peek of waymarks being shown on geocaching maps when the new maps were around for a couple of days.

[+DonKeyHoeTee]

If you like Virtual Caches, you'll LOVE Waymarking.

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other. I'm not impressed with the structure, or , for that matter, the purpose of Waymarking.

No, something's acutely wrong here.

After all, finding a cache means using given geographically-based information to find a specific place that you can find something new to you and of interest and value. Even the definition of swag is something that should be of value, even if minimal.. Knowledge gained by visiting sites that do not have physical swag or physical logs still meets the criteria.

So my point is that the swag of a virtual is knowledge, appreciation for history, or other enlightenment; something you didn't possess before you visited the site.

I know I'm fighting a useless battle, but I do have a passion for the sport, not what the website wants.

[+Sun Chasers]

I, and I am sure others as well, feel it more important that he listen to the people that play the game, rather than just make decisions because he can.

Why not consider the will of the players?

He's listening to some of us. I'm glad virtuals are gone and I hope they don't come back.

 

I guess if they did put it to a vote, mine would cancel yours out.

But mine would cancel yours out . . .

 

And mine makes it 2 in favor!

 

Make that 3.

4. I've already explained one way to get around the obstacles, as have others.

[+mtn-man]

Actually, that would make six.

 

Since you quoted your old post, I've been meaning to ask...

But even this definition by Groundspeak isn't in keeping with the traditional concept of a cache, which always meant something of value was hidden.

Where is that written? The traditional concept of a cache was originally to take you to a place that you might never have been to without geocaching. Trade items originally were secondary until some of the cool stuff that was being traded started to pop up. I would be curious where documentation is on the site saying that the object of the cache purely is to hide something of value.

 

Regarding this: "4. I've already explained one way to get around the obstacles, as have others."

Others have explained how these concepts don't work.

[+mtn-man]

...No no, not correct. We have cookies. You can touch them and hold them and everything. Virtual cookies we don't have. It was decided that the real thing was better than something that isn't there. While some people might like virtual cookies, it appears that most people actually like physical cookies. I know I do.

 

Kind of a good comparison actually, ironically.

 

I will give you a virtual cookie for a thank you.

I am sure you will agree it isn't as nice as a physical one.

 

Oh I agree, real is better than virtual. It's just that virtual (like you posted) isn't quite as good as a waymark.

Here is a waymark to a virtual cookie.

http://grammahugs.com/cookies/ty/ghty1.gif

I've been thinking about this one too RK. I think you are actually backwards in your example.

 

With virtual caches, you have no idea what you are going to find usually. That is the biggest argument for Waymarking when people say that they like virtual caches for the historic value. Waymarking categorizes these items, be they historic in nature or a MickeyD. At least you know what you are getting when you get there. I've been to plenty of virts where I have gone "WHOA!". I've also been to plenty where I have gone "Why?". I know what I will see when I go to a waymark and can decide whether the trip is to something I want to see *before* I go there.

 

Coming back to my "backwards" comment, the picture of the cookie is like a waymark. You know what you get. The link is like a virtual cache. You have no idea what it is until you click it. I do agree that a virtual is not as good as a waymark though.

[+tozainamboku]

Since you quoted your old post, I've been meaning to ask...

But even this definition by Groundspeak isn't in keeping with the traditional concept of a cache, which always meant something of value was hidden.

Where is that written? The traditional concept of a cache was originally to take you to a place that you might never have been to without geocaching. Trade items originally were secondary until some of the cool stuff that was being traded started to pop up. I would be curious where documentation is on the site saying that the object of the cache purely is to hide something of value.

 

Regarding this: "4. I've already explained one way to get around the obstacles, as have others."

Others have explained how these concepts don't work.

I hate to have to disagree with mtn-man on this. First of all Dave Ulmer's original stash had trade items. Dave's instructions posted to the USENET were to "Take some stuff, leave some stuff!". Dave saw the stuff to trade as a way to motivate people to find the cache. The fact that there was stuff to trade probably contributed to name geocache being adopted later on as well. It was only later that trade items became secondary as micro caches were hidden in places where a five gallon bucket couldn't be.

 

I don't know where mtn-man gets the ides that a cache is to take you to a place you might nevere have been to without geocaching. Again the idea was that with SA being turned off, the GPS coordinates should get you close enough to find a hidden stash. Dave had no rules for selecting the location though he say that he would look for "a place near a road where few people would normally go". It was only after some people began selecting places they felt would be nice to visit that this became one of the criteria by which a cache could be judged.

 

Virtual caches were started as a way to have a cache where it was impossible or impratical to hide a physical cache. It was (and is) hard to define impractical and as smaller and smaller micros were made the definition of impossible changed as well Of course once the permission guidelines became important you could claim impossible for places where you couldn't get permission. Some land managers clearly looked at virtual caches as a way to have a ban on physical caches and still be able to claim they allow geocaching. Because of the ease in creating virtuals they threatend the original idea of geocaching in some areas. The "Wow" requirement was added to make a obstacle to runaway virtual placement and ensure that virtual caches at least would be in some worthwhile place.

 

Given that, Sun Chasers proposal is not that far fetched. It is essentially what is happening with Earthcaches. Some group has come up with guidelines that Earthcaches must meet. These guides emphasize the educational component of visiting a geologically interesting site. The Earthcaches are submitted to this group who ensures the cache meets the standards before publishing the cache. In a similar manner other groups could be created with very specific requirments for other types of virual caches - perhaps HistoryCaches or ArtCaches - and these could be treated just like Earthcaches.

[+mtn-man]

I don't know where mtn-man gets the ides that a cache is to take you to a place you might nevere have been to without geocaching.

From being around since early 2001. If you look at early caches, most were hidden that way. Mine were.

 

You are right about the first cache, but I don't equate ""Take some stuff, leave some stuff!". Dave saw the stuff to trade as a way to motivate people to find the cache." to "always meant something of value was hidden".

[+TrailGators]

I don't know where mtn-man gets the ides that a cache is to take you to a place you might nevere have been to without geocaching.

From being around since early 2001. If you look at early caches, most were hidden that way. Mine were.

 

You are right about the first cache, but I don't equate ""Take some stuff, leave some stuff!". Dave saw the stuff to trade as a way to motivate people to find the cache." to "always meant something of value was hidden".

I haven't been around as long as you but that is what really got me into geocaching.

[+Allen_L]

I don't know where mtn-man gets the ides that a cache is to take you to a place you might never have been to without geocaching.

From being around since early 2001. If you look at early caches, most were hidden that way. Mine were.

I have been around since 2000 and that is what I remember. But anyway if you use the Internet Archive WaybackMachine and get the Nov 8, 2000 version of http://www.geocaching.com/articles/making.asp. You will see that it says

 

Geocaching is just like real estate - location, location, location!

 

and

 

Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the stash itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache.

 

In fact the current version of the page (http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx) has the same words on it.

Edited September 12, 2007 by AllenLacy

[+Span 24]

I don't know where mtn-man gets the ides that a cache is to take you to a place you might nevere have been to without geocaching.

From being around since early 2001. If you look at early caches, most were hidden that way. Mine were.

 

You are right about the first cache, but I don't equate ""Take some stuff, leave some stuff!". Dave saw the stuff to trade as a way to motivate people to find the cache." to "always meant something of value was hidden".

 

And at the risk of beating the proverbial "dead-horse" I point out that the man has also deemed that, whatever the original cache was, it is not a virt today. Take a look at this post for a defining example.

 

I will point out that I like Virts. I wish TPTB would just put a voting icon on the home page and settle it once and for all. If more than 50% of the active membership wants to bring them back then I think they should work out a way to do so. If not ban the subject in the forums. Heaven knows the moderators have to share in the responsibility of perpetuating these discussions. The small amount of extra work required to qwell the discussions would likely be easier than explaining over and over the "rhymes and reasons". However, as has been previously mentioned, until one man decides 'enough is enough' the frustration will continue!

 

Right?

 

EDIT: Also thought I ought to include how the particular thread referenced above (which was about virts) ended.

 

Oh yea! And likely the message which brought the thread to a close!

 

Nuff-said eh?

Edited September 12, 2007 by Span 24

[+Span 24]

WOW! The man can close a thread just by linking to previously closed thread!

 

I feel like a "proxy moderator"?

[+Miragee]

Just thought I would post a the link to a Virtual cache I found this week.

 

Turn it into a Traditional? Not possible. Create a Multi there . . . How? If it was a Waymark, I wouldn't have found it that day because I was "Geocaching" not "Waymarking."