Virtual Caches

[+DanOCan]

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.

 

That's exactly why I don't waymark.

 

I enjoyed Virtuals a lot. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to come back, that's for sure. So, I will continue to enjoy the grandfathered ones and hope that people who have a location that would have made a good Virtual will use that location as the first stage of a Multi if it can't support a Traditional.

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

 

That's exactly why I don't waymark. ...

 

I'm lost here.

 

Isn't a "Visit" The same thing as a "Find" ?

[+Renegade Knight]

Oh . . . you might also be interested in this post.

Kewl thread! I'm one of those guys that doesn't "get" virtuals. According to my oft mistaken internal dictionary, a "cache" is a container, with at least a log, hidden somewhere for others to find. A rock shaped like Jesus' face might be a kewl place to visit, but it is not a cache. A plaque commemorating the very first Ben & Jerry's eaten by Rosie O'Donnel might be kewl, but it is not a cache. Perhaps we need a website called "Neatplaces.com", where folks could list the coords for Jesus' face and Rosie's binge, assuming they didn't want to hide a cache there? Perhaps "Neatplaces" doesn't quite sound right......how about "Waymarking"?

 

Most people who like virtuals like regular caches better.

 

Your neatplaces.com is called waypoint.org. Back when virtuals were allowed and approved the biggest complaint was "my virtual wasn't approved". some regulars said "take your unapproved virtual over there". It only showed that they were absolutly clueless on what made a virtual cache a cache vs. some stupid waypoint on waypoint.org and the only marginally better Waymarking.

 

Nothing about benchmarking appeals to me. If I need to find a benchmark I borrow the survey rig, pull out the metal detector and there is is. Nothintg about that is recreational fun to me. It's work, but I can't deny the appeal to some people for that variation of virtual caching. Were I to try and convince folks that the Waymark catagory "Property corners and other 24" rebar stuck into the ground with or without a cap" was the same as benchmarking I don't think it would go over so well.

 

When you get right down to it, it's no skin off my back if benchmarking exists and I have no reason to speak out against it (which is different than your post about just not seeing the appeal). Same for most folks who hate virtuals. Waymarking is fine. Good luck, waymarkers, but I do miss virtual caches.

 

The truth of the matter is in your other post. "Jeremy said Thou Shalt Not Have Virtuals on This Site". and so it came to be.

[+Miragee]

But, at one point wasn't it said that "Thou Shalt Not Have Earthcaches on This Site."

[crtrue]

How about a compromise...a logbook behind the counter at a park, for example, but to finish the cache, you must note some information about the site, ala virt...

 

Physical logbook for the visit, but not hidden and not likely to cause any damage or ruffle as many feathers in sensitive areas, since there isn't a container nor a hunt.

[+sbell111]

Oh . . . you might also be interested in this post.

Kewl thread! I'm one of those guys that doesn't "get" virtuals. According to my oft mistaken internal dictionary, a "cache" is a container, with at least a log, hidden somewhere for others to find. A rock shaped like Jesus' face might be a kewl place to visit, but it is not a cache. A plaque commemorating the very first Ben & Jerry's eaten by Rosie O'Donnel might be kewl, but it is not a cache. Perhaps we need a website called "Neatplaces.com", where folks could list the coords for Jesus' face and Rosie's binge, assuming they didn't want to hide a cache there? Perhaps "Neatplaces" doesn't quite sound right......how about "Waymarking"?

I think you hit the nail on the head. The reason there is disagreement on this topic and others is that everyone's internal dictionary is not in agreement. Many people certainly disagree with your narrow definition.

[Clan Riffster]

Hey, if somebody wants to include the world's largest carrot, a misspelled stop sign or or the coords to Burger King in their definition of "cache", who am I to say otherwise.

Viva la Virtuals!

[+Shawn&Holly]

I'll add my 2 cents for a no to the return of virtuals, just going through the ones I have found, yes I found some of the sites to be interesting, but would have stopped there had it not been a virt. Also with the virtual logging of the grandfathered virtuals discussed recently because you know the answer or visited in a previous life, I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache, I don't think it would be worth bringing them back. Sure you could open them up again, but my PQ is already loaded with local caches, I would hate to have another 1000 virtuals to filter through along with the actual caches out there. So to cut it short, if I drive by one, I will stop and find it, but don't want to see them return for now virtuals to be added, I am having fun finding a cache container and signing the logbook. I am not going to say Waymarking is the answer, because I have not really tried Waymarking, but bringing them back to geocaching.com I don't think is a good way to go, it would be a step back.

[+DonB]

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.

We recently took a trip from Wisconsin to Utah and I did virtuals in Ia, Ne, Co, and Ut. I thought it made our traveling much more interesting seeing things that I probably wouldn't have known about otherwise. But like everyone says, the powers that be have made up their minds and they most likely are a thing of the past. I'll take a virtual any day over all of the crummy micros.

[+wandererrob]

Oh . . . you might also be interested in this post.

Kewl thread! I'm one of those guys that doesn't "get" virtuals. According to my oft mistaken internal dictionary, a "cache" is a container, with at least a log, hidden somewhere for others to find. A rock shaped like Jesus' face might be a kewl place to visit, but it is not a cache. A plaque commemorating the very first Ben & Jerry's eaten by Rosie O'Donnel might be kewl, but it is not a cache. Perhaps we need a website called "Neatplaces.com", where folks could list the coords for Jesus' face and Rosie's binge, assuming they didn't want to hide a cache there? Perhaps "Neatplaces" doesn't quite sound right......how about "Waymarking"?

I think you hit the nail on the head. The reason there is disagreement on this topic and others is that everyone's internal dictionary is not in agreement. Many people certainly disagree with your narrow definition.

 

only because it ignores the word "virtual" in virtual cache.

 

virtual(a): existing in essence or effect though not in actual fact

 

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I don't understand why people continue to debate a dead issue. The decision was made to stop approving Virtuals a long time ago. Why does everyone keep insisting on "pissing into the wind?" Virtuals aren't containers with logbooks, get over it.

Because we believe Groundspeak listens to its customer base!

 

As IBM discovered, you can own your market and be in a position to dictate many things when you have no real competition. A simmering anger among a captive customer base can be tolerated. But when a serious competitor does pop up, you have a massive outflow of customers that leaves you scrambling to recover.

 

We who post our desires in the forums are few, but you can bet we represent a much larger part of the customer base who choose not to post here.

 

What little I know of Groundspeak's staff leads me to believe that they are well aware of this and willing to work to keep discontent as low as is possible. Therefore we post our wants and wishes and believe that they get a fair hearing.

[+Miragee]

Hey, if somebody wants to include the world's largest carrot, a misspelled stop sign or or the coords to Burger King in their definition of "cache", who am I to say otherwise.

Viva la Virtuals!

It was the poor implementation of the Virtual caches on this site that contributed to their demise, not the concept itself.

 

As I have posted in the other thread in the Web Site Forum, if a new cache form for a "Virtual Cache Submission" presented "limiting" questions that had to be answered in a specific way in order for a Virtual cache submission to go through, only Virtuals with Historical, Cultural, or National Park/National Wildlife Refuge, etc. criteria would ever be seen by a Reveiwer.

 

Those things you list are on the Waymarking site. They are fine over there.

 

But I think, since the Earthcaches were moved back to this site, and there is no container or logbook at the Earthcaches, there is room to consider bringing back excellent Virtuals like many I have found.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Miragee

[+wandererrob]

I wish we could post up a poll. Maybe there is a way that i'm unuware of?

 

Just a simple poll:

 

"Would you like to see Virtual Caches brought back to GC.com"

 

[ ] Yes.

 

[ ] No.

 

No discussion, no debate. Just a straight forward poll to see what people think of it.

 

Thoughts?

[+Miragee]

[ X] Yes

 

My vote goes to bring back the Awesome places, the "Unseen" treasures, the super locations in National Parks, National Wildlife refuges, and along the Appalachian Trail that are now only candidates for Waymarking.

 

Let the rest of the stuff over there continue to "thrive."

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'll add my 2 cents for a no to the return of virtuals, just going through the ones I have found, yes I found some of the sites to be interesting, but would have stopped there had it not been a virt. Also with the virtual logging of the grandfathered virtuals discussed recently because you know the answer or visited in a previous life, I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache, I don't think it would be worth bringing them back. Sure you could open them up again, but my PQ is already loaded with local caches, I would hate to have another 1000 virtuals to filter through along with the actual caches out there. So to cut it short, if I drive by one, I will stop and find it, but don't want to see them return for now virtuals to be added, I am having fun finding a cache container and signing the logbook. I am not going to say Waymarking is the answer, because I have not really tried Waymarking, but bringing them back to geocaching.com I don't think is a good way to go, it would be a step back.

"...yes I found some of the sites to be interesting, but would have stopped there had it not been a virt."

You likely would not have known about it without SOME sort of cache to bring it to your attention - why not a virt?

 

"I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache,"

Reviewers don't judge whether any other cache location is 'worthy', why attempt to do so for virts?

 

"Sure you could open them up again, but my PQ is already loaded with local caches, I would hate to have another 1000 virtuals to filter through along with the actual caches out there."

Why? You filter them out of your PQ with a single button click, just like any other cache type you don't want to see in your PQ.

 

"I am not going to say Waymarking is the answer, because I have not really tried Waymarking, but bringing them back to geocaching.com I don't think is a good way to go, it would be a step back."

I have tried Waymarking, it has failure written all over it. Yes, some of us think it would be good to step back, that the rather arbitrary move to eliminate listing new virts was a mistake.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Just a simple poll:

 

"Would you like to see Virtual Caches brought back to GC.com"

Which type of Virtual Cache would we be voting to bring back: the old anything-goes style of virtual (in which a sneaker in the woods could be listed as a virtual, resulting in considerable angst), or the later "wow" factor virtual (in which only a scant few virtuals would listed by the over-pressured reviewers, resulting in considerable angst)?

 

Or some new style of virtual?

[+Shawn&Holly]

I'll add my 2 cents for a no to the return of virtuals, just going through the ones I have found, yes I found some of the sites to be interesting, but would have stopped there had it not been a virt. Also with the virtual logging of the grandfathered virtuals discussed recently because you know the answer or visited in a previous life, I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache, I don't think it would be worth bringing them back. Sure you could open them up again, but my PQ is already loaded with local caches, I would hate to have another 1000 virtuals to filter through along with the actual caches out there. So to cut it short, if I drive by one, I will stop and find it, but don't want to see them return for now virtuals to be added, I am having fun finding a cache container and signing the logbook. I am not going to say Waymarking is the answer, because I have not really tried Waymarking, but bringing them back to geocaching.com I don't think is a good way to go, it would be a step back.

"...yes I found some of the sites to be interesting, but would have stopped there had it not been a virt."

You likely would not have known about it without SOME sort of cache to bring it to your attention - why not a virt?

 

"I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache,"

Reviewers don't judge whether any other cache location is 'worthy', why attempt to do so for virts?

 

"Sure you could open them up again, but my PQ is already loaded with local caches, I would hate to have another 1000 virtuals to filter through along with the actual caches out there."

Why? You filter them out of your PQ with a single button click, just like any other cache type you don't want to see in your PQ.

 

"I am not going to say Waymarking is the answer, because I have not really tried Waymarking, but bringing them back to geocaching.com I don't think is a good way to go, it would be a step back."

I have tried Waymarking, it has failure written all over it. Yes, some of us think it would be good to step back, that the rather arbitrary move to eliminate listing new virts was a mistake.

"...yes I found some of the sites to be interesting, but would have stopped there had it not been a virt."

You likely would not have known about it without SOME sort of cache to bring it to your attention - why not a virt?

 

I have had traditional/multi/mystery caches take me to just as many interesting locations, generally when we stop to find a cache we check out the entire area. Actually some of the most interesting areas we have explored is due to finding a traditional cache nearby.

 

****************

 

"I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache,"

Reviewers don't judge whether any other cache location is 'worthy', why attempt to do so for virts?

 

So you are saying to open it for anything submitted as a virtual, we all know that did not work before so how do you only allow those truely worthy locations when we look at what was submitted when virtuals were allowed.

 

****************

 

"Sure you could open them up again, but my PQ is already loaded with local caches, I would hate to have another 1000 virtuals to filter through along with the actual caches out there."

Why? You filter them out of your PQ with a single button click, just like any other cache type you don't want to see in your PQ.

 

Sure I could filter them out, but as with traditional caches in some areas now, opening up virtuals with no means of truely reviewing them to their location, we would just end up with what most are complaining about Waymarking right now.

 

****************

 

"I am not going to say Waymarking is the answer, because I have not really tried Waymarking, but bringing them back to geocaching.com I don't think is a good way to go, it would be a step back."

I have tried Waymarking, it has failure written all over it. Yes, some of us think it would be good to step back, that the rather arbitrary move to eliminate listing new virts was a mistake.

 

I don't think it was a mistake, I would rather see Waymarking evolve then taking a step back and allowing virtuals again.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache,"

Reviewers don't judge whether any other cache location is 'worthy', why attempt to do so for virts?

 

So you are saying to open it for anything submitted as a virtual, we all know that did not work before so how do you only allow those truely worthy locations when we look at what was submitted when virtuals were allowed.

I think that's my only hangup with the whole issue!

 

We don't evaluate the location for any other cache type for 'wow' or any other factor, why do so for virts?

 

I wasn't paying attention to virts before they got banned, so I don't know why they didn't work before - too many uninspired ones would be my guess. If that's true why haven't micros gone the same way?

 

I just don't see why LPCs can be thrown everywhere but virts need intense location evaluation.

 

As I have posted several times in these different threads, I see no reason for the Bring Back Virtuals argument IF we could use the Virtual category for multis that contain one or more virtual stages.

[+Miragee]

Just a simple poll:

 

"Would you like to see Virtual Caches brought back to GC.com"

Which type of Virtual Cache would we be voting to bring back: the old anything-goes style of virtual (in which a sneaker in the woods could be listed as a virtual, resulting in considerable angst), or the later "wow" factor virtual (in which only a scant few virtuals would listed by the over-pressured reviewers, resulting in considerable angst)?

 

Or some new style of virtual?

Since I responded to wanderrob's "Poll" with a clarification, I'll go on to say that the reason Virtuals were taken away from this site was because of what I think was abuse of the priviledge. From the very beginning, only things like the Washington Monument and the Goldlen Gate Bridge, and an awesome viewpoint in a closed area, such as a National Park should have ever been allowed as Virtual caches.

 

In this parallel thread, I have mentioned how submissions for new Virtuals could be implemented to require only marginal Review by the volunteer Reviewers. If, when a person chose "Virtual" as a cache type for a new cache submission, the entire page refreshed offering "limiting" questions that had to be answered, with specific criteria to be met within those questions, as is done for some categories now on Waymarking, only the "Wow" or Historical, or Culturually significant, or National Park/National Wildlife Refuge/Appalachian Trail type of Virtuals would make it through the initial submission process.

 

A Tutorial on Virtual Caches would explain that only certain things or areas qualified. Anything else could be listed on Waymarking, and then there would be a link to Waymarking with a nice "Welcome to Waymarking Page."

 

Seems like a Win/Win situation to me.

[+Miragee]

"I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache,"

Reviewers don't judge whether any other cache location is 'worthy', why attempt to do so for virts?

 

So you are saying to open it for anything submitted as a virtual, we all know that did not work before so how do you only allow those truely worthy locations when we look at what was submitted when virtuals were allowed.

I think that's my only hangup with the whole issue!

 

We don't evaluate the location for any other cache type for 'wow' or any other factor, why do so for virts?

 

I wasn't paying attention to virts before they got banned, so I don't know why they didn't work before - too many uninspired ones would be my guess. If that's true why haven't micros gone the same way?

 

I just don't see why LPCs can be thrown everywhere but virts need intense location evaluation.

 

As I have posted several times in these different threads, I see no reason for the Bring Back Virtuals argument IF we could use the Virtual category for multis that contain one or more virtual stages.

I so agree with you on your location point. However, Virtuals are about the location and they must be someplace that is special and unique. It was the abuse of that concept, where stupid things were allowed to be listed as Virtuals, that led to the demise of Virtual Caches. But, who knows, maybe that could someday happen to LPCs and Guardrail caches . . .

 

As to your comment in the bolded portion, please read this post to see why the "Multi" option is not workable for many of the fantastic Virtual Caches I have found.

[+cache_test_dummies]

In this parallel thread, I have mentioned how submissions for new Virtuals could be implemented to require only marginal Review by the volunteer Reviewers. If, when a person chose "Virtual" as a cache type for a new cache submission, the entire page refreshed offering "limiting" questions that had to be answered, with specific criteria to be met within those questions, as is done for some categories now on Waymarking, only the "Wow" or Historical, or Culturually significant, or National Park/National Wildlife Refuge/Appalachian Trail type of Virtuals would make it through the initial submission process.

I understand what you are saying (and I read your prior post in the other thread), but as I remember it, one of the final issues leading to the eventual removal of new virtual listings from the site was a collective inability to define "Wow" (to Jeremy's satisfaction). What you are talking about with "limiting questions" and "specific criteria" sounds exactly like the challenge of defining "Wow" all over again. And whether a Virtual approval process is semi-automated (as in your question and answer suggestion above), or mostly manual, the need to define a relatively robust, unambiguous set of guidelines is required.

 

If someone has produced such a set of guidelines, I'd love to see it.

 

edit: added missing word

Edited June 1, 2007 by cache_test_dummies

[+Renegade Knight]

...As I have posted several times in these different threads, I see no reason for the Bring Back Virtuals argument IF we could use the Virtual category for multis that contain one or more virtual stages.

 

I'd rather do a virtual than a multi. That people like different kinds of caches is reason enough to have different kinds of caches.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Seems like a Win/Win situation to me.

Sounds utterly pointless to me . You'd have a confusing mixture of virtuals on two different sites, with endless debate about whether such-a-waymark should really qualify as a "cache".

 

In any case, can someone explain how exactly the same feature, presented in the same fashion, is so useless and appalling as a waymark but as a virtual cache it is wonderful?

 

The web interface is irrelevant, so don't just say that you don't like Waymarking.com.

 

If virtuals were still allowed, there'd be thousands in every area and they'd have to be categorised in some way. Probably, you'd have to appoint category owners to manage and approve them as there would be too much work for the geocache approvers to undertake.

 

They'd have to be separated from geocaches so your searches weren't overwhelmed and so that those that don't like them don't have to even be aware of them.

 

Thankfully, they've been well and truly separated.

[+Miragee]

In this parallel thread, I have mentioned how submissions for new Virtuals could be implemented to require only marginal Review by the volunteer Reviewers. If, when a person chose "Virtual" as a cache type for a new cache submission, the entire page refreshed offering "limiting" questions that had to be answered, with specific criteria to be met within those questions, as is done for some categories now on Waymarking, only the "Wow" or Historical, or Culturually significant, or National Park/National Wildlife Refuge/Appalachian Trail type of Virtuals would make it through the initial submission process.

I understand what you are saying (and I read your prior post in the other thread), but as I remember it, one of the final issues leading to the eventual removal of new virtual listings from the site was a collective inability to define "Wow" (to Jeremy's satisfaction). What you are talking about with "limiting questions" and "specific criteria" sounds exactly like the challenge of defining "Wow" all over again. And whether a Virtual approval process is semi-automated (as in your question and answer suggestion above), or mostly manual, the need to define a relatively robust, unambiguous set of guidelines is required.

 

If someone has produced such a set of guidelines, I'd love to see it

Seems like coming up with not just "Guidelines," but strict "Rules" for new Virtuals wouldn't be all that hard after a few brainstorming sessions with the GC.com staff, volunteer Reviewers, and long-time cachers like EraSeek. Remember, my idea of a Virtual cache is the Washington Monument or the Golden Gate Bridge or a waterfall in Yellowstone National Park.

 

New Virtuals would have to have requirements for logging them and they would fit into a very few groups.

• History
  
• Sculpture
  
• National Park/National Wildlife Refuge/Appalachian Trail/Other closed area
  

These "groups" would not have anything to do with the way the Virtual is listed on this site. Those would just be part of the "limiting" questions to make sure the Virtual is "up to snuff."

 

Just like the Grandfathered Virtuals now, they show up in my PQs along with all the other nearby caches. I'm not limited to just looking for "Historical" Virtuals. I get to be surprised when I go to the coordinates.

[+ke6n]

I don't understand why people continue to debate a dead issue. The decision was made to stop approving Virtuals a long time ago. Why does everyone keep insisting on "pissing into the wind?" Virtuals aren't containers with logbooks, get over it.

Because we believe Groundspeak listens to its customer base!

Actually, I don't. That explains my disdain I sometimes let escape through my prose.

 

I only wish there were another open site with a good interface that could come along and develop a strong following that would give Jeremy a run for his money and create some decent competition. Not only would that clean out the waxed over ears here at Groundspeak, it would create competition which would, in turn, be great for the users. Imagine - websites competing for our money and loyalty! I can only imagine what kinds of great things could come of that for the users!

[+Miragee]

Seems like a Win/Win situation to me.

Sounds utterly pointless to me <snip>

No, what is pointless is having another site that very few Geocachers know about or care to use.

 

When I go on a trip, I want to download PQs for the area I will be traveling through or visiting. I don't have a particular narrow interest like waterfalls, or Historical Monuments, or dog sculptures, or structures in the National Registry of Historic Places, so the endless categorization on Waymarking is not useful to me. I am interested in finding interesting things near the Geocaches I am looking for. Virtual caches are there, in my GPSr, along with all the Geocaches.

 

I own two Categories on Waymarking, and own several Waymarks. Very few of my Waymarks have ever been visited.

 

That isn't a model for success, in my opinion.

 

If I owned a Waymark worthy of being a Virtual Cache, and I don't think I do, it would get visited if I moved it to GC.com, just like the non-visited Earthcaches suddenly started getting visits again once they were moved back.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Seems like coming up with not just "Guidelines," but strict "Rules" for new Virtuals wouldn't be all that hard after a few brainstorming sessions with the GC.com staff, volunteer Reviewers, and long-time cachers like EraSeek.

I believe it would be extremely hard. I think that's why it couldn't be done before.

[Clan Riffster]

In any case, can someone explain how exactly the same feature, presented in the same fashion, is so useless and appalling as a waymark but as a virtual cache it is wonderful?

Assume for the sake of this answer that the location is a moldy sneaker in the woods. If it were a virt, you'd get the all important smiley.

[+Miragee]

Seems like coming up with not just "Guidelines," but strict "Rules" for new Virtuals wouldn't be all that hard after a few brainstorming sessions with the GC.com staff, volunteer Reviewers, and long-time cachers like EraSeek.

I believe it would be extremely hard. I think that's why it couldn't be done before.

Have you seen some of the "limiting" questions and strict rules for certain Categories and Waymarks on Waymarking?

 

I don't think it would be that difficult. It was never tried, as near as I can tell. Coming up with a "Wow" factor near the end of the Virtual Cache time on GC.com was not exactly like setting "Rules" in stone.

 

Edit to add appropriate quote . . .

Edited June 1, 2007 by Miragee

[+tozainamboku]

We don't evaluate the location for any other cache type for 'wow' or any other factor, why do so for virts?

 

I wasn't paying attention to virts before they got banned, so I don't know why they didn't work before - too many uninspired ones would be my guess. If that's true why haven't micros gone the same way?

 

I just don't see why LPCs can be thrown everywhere but virts need intense location evaluation.

Some people think that a gache (virtual or physical) ought to take you to a worthy place. But while we might agree that the Grand Canyon or Arlington Cemetary is a worthy place there are a lot of less worthy places. There will never be any agreement on where to draw the line. We might even all agree that a lamppost in a parking lot is not worthy - till some one shows us one that has a spectacular view. TPTB have decided that rather than judging the worthiness of a place for having a cache there that they focus on other guidelines. Virtuals, on the other hand, were subjected to the worthiness requirement. Why? Two reasons. First most people felt that if there wasn't going to a cache to find a virtual should at least reward you with a cool place. Just because physical caches are not allowed in areas administered by the National Park Services doesn't mean you should have people count the fence posts in the parking lot there. Second, because there is no investment in setting up or maintaining a virtual cache it encouraged people to submit llots of vituals without thinking about whether there really should be a cache there. Just look how easy it is to create a parking lot micro - a virtual is even easier to set up. The guidelines were added to prevent runaway virtual spew.

 

In this parallel thread, I have mentioned how submissions for new Virtuals could be implemented to require only marginal Review by the volunteer Reviewers. If, when a person chose "Virtual" as a cache type for a new cache submission, the entire page refreshed offering "limiting" questions that had to be answered, with specific criteria to be met within those questions, as is done for some categories now on Waymarking, only the "Wow" or Historical, or Culturually significant, or National Park/National Wildlife Refuge/Appalachian Trail type of Virtuals would make it through the initial submission process.

I understand what you are saying (and I read your prior post in the other thread), but as I remember it, one of the final issues leading to the eventual removal of new virtual listings from the site was a collective inability to define "Wow" (to Jeremy's satisfaction). What you are talking about with "limiting questions" and "specific criteria" sounds exactly like the challenge of defining "Wow" all over again. And whether a Virtual approval process is semi-automated (as in your question and answer suggestion above), or mostly manual, the need to define a relatively robust, unambiguous set of guidelines is required.

 

If someone has produced such a set of guidelines, I'd love to see it

Seems like coming up with not just "Guidelines," but strict "Rules" for new Virtuals wouldn't be all that hard after a few brainstorming sessions with the GC.com staff, volunteer Reviewers, and long-time cachers like EraSeek. Remember, my idea of a Virtual cache is the Washington Monument or the Golden Gate Bridge or a waterfall in Yellowstone National Park.

 

New Virtuals would have to have requirements for logging them and they would fit into a very few groups.

• History
  
• Sculpture
  
• National Park/National Wildlife Refuge/Appalachian Trail/Other closed area
  

These "groups" would not have anything to do with the way the Virtual is listed on this site. Those would just be part of the "limiting" questions to make sure the Virtual is "up to snuff."

 

Just like the Grandfathered Virtuals now, they show up in my PQs along with all the other nearby caches. I'm not limited to just looking for "Historical" Virtuals. I get to be surprised when I go to the coordinates.

This must sound so familiar to Jeremy. They really did try to explain to people what was worthy of a virtual - and it didn't help. Jeremy kept asking for a definition and he never got a satifactory answer. The reviewers kept getting submissions for lame, uninteresting sites - even places explicity called out in the guidelines as being too common. Even Miragee's examples show a misunderstanding of the virtual guidelines. A scenic location is not a virtual cache. There is nothing to find. You go and see the scenery. Even an impressive monument is not itself a cache. There may be a name or date to find on the monument. That could make it a virtual cache but people would submit it and not even ask for a picture.

 

If you just want to have coordinates that take you to a cool spot it is not a cache. It is a waymark (or an earthcache which IMO should be a kind of waymark). I enjoy finding virtual caches. The ones I enjoy are the ones where I find something. I come away feeling I have been geocaching. Ones whose only purpose is to get me to visit some place leave me feeling cheated. Sure, sometimes it's a best kept secret, someplace I never knew was there, where I wouldn't have stopped if it weren't listed as a virtual. Sometimes I get angry that person was too lazy to even do a virtual cache right. I'll post a picture or write in my note about something that could be found at the site. There have been a lot of examples people have given about virtuals they found in Washington DC or Yellowstone NP. But I bet only a few were virtual caches. Most were probably waymarks pretending to be virtual caches.

 

If virtual caches are brough back to Geocaching.com I hope they are caches and not just waymarks listed on the geocaching website.

[+Shawn&Holly]

Seems like coming up with not just "Guidelines," but strict "Rules" for new Virtuals wouldn't be all that hard after a few brainstorming sessions with the GC.com staff, volunteer Reviewers, and long-time cachers like EraSeek.

I believe it would be extremely hard. I think that's why it couldn't be done before.

Have you seen some of the "limiting" questions and strict rules for certain Categories and Waymarks on Waymarking?

 

I don't think it would be that difficult. It was never tried, as near as I can tell. Coming up with a "Wow" factor near the end of the Virtual Cache time on GC.com was not exactly like setting "Rules" in stone.

 

Edit to add appropriate quote . . .

 

I am sure it would not take long to determine the answer is "A A C D B" and you get your virtual to the review portion of the queue, anyone that submits a virtual truely believes their virtual is worthy of listing and will not take no for an answer. I am going to have to check out Waymarking, but I enjoy finding a traditional cache or even a short multi cache when I can, I do admit the LPC caches can be disappointing, but so is finding and having to email Rebok to a virt owner.

[+Happy Humphrey]

In any case, can someone explain how exactly the same feature, presented in the same fashion, is so useless and appalling as a waymark but as a virtual cache it is wonderful?

Assume for the sake of this answer that the location is a moldy sneaker in the woods. If it were a virt, you'd get the all important smiley.

I think that you have the REAL point of this thread there in a nutshell (up until then, I hadn't seen anything like a reason to bring back virtual caches). As we know, the vast majority of cachers are driven primarily by the numbers. True!

[+cache_test_dummies]

Have you seen some of the "limiting" questions and strict rules for certain Categories and Waymarks on Waymarking?

Sure. I've written some of those. Why do you ask?

 

I don't think it would be that difficult. It was never tried, as near as I can tell. Coming up with a "Wow" factor near the end of the Virtual Cache time on GC.com was not exactly like setting "Rules" in stone.

I think coming up with a definition for "Wow" is the first (and the most important) step in coming up with an unambiguous set of rules. And as tozainamboku just posted above:

 

<snip>They really did try to explain to people what was worthy of a virtual - and it didn't help. Jeremy kept asking for a definition and he never got a satifactory answer.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If virtuals were still allowed, there'd be thousands in every area and they'd have to be categorised in some way. Probably, you'd have to appoint category owners to manage and approve them as there would be too much work for the geocache approvers to undertake.

 

They'd have to be separated from geocaches so your searches weren't overwhelmed and so that those that don't like them don't have to even be aware of them.

Why would they have to be categorized? Are geocaches categorized?

 

Why would they have to be separated from geocaches? Check a box in your PQ request and you won't see one.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This must sound so familiar to Jeremy. They really did try to explain to people what was worthy of a virtual - and it didn't help. Jeremy kept asking for a definition and he never got a satifactory answer. The reviewers kept getting submissions for lame, uninteresting sites - even places explicity called out in the guidelines as being too common. Even Miragee's examples show a misunderstanding of the virtual guidelines. A scenic location is not a virtual cache. There is nothing to find. You go and see the scenery. Even an impressive monument is not itself a cache. There may be a name or date to find on the monument. That could make it a virtual cache but people would submit it and not even ask for a picture.

 

If you just want to have coordinates that take you to a cool spot it is not a cache. It is a waymark (or an earthcache which IMO should be a kind of waymark).

What location is worthy of a micro? An ammo box? No answer there, and no one cares, so requiring location restrictions on virts but not any other makes zero sense.

[+Miragee]

If virtuals were still allowed, there'd be thousands in every area and they'd have to be categorised in some way. Probably, you'd have to appoint category owners to manage and approve them as there would be too much work for the geocache approvers to undertake.

 

They'd have to be separated from geocaches so your searches weren't overwhelmed and so that those that don't like them don't have to even be aware of them.

Why would they have to be categorized? Are geocaches categorized?

 

Why would they have to be separated from geocaches? Check a box in your PQ request and you won't see one.

I saw that comment also. The Grandfathered Virtuals are not categorized. Even with my idea of how "limiting" questions on the "New Virtual Cache Submission" form would ensure that only certain types of things are submitted would not have any bearing later. Virtual Caches will just show up in my PQ along with the other Geocaches, and Earthcaches, in that area.

 

When I was in Littleton, Colorado, part of the fun was just going from Virtual to Virtual. I didn't have to decide I wanted to see a "Historical-Virtual" or a "Grave of a Famous Person-Virtual" or a "Unique Sundial-Virtual."

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Just noticed a feature I hadn't seen, a link to local waymarks from a cache listing.

 

If I look at GCH1HZ for example I can click on

 

Find...

...other caches hidden or found by this user

...nearby caches of this type, that I haven't found

...all nearby caches, that I haven't found

...all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com

 

which last link shows me 339 Waymarks within 100 miles of the cache.

 

Now that's cool!

 

If I could get caches AND waymarks delivered in PQs, that would be perfect! I suspect that's on it's way.

 

If I could get a PQ of 500 geocaches surrounding that listing including all waymarks within 50 miles of it I would be set for a weekend of finding both... Kewl stuff!

[+Happy Humphrey]

 

Why would they have to be categorized? Are geocaches categorized?

 

Why would they have to be separated from geocaches? Check a box in your PQ request and you won't see one.

 

The Grandfathered Virtuals are not categorized. Even with my idea of how "limiting" questions on the "New Virtual Cache Submission" form would ensure that only certain types of things are submitted would not have any bearing later. Virtual Caches will just show up in my PQ along with the other Geocaches, and Earthcaches, in that area.

 

When I was in Littleton, Colorado, part of the fun was just going from Virtual to Virtual. I didn't have to decide I wanted to see a "Historical-Virtual" or a "Grave of a Famous Person-Virtual" or a "Unique Sundial-Virtual."

 

If new virtuals were allowed and you did a search for "nearest caches" in some areas, after a couple of years you'd find you were getting page after page of virtuals (with a few geocaches thrown in). There would have to be some way of breaking them down so that you could filter out those types that you don't like (or filter by those that you do like) - as in Waymarking. Categorising them is the obvious way (as in Waymarking).

 

If you wanted to forget about categories, you could just list the nearest caches (as in Waymarking): then you could just travel from virtual to virtual. If you don't want to see virtuals ever, (and quite a few wouldn't), you could just forget that they exist - but only if they were kept separate.

 

The reason that the Grandfathered virtuals don't need to be categorised is that there are very few of them. If new virtuals were allowed, I'm pretty sure that the numbers would multiply very fast.

[+outdoorsaddix]

I would like to see virtuals make a comeback, but i think some guidelines need to be put in place. For example maybe limiting them to cities and maybe also making the person write say... 250 words on why the virtual location is significant. And if a cache is to be placed outside a city then its 500 words on why its significant and a regualr cache cant be made.

[+Miragee]

Why would they have to be categorized? Are geocaches categorized?

 

Why would they have to be separated from geocaches? Check a box in your PQ request and you won't see one.

The Grandfathered Virtuals are not categorized. Even with my idea of how "limiting" questions on the "New Virtual Cache Submission" form would ensure that only certain types of things are submitted would not have any bearing later. Virtual Caches will just show up in my PQ along with the other Geocaches, and Earthcaches, in that area.

 

When I was in Littleton, Colorado, part of the fun was just going from Virtual to Virtual. I didn't have to decide I wanted to see a "Historical-Virtual" or a "Grave of a Famous Person-Virtual" or a "Unique Sundial-Virtual."

If new virtuals were allowed and you did a search for "nearest caches" in some areas, after a couple of years you'd find you were getting page after page of virtuals (with a few geocaches thrown in). There would have to be some way of breaking them down so that you could filter out those types that you don't like (or filter by those that you do like) - as in Waymarking. Categorising them is the obvious way (as in Waymarking).

 

If you wanted to forget about categories, you could just list the nearest caches (as in Waymarking): then you could just travel from virtual to virtual. If you don't want to see virtuals ever, (and quite a few wouldn't), you could just forget that they exist - but only if they were kept separate.

 

The reason that the Grandfathered virtuals don't need to be categorised is that there are very few of them. If new virtuals were allowed, I'm pretty sure that the numbers would multiply very fast.

I think you have been spending too much time on Waymarking.

 

In the ideal situation for the inclusion of Virtuals on this site, they would have strict, limited criteria.

1. Something unique exists at those coordinates (A plaque for the Washington Monument, for example)
   
2. Information necessary to log the Virtual cache is found at those coordinates
   
3. No cache container can be placed nearby (location is in a National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, Indian Reservation, etc.)
   

How many truly special places, other than in a place like downtown Philadelphia or downtown Washington, D.C., can be found in the average community?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

If new MICROS were allowed and you did a search for "nearest caches" in some areas, after a couple of years you'd find you were getting page after page of MICROS (with a few geocaches thrown in). There would have to be some way of breaking them down so that you could filter out those types that you don't like (or filter by those that you do like) - as in Waymarking. Categorising them is the obvious way (as in Waymarking).

There - I fixed it for you - if virts need a wow location why not micros? Heck, Why not ALL geocaches?

 

I think you have been spending too much time on Waymarking.

 

In the ideal situation for the inclusion of Virtuals on this site, they would have strict, limited criteria.

1. Something unique exists at those coordinates (A plaque for the Washington Monument, for example)
   
2. Information necessary to log the Virtual cache is found at those coordinates
   
3. No cache container can be placed nearby (location is in a National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, Indian Reservation, etc.)
   

How many truly special places, other than in a place like downtown Philadelphia or downtown Washington, D.C., can be found in the average community?

Why? You don't have these restrictions for other cache types - why Virts?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmm... What were the problems with virts? And how could those problems be avoided? (And, yes, I did the "What's the name of the beauty salon?" virt. It had a high Hunh? factor.)

1) A lot of them were lame. (Not to be confused with LPCs.)

2) The reviewers caught a lot of flack. (This sounds like the major problem!)

3) Earth Caches do not have a log book to sign, so what's the dif? Lots of them are lame too.

 

And, thus, I propose: WOW! factor caches! (Since we have not found an outside agency to administer them.) The important guideline is that the cache submitter must agree to the guidelines!

1) No arguing with the reviewer! Anyone who argues with the reviewer will have his/her e-mail blocked from being received by geocaching for a period of one month! (This did seem to be the major problem.)

2) Each Vitual cache placer will submit reasons why they think that their virtual has WOW! And will submit photos to show why. And will submit reasons why a Virtual is the proper choice of cache type.

3) Each cache reviewer will, at his/her discretion, choose whichever proposed Virtuals s/he thinks might have a WOW! factor, and submit them to a review board of overworked reviewers, who shall then vote, whenever the time is available, on whether it would be acceptable. Time period not to exceed a month. After a period of a month, or whenever the beknighted reviewer gets a chance. votes will be tallied. Answer is either Yes or No. No appeal. No recriminations.

4) Reiteration of rule 1) No arguing with the reviewer. One submission. One month wait. Yes or No. If the majority of the board of volunteers approves, it become a virtual. If they do not, then it does not. Anyone even going so far as to enquire as to the status will have his/her ability to submit a cache, or e-mail gc.com suspended for a month.

Don't like the stringent rules, don't submit a virtual.

Just my humble opinion as how to handle the question.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

In the ideal situation for the inclusion of Virtuals on this site, they would have strict, limited criteria.

1. Something unique exists at those coordinates (A plaque for the Washington Monument, for example)
   
2. Information necessary to log the Virtual cache is found at those coordinates
   
3. No cache container can be placed nearby (location is in a National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, Indian Reservation, etc.)
   

How many truly special places, other than in a place like downtown Philadelphia or downtown Washington, D.C., can be found in the average community?

Why? You don't have these restrictions for other cache types - why Virts?

That's what Waymarking is for . . . It has everything listed.

 

If Virtual Caches could return to this site, they would only be the truly special places, like those EraSeek found on his trip to Washingon, DC, which prompted the other thread in the Web Site Fourm. Most of the Grandfathered Virtual Caches I have found have been truly unique and worthwhile locations to visit and learn from.

 

Edit to add appropriate quote . . .

Edited June 2, 2007 by Miragee

[+cache_test_dummies]

Why? You don't have these restrictions for other cache types - why Virts?

I'm not following this line of questioning.

 

There are restrictions on every type of thing that has been, or ever will be, listed on this site. But that doesn't mean that one type of thing has to be subject to exactly the same restrictions as other types of things.

 

Physical caches are restricted to locations for which adequate permission has been determined or established, and physical caches are also subject to proximity and permanence rules. Earthcaches can only be listed after going through a review process completely different than physical caches, but aren't subject to proximity rules. Virtuals (when they were being listed) were (at various points) restricted in placement by proximity rules, and later, by the "Wow" requirement, but weren't subject to the adequate permission rule. Events have their own rules. And even though they are listed here, you can't add a benchmark to this site, which is a different type of restriction altogether.

 

Clearly, different types of things listed here are subject to different sets of restrictions.

[+tozainamboku]

 

That's what Waymarking is for . . . It has everything listed.

 

If Virtual Caches could return to this site, they would only be the truly special places, like those EraSeek found on his trip to Washingon, DC, which prompted the other thread in the Web Site Fourm. Most of the Grandfathered Virtual Caches I have found have been truly unique and worthwhile locations to visit and learn from.

First of all - Waymarking does not have everything listed. In order to be listed the waymark must meet the requirements for one of the Categories. In order for a category to be created you have to form a group with at least 3 officers who agree that they are interested in that category and it must go through peer review by the general Waymarking community. Categories are turned down all the time and most categories have to turn down waymarks that don't meet the requirements.

 

It sounds like Miragee is proposing this Waymarking category. She seems to think she has a definition of Wow or what she calls "truly special places". She defines special places as places where:

1. Something unique exists at those coordinates (A plaque for the Washington Monument, for example)
   
2. Information necessary to log the Virtual cache is found at those coordinates
   
3. No cache container can be placed nearby (location is in a National Park, National Wildlife Refuge, Indian Reservation, etc.)
   

No really a whole lot different than the requirements were for virtuals. You're going to find that a lot of people have different ideas about what makes something unique. If a plaque for the Washington Monument is unique why not the marker for oldest house in your town? Maybe, the guy down the street is a folk artist and his front yard is full of his work. Or there's the unique house in LA with 10 statues of Michaelangelo's David lining the driveway. It's not hard to find information that can be used to log anything but someone will argue that they have a site is so special that it shouldn't be turned down because the only way to prove a visit is a photo. And in any case, someone in Germany will find the information needed to log the cache on the Internet - so you shouldn't have verification questions in the first place. Someone will point out that they asked permission to place a cache at Wal*Mart they were turned down but told they could make a virtual. Who knows, it might be a unique and historic spot that happens to be in Wal*Mart's parking lot. And it's not clear that even in places that seem to have a blanket ban on physical caches, that it will always be impossible to get permission.

 

How many truly special places, other than in a place like downtown Philadelphia or downtown Washington, D.C., can be found in the average community?

You'd be surprised. Look at the number of historical marker waymarks. One could argue that each historic marker is a unique historic spot. Even when there is no marker, there's a big range of what people think are special or unique events that may have happened some place. Every town probably has its historic courthouse or the oldest building in town. I wish there was an agreed upon definition of "Wow" - but there isn't. Bringing back virtuals with a "Wow" requirement would just cause angst. Bringing 'em back like TAR says without any "Wow" requirement and people with start to hate them and wish for more LPCs.

[+TrailGators]

[ X] Yes

 

My vote goes to bring back the Awesome places, the "Unseen" treasures, the super locations in National Parks, National Wildlife refuges, and along the Appalachian Trail that are now only candidates for Waymarking.

 

Let the rest of the stuff over there continue to "thrive."

[ X] Yes

[+TrailGators]

"I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache,"

Reviewers don't judge whether any other cache location is 'worthy', why attempt to do so for virts?

 

So you are saying to open it for anything submitted as a virtual, we all know that did not work before so how do you only allow those truely worthy locations when we look at what was submitted when virtuals were allowed.

I think that's my only hangup with the whole issue!

 

We don't evaluate the location for any other cache type for 'wow' or any other factor, why do so for virts?

 

I wasn't paying attention to virts before they got banned, so I don't know why they didn't work before - too many uninspired ones would be my guess. If that's true why haven't micros gone the same way?

 

I just don't see why LPCs can be thrown everywhere but virts need intense location evaluation.

I couldn't agree more. It doesn't make sense to me either.

[+Snoogans]

"I would really hate to be reviewing them and how do you know if it is worthy of a virtual cache,"

Reviewers don't judge whether any other cache location is 'worthy', why attempt to do so for virts?

 

So you are saying to open it for anything submitted as a virtual, we all know that did not work before so how do you only allow those truely worthy locations when we look at what was submitted when virtuals were allowed.

I think that's my only hangup with the whole issue!

 

We don't evaluate the location for any other cache type for 'wow' or any other factor, why do so for virts?

 

I wasn't paying attention to virts before they got banned, so I don't know why they didn't work before - too many uninspired ones would be my guess. If that's true why haven't micros gone the same way?

 

I just don't see why LPCs can be thrown everywhere but virts need intense location evaluation.

I couldn't agree more. It doesn't make sense to me either.

 

 

First off, let me admit that I haven't read more than a few posts of this thread, but here's my take on the subject:

 

 

I count MANY virts among my most favorite caching experiences. A few have been farrr better than any traditional cache.

 

 

That said, I support the decision to stop accepting virts as caches based on the concerns of the many reviewers that I know personally. The catagory was being abused. I have seen it first hand.

 

 

Case in point:

 

I stopped at a rest stop while on a trip mostly to feed my dog and to use the restroom. There was a virt there too BONUS! Coming back from the restroom I see a really cool display and lots of info on the Chisholm Trail. It took half an hour to read it all and it was verrry interesting. I paid particular attention to details to answer the virt questions when I got back to the car.

 

 

Well, I get back to the car and read the cache page and guess what? The virt has nothing to do with the history of that location. There's a Kangaroo on a sign in the parking lot that serves as an anti-litter mascot. What's his name is the validation question. THAT'S the virt. (insert raspberry sound effect.) There are tons of poorly done virts like this and they drag down the entire catagory for the ones that are done well.

 

 

It took me a year to claim the find and then ONLY because it was the one cache I had in that state since the other was a DNF.

 

 

I own one virt that I would barrrrely consider passable in hindsight and others would understandably not think so. I have another that I got through the briefly imposed WOW factor considerations before those that probably wished to pad their hides with virts pretty much killed the catagory arguing over the 15 historical markers they submitted all at once.

 

 

I get it. The reviewers were right to pull the plug rather than wade through all that mess when there were real caches to review. There's an entire site for virts now. I don't use it, but maybe I will some day. There are plenty of grandfathered virts left. I seriously doubt they will become as rare as ape caches.

Edited June 2, 2007 by Snoogans

[+TrailGators]

There's a Kangaroo on a sign in the parking lot that serves as an anti-litter mascot. What's his name is the validation question. THAT'S the virt. (insert raspberry sound effect.) There are tons of poorly done virts like this and they drag down the entire catagory for the ones that are done well.

Snoogans, funny comment about the raspberry but there are just as many or more poorly done regular caches. So don't you think there is a double-standard in play here?

[+Snoogans]

There's a Kangaroo on a sign in the parking lot that serves as an anti-litter mascot. What's his name is the validation question. THAT'S the virt. (insert raspberry sound effect.) There are tons of poorly done virts like this and they drag down the entire catagory for the ones that are done well.

Snoogans, funny comment about the raspberry but there are just as many or more poorly done regular caches. So don't you think there is a double-standard in play here?

 

 

I have one standard for apples. I have another standard for oranges.