Jump to content

Virtual Caches


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

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. :o
I don't really think it is apples and oranges. I think it is lemons and lemons with micros.... :P
Link to comment
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. :ph34r:
I don't really think it is apples and oranges. I think it is lemons and lemons with micros.... :P

 

 

What do micros have to do with virts? :o:lol:

Link to comment

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?

There would have to be guidelines set and it would be up to the reviewers to enforce them.

Link to comment

 

What do micros have to do with virts? :P:o

 

I think the explosion in micros is connected to the effective end of new virts which came with the major restrictions implemented in 2003.

 

Virts were perfect for the lazy cache owner. Waypoint that litter sign or manhole cover, submit and voilà, you own a fairly maintenance free cache.

 

Once that option went away, they had no choice but to move into micros. Stick a slip of paper into a film canister, toss it behind a bush and you get to increase your hide count with little effort.

Link to comment

People miss virtuals and don't want to waymark because of the :o as Briansnat stated way back when.Plain and simple.Much like benchmarking.If it contributed to the find count,people would be doing that alot more as well.

Edited by vtmtnman
Link to comment

I really like virtuals-I don't understand why we can't have them. I'm sure they could find a way not to accept the 'sneaker in the woods' variety.

Waymarking is not as good as this site. I wanted to do a Pony Express one and after looking into I decided to chuck the idea.

Bring good virtuals back please. :o

They found a way to eliminate the sneaker in the woods. It was the wow requirement. The Wow requirement helped virts. Reviewers enforce a kind of quality control and the really lame ones were no longer approved. The result is that people have visited a lot of cool locations that did get approved and in some areas people have never seen the sneaker in the woods or the city vehicle code from the no parking sign variety. But the wow requirement was bad for geocaching. The volunteer reviewers had to decide if the virtual was wow and if they said no had to put up with a lot of complaining by the person who didn't get their virt approved. Unlike the other guidelines where the review can often tell someone exactly why their cache wasn't approved and how to fix the problem, explaining why a virtual is not "wow" is difficult. Many people won't take no for an answer. So Virts got appealed to Groundspeak. That extra load was handled by simply denying the appeal. So the appeal went to the forums. Lots of posts on why was my virtual denied. Meantime other caches sat in the reviewers' queue while the virtuals were being dealt with. If virtuals are brought back, the review issues must be resolved.

 

The people who use Waymarking a lot think it is a lot better than Geocaching. Why? Because they are not interested in finding tupperware or even sneakers in the woods. Instead they want to have categorized lists of interesting places with the geographic coordinates and perhaps to put the coordinates into their GPS so they can visit these places. They are not interested in getting a geocaching smiley for finding these places; although they are beginning to compete for Waymarking stats. So some geocachers are naturally put off by this site. The want to play the geocaching game. They want to find something - even a sneaker in the wood or the numbers on the no parking sign - and they want to get a geocaching smiley for it. It depends what you want to do. If you truly are only interested in sharing neat places and visiting the neat places other people have shared, ultimately Waymarking is better for you. I understand that it is not as intuitive as looking for nearby geocaches, but most people can figure it out after a while. If you want to have a virtual cache and find something it is much harder to find that on Waymarking. I used to argue that we could have some Waymarking categories that were more virtual cache like. But only the Best Kept Secrets category has been developed and frankly most of the submissions we get are written as waymarks that happen to be best kept secrets - and probably didn't fit into any other category. I am no longer sure of where the best place is for virtuals.

Link to comment
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. :o
I don't really think it is apples and oranges. I think it is lemons and lemons with micros.... :ph34r:

What do micros have to do with virts? :lol::mad:
The point was that now instead of having virts in stupid places we have micros in the same basic stupid places. :P
Link to comment
I really like virtuals-I don't understand why we can't have them. I'm sure they could find a way not to accept the 'sneaker in the woods' variety. Waymarking is not as good as this site. I wanted to do a Pony Express one and after looking into I decided to chuck the idea. Bring good virtuals back please. :o
They found a way to eliminate the sneaker in the woods. It was the wow requirement. The Wow requirement helped virts. Reviewers enforce a kind of quality control and the really lame ones were no longer approved.
Now all you have to do is put a micro in the same sneaker in the woods and it's OK.... :P
Link to comment

 

Check out how difficult it is to register a Waymark in the "National Registry of Historic Places" category. Not all Waymark categories are that restrictive. I have two Categories that aren't, but I really think Virtuals could be reinstated on this site without the Reviewers being subject to the abuse they were subjected to before with some additions to the "Submit A Virtual Cache" page. idea.gif

 

If someone submitted a lousy location to the "Scenic View Virtual" category, it could be quickly removed if cachers who found it posted an SBA.

 

No Reviewers would be hurt in this process . . . :P:o

 

I find this interesting. The National Registry of Historic Places category is the largest category of all categories on Waymarking.com. It is one of the most popular because it involves local history. It does require some research but not restrictive except the site must be on the Register.

Link to comment

I didn't use that category as being a bad example. On the contrary, that is an good example of what could be done to help reinstate excellent Virtuals to this site. :o

 

A cacher will have to have all their ducks in a row and answer all the questions before their submission will go through.

 

So, if they want to submit something that has Historical value, if they don't have the date for the form, they have to go back and get the information.

 

Having a somewhat-restrictive form, like that for the National Registry of Historic Places, will cut down on the number of submissions Reviewers will have to look at, and that is a good thing. :P

Link to comment

People miss virtuals and don't want to waymark because of the :o as Briansnat stated way back when.Plain and simple.Much like benchmarking.If it contributed to the find count,people would be doing that alot more as well.

 

Not in my case. I am an active benchmarker. Ture, they do not count toward my cache finds. But they were never considered to be caches! For me, it's the 'One Stop Shopping' idea. If I wanted to go to another site as well, it would not by whymarking. It would be that other 'nameless' site.

I've got 1187 caches, and 603 benchmarks found. Though I do also log appropriate benchmarks with the NGS.

I enjoy variety. And Virtuals offers that. I find the argument "But they don't have logbooks" to be inane. Neither do Earth Caches, and they are still permitted.

Link to comment
I didn't use that category as being a bad example. On the contrary, that is an good example of what could be done to help reinstate excellent Virtuals to this site. :)

 

A cacher will have to have all their ducks in a row and answer all the questions before their submission will go through.

 

So, if they want to submit something that has Historical value, if they don't have the date for the form, they have to go back and get the information.

 

Having a somewhat-restrictive form, like that for the National Registry of Historic Places, will cut down on the number of submissions Reviewers will have to look at, and that is a good thing. B)

I don't think you're ever going to get the reviewers to do it again. That is why I think peer review for virts has a much better shot of happening. :blink:
Link to comment

But "Peer Review" is a Waymarking thing. :blink: There is no equivalent on GC.com.

 

I really think excellent Virtual Caches could be brought back to GC.com if the requirements, on the submission page, were stringent enough. idea.gif

 

I know people who won't submit Waymarks because it is too much trouble. If you make it hard enough to submit a Virtual, there won't be that many to review. :)

Link to comment
But "Peer Review" is a Waymarking thing. :o There is no equivalent on GC.com.

 

I really think excellent Virtual Caches could be brought back to GC.com if the requirements, on the submission page, were stringent enough. idea.gif

 

I know people who won't submit Waymarks because it is too much trouble. If you make it hard enough to submit a Virtual, there won't be that many to review. :)

The good news is that both sites are owned by the same people. So they could cross-pollinate them if they wanted to... :blink: Plus submitting a waymark is no more difficult than submitting a geocache. B)
Link to comment

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?

 

At the very least I think the same basic guideline of expected "permanence" would apply. "Wow" however is a very subjective thing.

Link to comment

People miss virtuals and don't want to waymark because of the :blink: as Briansnat stated way back when.Plain and simple.Much like benchmarking.If it contributed to the find count,people would be doing that alot more as well.

 

I think that is an overly simplified evaluation, perhaps not for some though. In my view:

 

- Waymarking is more a replacement for locationless caches than for virtuals. You have a thing to find (i.e. category) then provide examples, which then loosley resemble virtuals. It basically opened locationless sites to repeated visits.

 

- virtuals showed up nicely in PQs along with all the other caches, unless you fliter them out. Warmarking does not offer this. Best you can do is download .loc files, 1 page of waymarks at a time.

 

- if still viewed as the replacemtn for virtuals, I've found Waymarking tends to take away the mystery many virtuals I've done have offered in that you sometimes, often even, didn't know what you'll find when you get there. With waymarks, you've got a picture and description showing you exactly what you're looking for. That's not unlike posting a picture of the cache container and it's hiding spot.

 

Personally, I don't care about the smiley. And yes, I do sporadically waymark regardless of it's flaws becasue it's cool in it's own way. I just don't think it adequately replaces the virtual caches.

Link to comment

People miss virtuals and don't want to waymark because of the :blink: as Briansnat stated way back when.Plain and simple.Much like benchmarking.If it contributed to the find count,people would be doing that alot more as well.

 

Not in my case. I am an active benchmarker. Ture, they do not count toward my cache finds. But they were never considered to be caches! For me, it's the 'One Stop Shopping' idea. If I wanted to go to another site as well, it would not by whymarking. It would be that other 'nameless' site.

I've got 1187 caches, and 603 benchmarks found. Though I do also log appropriate benchmarks with the NGS.

I enjoy variety. And Virtuals offers that. I find the argument "But they don't have logbooks" to be inane. Neither do Earth Caches, and they are still permitted.

Well,all I am is agreeing with the statement.I am by no means a master cacher,but I do see some truth in it.

 

Also,my intent of my comment was not to run down benchmarking.On the contrary!If I was able to,I'd probably benchmark more than cache,being the history buff that I am.I find them fascinating.There are lots of unfound benchmarks around my home area.

 

Waymarking...I'm going to give it a shot.It sounds really good,and actually I found a locationless I can do from where I am now(And actually I found that by digging through wandderrob's finds....and it was a cache before it was moved to Waymarking).

Link to comment

 

- if still viewed as the replacemtn for virtuals, I've found Waymarking tends to take away the mystery many virtuals I've done have offered in that you sometimes, often even, didn't know what you'll find when you get there. With waymarks, you've got a picture and description showing you exactly what you're looking for. That's not unlike posting a picture of the cache container and it's hiding spot.

 

I can see that point.I haven't done a virt yet,but I've read many of the virt cache pages and I can see the point you make here.

Link to comment

People miss virtuals and don't want to waymark because of the :blink: as Briansnat stated way back when.Plain and simple.Much like benchmarking.If it contributed to the find count,people would be doing that alot more as well.

 

<snip>

 

- virtuals showed up nicely in PQs along with all the other caches, unless you fliter them out. Warmarking does not offer this. Best you can do is download .loc files, 1 page of waymarks at a time.

 

<snip>

 

Personally, I don't care about the smiley. And yes, I do sporadically waymark regardless of it's flaws becasue it's cool in it's own way. I just don't think it adequately replaces the virtual caches.

 

This is my primary reason for not Waymarking. Find count is nice, but I do all my cache planning through GSAK, where I download my PQs from email. With 12 pages of waymarks to download off the web site, it's just too much work, especially when I then have to filter down the local McDonald's, etc, to find ones I might want to see.

 

If Waymarking made PQs available, I would be there, but right now it's just not for me.

Link to comment

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

 

From what I have read, I agree!

 

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. ^_^

 

We can only hope!

Link to comment
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. thumbsup.gif

 

It may also help to develop a select group of reviewers of virtuals. Kind of like the way they do Earthcaches today. This could eliminate the issues seen with the "stage three virtuals" where uninterested or uninformed reviewers disapproved virtuals simply because they did not agree with or have experience with the particular 'catagory'. As catagories would help, so would 'intelligent experts' in the catagory of virtual reviews.

 

no? ^_^

Link to comment
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. thumbsup.gif

 

It may also help to develop a select group of reviewers of virtuals. Kind of like the way they do Earthcaches today. This could eliminate the issues seen with the "stage three virtuals" where uninterested or uninformed reviewers disapproved virtuals simply because they did not agree with or have experience with the particular 'catagory'. As catagories would help, so would 'intelligent experts' in the catagory of virtual reviews.

 

no? ^_^

This might work. I suggested bringing over the best waymarks as virts in one of these threads....
Link to comment

"Intelligent experts in the category." Hmmm, sounds a whole lot like a Waymarking category management group.

 

I'm a manager in a historic markers category. As a cache reviewer it was my duty to archive each and every historic marker that was submitted as a virtual cache. I like approving them as waymarks a whole lot better.

 

How I felt about a particular category of virtual cache submissions had very little to do with how to handle them under the listing guidelines. If my own feelings counted, there would not be any puzzle caches listed in my review territory because I don't generally like them. Yet I'm quite capable of publishing the ones which meet the guidelines.

Link to comment
"Intelligent experts in the category." Hmmm, sounds a whole lot like a Waymarking category management group.

 

I'm a manager in a historic markers category. As a cache reviewer it was my duty to archive each and every historic marker that was submitted as a virtual cache. I like approving them as waymarks a whole lot better.

 

How I felt about a particular category of virtual cache submissions had very little to do with how to handle them under the listing guidelines. If my own feelings counted, there would not be any puzzle caches listed in my review territory because I don't generally like them. Yet I'm quite capable of publishing the ones which meet the guidelines.

I'm a co-manager of a Waymarking category called New World Ancient Evidence. What is nice about Waymarking is that I'm approving cool places. Visiting cool places is the same thing that got me hooked on geocaching. There are no parking lots in the category I help manage and there will never be one.....well at least until parking lots become ancient. :) Anyhow, I just wish I could get cool Waymarking categories into a PQ. Then if I happened to be near a cool waymark I could stop by and check it out. ^_^ Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Now here's a thought I had, we know that a "kind of" virtual can still be listed as an earthcache, and must provide education on geological matters. I personally like these caches and wish there were more near me.

 

I don't know about elsewhere in the world but here in the UK there are organisations that own or care for large amounts of land and buildings with historical significance to preserve them for the enjoyment of the public and for future generations (I'm talking about organisations like English Heritage and The National Trust). There may well be similar organisations around the world.

 

Just as Earthcaches have been produced in conjuntion with the Geological society of America, perhaps something like a "History cache" could be created, where people can visit local areas of historical interest and log the cache, answering questions approved by whichever organisation cares for the property.

 

This would encourage visitors to these type of sites and would be useful in encouraging an interest in local history. The same "virtuals" and questions would make a good learning experience for visiting school groups, as when I was on school trips we would often have to find certain objects and answer questions as part of the project.

 

This would prevent virtuals like "tell me the number on the nearest lamp post" and ensure they were all of better quality, it would also enable caches to be placed where a physical cache could not, for example on the terrace of a preserved historic house, in a garden designed by a famous designer etc.

 

Perhaps an idea like this could be suggested to Groundspeak and historical organisations?

Link to comment

Now here's a thought I had, we know that a "kind of" virtual can still be listed as an earthcache, and must provide education on geological matters. I personally like these caches and wish there were more near me.

 

I don't know about elsewhere in the world but here in the UK there are organisations that own or care for large amounts of land and buildings with historical significance to preserve them for the enjoyment of the public and for future generations (I'm talking about organisations like English Heritage and The National Trust). There may well be similar organisations around the world.

 

Just as Earthcaches have been produced in conjuntion with the Geological society of America, perhaps something like a "History cache" could be created, where people can visit local areas of historical interest and log the cache, answering questions approved by whichever organisation cares for the property.

 

This would encourage visitors to these type of sites and would be useful in encouraging an interest in local history. The same "virtuals" and questions would make a good learning experience for visiting school groups, as when I was on school trips we would often have to find certain objects and answer questions as part of the project.

 

This would prevent virtuals like "tell me the number on the nearest lamp post" and ensure they were all of better quality, it would also enable caches to be placed where a physical cache could not, for example on the terrace of a preserved historic house, in a garden designed by a famous designer etc.

 

Perhaps an idea like this could be suggested to Groundspeak and historical organisations?

 

Is this hypothetical or have you tried working with any of those Historical Organizations to place a cache on land that they manage? I ask because some organizations, once geocaching is properly explained to them, are typically willing to work with geocachers to place acceptable caches. There is no need to invent new (virtual) cache types or call for the return of virtual caches if these organizations are willing to work with you.

 

For example. Instead of try to get Groundspeak to bring back virtual caches. A group of cachers in my area worked with a local non-profit museum and Groundspeak to get a traditional cache called "Volcano House - Oahu" approved. The solution that they came up with was very imaginative, (i assume) took a bit of coordination, and IMHO made a much better cache then any virtual would.

Link to comment

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

To be honest, I love Virtuals, but I really never could get into Waymarking

 

I agree completely. We go out of our way to find virtuals and basically ignore Waymarking. Most virtuals are worth going out of the way for while spending hours of my little free time to find a possible one decent Waymark just isn't worth the effort.

 

Terri

Link to comment

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 completely agree. I can't believe we can't make these. Using the Mark thingy website is dumb. I want to track the ones I find on geocaching.com. Who decided we can't make new ones. I love these!!! Makes me not want to renew my membership.

Link to comment

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.

 

It sounds as if you might enjoy the U.S. National Register of Historic Places category or just about anything under History and Culture.

Link to comment

This topic came up before several times. Me, I love the virtuals that are out there, and enjoy them. I even own a couple. Since I can't make them any more, I adapt and overcome. I made a graveyard cache to show off a pioneer family in my area, with a multi. I'm also looking at those Mr. Magneto nanos for a couple areas. Bottom line: TPTB made a decision based on a lot of factors, and it's not going to ruin my game.

 

Now, I don't care what anybody says, Waymarking is not a replacement for virtuals, not really for locationless but closer. Until they make pocket queries available or some other way to reduce the signal to noise ratio, I probably won't ever really get into Waymarking. It looks like a good game, but it's not my game.

Link to comment

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.

 

It sounds as if you might enjoy the U.S. National Register of Historic Places category or just about anything under History and Culture.

Those aren't caches. The sites described though can support caches including virtuals.

Link to comment

Just to chime in...I've always liked Virtuals (and we do them whenever we can) but have never liked Waymarking. Reasons? The main ones, in no particular order....

 

1. I prefer 1 stop shopping for obtaining data.

2. Takes too long to find things of interest and you almost have to be looking for something in particular. I preferred just going after the virtual and being surprised (usually pleasantly so) with what we found.

3. Too much work to report a waymark or a visit. Most of the things I've pulled up required WAY too much work to get pictures, gather data, etc., especially when wanting to add a new waymark. I do this stuff for fun, not for adding more work to my life.

4. Waymarking gives me more of a feel of cataloging locations for the local visitor's bureaus or POI's for Garmin than getting points to visit as part of a game.

 

We really didn't have much of a problem with 'lame virts'. We have a much bigger problem with 'lame micros' than we ever had with virts. But that, too, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder. What may be an interesting place to visit - no matter how quaint, quirky, or insignificant - to one person will not be so to another.

 

Although it is a valid alternative, I just can't get behind turning what could be a fun visit and surprise to a virtual into a lame multi ending in yet another LPC or some variant thereof.

 

Surely there must be some middle of the road between allowing everything and requiring the reviewers to define some arbitrary "wow" factor. There are a lot of smart people that use this site. You'd think we could come up with something. But as long as TPTB take the 'no way' approach and refuse to even discuss it, why bother?

 

Yes, I'll be checking into Waymarking form time-to-time to see how it is evolving in the hopes that it gets better and becomes something that will add to our geocaching experience. But if geocaching.com becomes a clone of Waymarking.com, we're done.

Link to comment

Just to chime in...I've always liked Virtuals (and we do them whenever we can) but have never liked Waymarking. Reasons? The main ones, in no particular order....

 

1. I prefer 1 stop shopping for obtaining data.

2. Takes too long to find things of interest and you almost have to be looking for something in particular. I preferred just going after the virtual and being surprised (usually pleasantly so) with what we found.

3. Too much work to report a waymark or a visit. Most of the things I've pulled up required WAY too much work to get pictures, gather data, etc., especially when wanting to add a new waymark. I do this stuff for fun, not for adding more work to my life.

4. Waymarking gives me more of a feel of cataloging locations for the local visitor's bureaus or POI's for Garmin than getting points to visit as part of a game.

 

We really didn't have much of a problem with 'lame virts'. We have a much bigger problem with 'lame micros' than we ever had with virts. But that, too, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder. What may be an interesting place to visit - no matter how quaint, quirky, or insignificant - to one person will not be so to another.

 

Although it is a valid alternative, I just can't get behind turning what could be a fun visit and surprise to a virtual into a lame multi ending in yet another LPC or some variant thereof.

 

Surely there must be some middle of the road between allowing everything and requiring the reviewers to define some arbitrary "wow" factor. There are a lot of smart people that use this site. You'd think we could come up with something. But as long as TPTB take the 'no way' approach and refuse to even discuss it, why bother?

 

Yes, I'll be checking into Waymarking form time-to-time to see how it is evolving in the hopes that it gets better and becomes something that will add to our geocaching experience. But if geocaching.com becomes a clone of Waymarking.com, we're done.

Yup . . . I feel your pain. :rolleyes: I bolded the points I especially agree with. thumbsup.gif

 

I enjoyed, and learned something from, almost every Virtual cache I have found . . . and enjoyed the "surprise" when I followed the coordinates to the location. :)

 

I own some Waymarks, very rarely, or never visited, by the way. :P I have "Visited" some of my own Waymarks, but have not even bothered to figure out if there are other Waymarks to visit. If I had a specific interest, like "Pet Cemeteries," or "McDonalds" or "waterfalls" or "equestrian statues," or whatever, maybe the Waymarking site would be more useful . . . or not . . . :)

Link to comment

4. Waymarking gives me more of a feel of cataloging locations for the local visitor's bureaus or POI's for Garmin than getting points to visit as part of a game.

Unfortunately, Waymarking does seem to be going in this direction. In reality, Waymarking has the ability to be different things to different people. I see there being three major ways you can view Waymarking categories.

  1. Catalog of waypoints
    This seems to be the most popular view. Categories can be mundane, like McDonald's Restaurants, or intriguing like Miragee's Evidence of Ancient New World Civilization. The waymark founder would write up a detail description of the location and is usually required to have at least one photograph. Visitors are asked to report on their visit. Sometimes there is a requirement to post a picture to prove your visit.
  2. Educational opportunities
    These are categories where a visitor is expected to learn something. Usually there is more to see than can be put in the description and a few photos. The waymark founder would describe the location and asked the vistor to answer some question than could only be answered by visting the location. Some waymarkers object to this because it forces the visitor to "find" something instead of just visiting (i.e., it's too much like a virtual cache).
  3. Games
    These categories are just for fun. Like finding a location whose coordinates are a palindrome or taking a photo from the same point of view as some old photograph. Sometimes visits after the initial waymark don't make sense.

Virtual caches are perhaps represented by some category that falls in between the educational opportunities and the games. The point is for visitors to have fun, perhaps be suprised by what they find, and to make them look for the target like looking for a cache. Virtuals failed in part here because no one was able to come up with a definition that satistified Jeremy. He repeatably challenged people to have a better definition but typically the answers focused on some version of the "Wow" requirement. Jeremy had learned that you can't define "Wow" in a way that satisfies everyone. I hoped that people would try to define categories in Waymarking that would attempt to capture whatever it was they thought made a good virtual cache. If there were several of these categories, they could compete to see whose definition was most popular. In any case, the better definitions could eventually together equal something that could replace virtual caches. So far, I've only seen my Best Kept Secrets category established as one possible definition of a virtual cache. I've am very disappointed there haven't been others. Geocachers just want to complain that they should bring back virtuals. Waymarkers shy away because they don't fit the catalog view they have of categories. There haven't been too many categories of games established either - most are simply old locationless caches that really didn't fit anywhere else.

Link to comment

Whybothermarking.com? Why bother? No interest in going there.

Okay. I've done my share of lame Virtuals. (Never did figure out what was supposed to be interesting in the one in Leonia. One side of the street had a Korean hair salon named after a psalm. There was something remotely interesting about this?!? Yawn. Far more interesting was that the street numbers on the other side of the street were off by 150.) (Really nice ant hills. Really nice horse trough. Yawn.) On the other fin, I've done some virtuals that were well worth the effort! The WWII gun emplacemnts in the national seashore. The 911 Memorial atop Mount Washington. And, yes, even one in DC.

It's a shame that really good virtuals can no longer be placed. But, why bother going to whybothermarking.com? There is nothing there for me.

Link to comment

Yes, it really is too bad new Virtuals cannot be listed on this site. I own a Waymark that is an outstanding Equestrian Statue. It is in a huge park in San Diego where there are several caches that get Found on an almost daily basis. On the base of this gorgeous statue, there are some plaques I could use for questions to verify someone's visit to my "Virtual" cache.

 

c10da40f-d0ff-4309-afe4-44b95452fb17.jpg

 

But, it is a Waymark. <_<

 

And, it has only been "Visited" once, by me . . . :mad:

Link to comment

 

3) All those folks in Germany who are using Google research to "cheat" on virtuals (yes, I know others are too; I even did a couple during the winter for the research challenge, but just a couple and it already wore thin; but it seems that those in Germany and neighboring countries are by far the biggest abusers of this).

 

 

The above quote from a previous entry caught my eye.

 

I maintain a VC called "What Kind of Tree is Grant's Pine" near my home in Tokyo, Japan. The object is to locate a tree planted by former President U.S. Grant when he visited Japan in the 1800's. The finder is to find the name of the tree (a certain kind of cedar) on a plaque next to the tree as proof of the visit. People from Germany (exclusively, for some unknown reason) frequently send me an incomplete name which can be found via Google. Isn't it understood that the point of the game is to actually GO SOMEWHERE?? Some of these people actually get angry when I ask them not to log unless they have physically visited the site. Any explanations/similar experiences out there? I noticed that the last person to do this visited a VC in Oklahoma and one in N.C. on the same day (with "Greetings from Germany!" and "Would actually like to go there someday" posted on one of them, despite the fact that the cache clearly stated that you must visit in person). What to do? I am baffled by this behavior.

Edited by Mad_Mapper
Link to comment

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...