Virtual Caches

1.7k · August 7, 2007

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.

That is what the delete button is for... let them get angry at you. :anitongue: If they really want to do anything about it, they would have to go where you live - and they might as well log the virtuals legitimately while they're there! :lol: Be empowered! Use that delete righteously!

10.2k · August 7, 2007

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.

Don't be baffled! "Googling" virtuals is all the rage in Europe, particularly Germany. You're doing the right thing. Somewhere in the guidelines, the wording about a visit to the site being required is there. If you can find that (maybe someone else can help), that would be good information to include in your emails to them.

Oh, by the way, GREETINGS FROM THE U.S.A.!!

Edited August 7, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

2.6k · August 7, 2007

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.

But, it is a Waymark.

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

And seeing it here, like seeing it on a Waymarking page, takes all the adventure out of visiting it and seeing it for the first time as a virtual would most likely offer. Thanks to the pic you know what you are going to see, and as has been my experience with waymarks, you already now what it is, why it is there, and what makes it significant. Other than being able to say "I was there.", what would be the point of visiting it as part of the game, other than to boost your visited count? And Waymarkers say we want virtuals back just for smileys?

14.3k · August 7, 2007

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.

But, it is a Waymark.

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

And seeing it here, like seeing it on a Waymarking page, takes all the adventure out of visiting it and seeing it for the first time as a virtual would most likely offer. Thanks to the pic you know what you are going to see, and as has been my experience with waymarks, you already now what it is, why it is there, and what makes it significant. Other than being able to say "I was there.", what would be the point of visiting it as part of the game, other than to boost your visited count? And Waymarkers say we want virtuals back just for smileys?

I agree. The mystery is gone and that is half the fun.

10.2k · August 7, 2007

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.

But, it is a Waymark.

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

And seeing it here, like seeing it on a Waymarking page, takes all the adventure out of visiting it and seeing it for the first time as a virtual would most likely offer. Thanks to the pic you know what you are going to see, and as has been my experience with waymarks, you already now what it is, why it is there, and what makes it significant. Other than being able to say "I was there.", what would be the point of visiting it as part of the game, other than to boost your visited count? And Waymarkers say we want virtuals back just for smileys?

Maybe I missed it, but in all the criticism's of Waymarking, and analysis of why it developed into a placers only game, I'd never noticed that point being made. Great point. On the other hand, it's pretty cool that thousands of such things are being well documented on the internet, by people who are passionately involved in doing it.

2.6k · August 7, 2007

Maybe I missed it, but in all the criticism's of Waymarking, and analysis of why it developed into a placers only game, I'd never noticed that point being made. Great point. On the other hand, it's pretty cool that thousands of such things are being well documented on the internet, by people who are passionately involved in doing it.

Yeah, it's been mentioned a few times but gets glossed over pretty quickly.

I agree that Waymarking has its place and if I want to find something specific, that is one of the resources I'll use to find it. However, it is not a replacement for virtuals as they were used as part of the geocaching game and I just don't see, in its current form, how it ever can be.

I just don't see why virtuals should not be allowed in places where physical caches are not allowed, would be impractical and/or relatively unmuggleable (new word?), or would negatively impact an historical or environmentally sensitive area.

Sure, you could throw a lame micro ending after a virtual offset, but you would still have traffic and people tearing up stuff to find a film can or a bison tube. It'd be better for us (geocaching's reputation) and the locations if we could keep folks on sidewalks and paths in sensitive areas.

Should every statue, historical marker, etc. have a virt? No, just like every Wal-Mart does not need yet another film can micro. Put a few check boxes on the submittal page for a virtual that the owner certifies that this placement meets criteria for a virt (physicals not allowed, environmentally sensitive, etc.). Also require a justification statement on why a traditional is not practical. If the reviewer buys it, approve it. Then let the caching community police it. If the area could support a trad, the local cachers will know and can log an SBA accordingly. Or, perhaps, virts should have a different log type - CBP (Could be physical) - that gets the cache disabled and put under review.

September 7, 2007

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" ?

No, the huge difference between virtual caches and waymarks is that virtuals require confirmation of the visit, which normally requires a hunt. The whole purpose of geocachiing is the hunt, after all, not the log, so the virtual fits in perfectly.

Case in point: A local virtual has escaped me because I have never seemed to have the time to visit the memorial garden during their hours to get the required confirmation info; I need to actively hunt the cache (knowledge) while overcoming some of the challenges of acquiring it (business hours). As a waymark, I simply need to take a picture, maybe wear a Waymarking T-shirt, say "Been there" and I'm done.

When you leave a (well done) virtual, you have new knowledge and have discovered something that was at least noteworthy enough to warrant it's own monument. The cache is a tangible but abstract thing, and still something of value, and usually something hidden by obscurity rather than commoflage.

When you log a waymark, all you've really done is bodily visited something - or possibly only googled a picture of it. You aren't necesarily any smarter, more knowledgeable, or better for it.

Personally I would have liked to see the microcache gone rather than virtuals. A "log only" cache is NOT a cache because a cache implies some-thing has been hidden, and a logbook with nothing but names and dates is hardly a thing worth hunting for. I recall the novelty of my first rural log-only cache, appropriately named "Log Cache," (GC5961) early in 2002 and thinking, "Gee, that was different." Now my area is innundated with magnets stuck to sewer-pipe markers in the middle of the weeds that are somehow being approved as "caches," and have no value whatsoever save for a smiley on GC.com. Microcaches were originally a solution to the problem of urban geocaching and I don't think they have a recreational value outside that niche today.

But I digress. I remember what attracted me to this sport 5 years ago; it was the hunt first, and the cache second because that got people interested. I have always sought caches with swag - be it abstract or physical - and virtuals fit the textbook definition of a cache.

So a Waymark is "visited", but cached "knowledge" is "found" in a virtual cache. Of course, I was one of those kids who literally read encyclopedias so all knowledge is treasure to me, it's part of what makes me a techno-geek. No offense to Waymarking but I lament the loss of virtuals and waymarks achieve a completely different goal, I am very glad they grandfathered the many that were concieved.

...I just don't see why virtuals should not be allowed in places where physical caches are not allowed, would be impractical and/or relatively unmuggleable (new word?), or would negatively impact an historical or environmentally sensitive area.

Sure, you could throw a lame micro ending after a virtual offset, but you would still have traffic and people tearing up stuff to find a film can or a bison tube. It'd be better for us (geocaching's reputation) and the locations if we could keep folks on sidewalks and paths in sensitive areas.

I think it's also important to note that the whole purpose of the virtual can still be achieved through an offset cache, which is exactly what I did with my Blue Springs cache. Of course that cache would never get approved today because it has the option of being logged as a virtual - the best of both worlds! The optional finale is a 1-gallon tub outside the park - NOT some lame micro!

Edited September 7, 2007 by Sun Chasers

8k · September 8, 2007

<snip long post>

While most Waymarking categories are basically trying to create inventory lists of places, some of which some people might want to visit, there is nothing about the structure of Waymarking that prevents having categories where you need to find something already at the location in order to confirm that you were at the waymark. I attempted to create such a category with Best Kept Secrets. I really hoped that other people who feel that the generic Waymarking categories miss the essence of virtual caches to create other categories like Best Kept Secrets so that virtual caches could find a place to live. But instead all I ever heard was people whining that they no longer can create virtuals on geocaching.com and that Waymarking wasn't the same thing. At the same time, many waymarkers have decided it is a game about inventorying places and have made it harder to get creative kinds of categories approved. With no support from people who want something that resemble virtuals, Waymarking has become what it has become. I'd like to thank everyone for their support You missed your opportunity to create an environment were both virtual and other "games" could be played.

7.3k · September 8, 2007

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.

Don't be baffled! "Googling" virtuals is all the rage in Europe, particularly Germany. You're doing the right thing. Somewhere in the guidelines, the wording about a visit to the site being required is there. If you can find that (maybe someone else can help), that would be good information to include in your emails to them.

Oh, by the way, GREETINGS FROM THE U.S.A.!!

From the listing guidelines:

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location.

Thanks to ODragon, I started putting a disclaimer in my virtual cache pages (shouldn't have to, but it seems to have come to this lately). Here's an example (my note is in green): Wood End.

People who do armchair logging will frequently state that they didn't know that they had to go there physically, so now if they say that, I can point them to my disclaimer and not feel bad at all.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Ambrosia

14.3k · September 8, 2007

<snip long post>

While most Waymarking categories are basically trying to create inventory lists of places, some of which some people might want to visit, there is nothing about the structure of Waymarking that prevents having categories where you need to find something already at the location in order to confirm that you were at the waymark. I attempted to create such a category with Best Kept Secrets. I really hoped that other people who feel that the generic Waymarking categories miss the essence of virtual caches to create other categories like Best Kept Secrets so that virtual caches could find a place to live. But instead all I ever heard was people whining that they no longer can create virtuals on geocaching.com and that Waymarking wasn't the same thing. At the same time, many waymarkers have decided it is a game about inventorying places and have made it harder to get creative kinds of categories approved. With no support from people who want something that resemble virtuals, Waymarking has become what it has become. I'd like to thank everyone for their support You missed your opportunity to create an environment were both virtual and other "games" could be played.

The bottom line is that your category has some nice virtuals. I also see that it has grown to 17 waymarks. The waymark category I help manage called New World Ancient Evidence also had some nice virtuals. It now has 42 waymarks of which 20 of them have been visited at least once. It would be nice if you could add these to your existing geocache PQs. I think that would breath more life into Waymarking. Edited September 8, 2007 by TrailGators

3k · September 8, 2007

While most Waymarking categories are basically trying to create inventory lists of places, some of which some people might want to visit, there is nothing about the structure of Waymarking that prevents having categories where you need to find something already at the location in order to confirm that you were at the waymark. I attempted to create such a category with Best Kept Secrets. I really hoped that other people who feel that the generic Waymarking categories miss the essence of virtual caches to create other categories like Best Kept Secrets so that virtual caches could find a place to live. But instead all I ever heard was people whining that they no longer can create virtuals on geocaching.com and that Waymarking wasn't the same thing. At the same time, many waymarkers have decided it is a game about inventorying places and have made it harder to get creative kinds of categories approved. With no support from people who want something that resemble virtuals, Waymarking has become what it has become. I'd like to thank everyone for their support You missed your opportunity to create an environment were both virtual and other "games" could be played.

Good post, tozainamboku.

I think you are right. I didn't realize it early on, but have come to believe that Waymarking, while serving as an excellent replacement for Locactionless caches (and I've enjoyed that part of it), missed the boat with respect to Virtuals, and therefore lost an opportunity.

I recently started a topic over in the Waymarking forums about a suggestion for increasing the number of visits to waymarks. The idea was to implement an optional verification question/answer mechanism on waymarks. I think such a feature would allow people to build waymarks (and create categories) that more closely resembled the old Virtuals. There was little response to the suggestion.

I wish now that I had provided more support for your ideas early on.

September 8, 2007

I have a problem with the fact that TPTB seem to have thrown the idea of virtuals, in any way, shape, or form, out, with no further possibility of consideration to add to them. I understand the original argument that people were making virtuals out of everything in sight, and because of that, they scrapped all of them.

I can understand why locationless caches were closed. I don't agree, but I can understand the reasoning, and that appears to be what Waymarking was designed to cover. So I'm going to stick to virtuals for this post.

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

That would have allowed for new virtuals, mainly for places where a container couldn't be placed, such as in national parks and forests.

But this doesn't seem to be a consideration. A decision was made, and regardless of what the players think, no effort has been made, to my knowledge, of reopening this idea or allowing new virtuals.

3k · September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Edited September 8, 2007 by cache_test_dummies

September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers. Not to put them down - they do a great job most of the time, and they do it on their own time. However, if they, as a group, decide it is too much work to approve puzzles, or multi's, will they ban them too?

And what about webcams? Not like there are millions of them out there... why were these banned?

Edited September 8, 2007 by FireRef

3k · September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Not too difficult? It was difficult, and I'm confident that the volunteer reviewers made every effort to make this work. Quite frankly, I find your 'lazy' comment to be insulting. I'm sure the reviewers aren't going to like it, either.

7.3k · September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers. Not to put them down - they do a great job most of the time, and they do it on their own time. However, if they, as a group, decide it is too much work to approve puzzles, or multi's, will they ban them too?

And what about webcams? Not like there are millions of them out there... why were these banned?

In general, Groundspeak wanted to get back to what a geocache is: a container with a logbook. Webcams don't fit that description. Nor does virtuals and locationless.

Yes, we still have events and earthcaches. But most events have a logbook, and earthcaches are managed by someone else, not Groundspeak volunteer reviewers.

September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Not too difficult? It was difficult, and I'm confident that the volunteer reviewers made every effort to make this work. Quite frankly, I find your 'lazy' comment to be insulting. I'm sure the reviewers aren't going to like it, either.

I edited the previous post while you were replying. I feel it would have worked fine - that is my opinion and I am entitled to express it. We have what appears to be 5-6 reviewers in my area (and it is a very active area for caches). There appear to be an average of 1-2 caches approved per day within 50 miles (and being on a lake, a lot of that 50 miles in in 3 of the 8 main compass directions is off limits), which I would assume involves a number of emails back and forth on average.

It was not intended to knock the reviewers. Only to say that if the virtuals are important enough to keep, I feel very strongly that they are important enough to continue to add. If they're not important enough to keep, they should be locked and removed. I don't think they should be. Only that saying "The ones we have, which could or might not be good, will get to stay, but no new ones, no matter how good, will ever be added" is inconsistent, as I mentioned in another thread. They locked locationless ones. I don't think they should have, but I see why they did. They didn't lock virtuals - just made it so people like me, who didn't really get into it until 2 years ago or so, don't have the option to place one, no matter HOW important the location we feel is.

I don't feel you can do the middle of the road type thing. Remember the karate kid? Do Karate, or Don't Do Karate, but "Maybe" do Karate, get squished like grape.

---

And in regards to Earthcaches, regardless of who maintains them, there is no log book. Period. So it is a virtual, just simply at a specific geological location. So are we ok'ing geological virtuals, even if they don't qualify as an earthcache? Inconsistent. And I don't like inconsistencies.

---

And in regards to getting back to the original idea of a geocache... The original cache contained food and, if I remember correctly, beer - both of which would be prohibited under modern guidelines. So again, inconsistent. If the idea was to get back to the original geocache...a few things have been missed. Puzzles would be gone - originally, the idea was to post the coordinates so someone could go out and find the container, not solve puzzles to figure out where to go. Not that I have a problem with puzzles at all. I just have a problem, like I said above, with inconsistencies.

Edited September 8, 2007 by FireRef

14.3k · September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers. Not to put them down - they do a great job most of the time, and they do it on their own time. However, if they, as a group, decide it is too much work to approve puzzles, or multi's, will they ban them too?

And what about webcams? Not like there are millions of them out there... why were these banned?

In general, Groundspeak wanted to get back to what a geocache is: a container with a logbook. Webcams don't fit that description. Nor does virtuals and locationless.

Yes, we still have events and earthcaches. But most events have a logbook, and earthcaches are managed by someone else, not Groundspeak volunteer reviewers.

I think this is the real reason. It's not the "wow" thing. If that same "wow" standard were applied to existing traditional caches most of them would not exist. But having a "wow" requirement basically snuffed out new virtuals like a fire without oxygen.

September 8, 2007

I think this is the real reason. It's not the "wow" thing. If that same "wow" standard were applied to existing traditional caches most of them would not exist. But having a "wow" requirement basically snuffed out new virtuals like a fire without oxygen.

No - Groundspeak snuffed out new virtuals. Let's be clear on this.

September 8, 2007

...only that saying "The ones we have, which could or might not be good, will get to stay, but no new ones, no matter how good, will ever be added" is inconsistent

Excellent point! But I am very doubtful we'll ever get TPTB to relent on this.

7.3k · September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Not too difficult? It was difficult, and I'm confident that the volunteer reviewers made every effort to make this work. Quite frankly, I find your 'lazy' comment to be insulting. I'm sure the reviewers aren't going to like it, either.

I edited the previous post while you were replying. I feel it would have worked fine - that is my opinion and I am entitled to express it. We have what appears to be 5-6 reviewers in my area (and it is a very active area for caches). There appear to be an average of 1-2 caches approved per day within 50 miles (and being on a lake, a lot of that 50 miles in in 3 of the 8 main compass directions is off limits), which I would assume involves a number of emails back and forth on average.

It was not intended to knock the reviewers. Only to say that if the virtuals are important enough to keep, I feel very strongly that they are important enough to continue to add. If they're not important enough to keep, they should be locked and removed. I don't think they should be. Only that saying "The ones we have, which could or might not be good, will get to stay, but no new ones, no matter how good, will ever be added" is inconsistent, as I mentioned in another thread. They locked locationless ones. I don't think they should have, but I see why they did. They didn't lock virtuals - just made it so people like me, who didn't really get into it until 2 years ago or so, don't have the option to place one, no matter HOW important the location we feel is.

I don't feel you can do the middle of the road type thing. Remember the karate kid? Do Karate, or Don't Do Karate, but "Maybe" do Karate, get squished like grape.

---

And in regards to Earthcaches, regardless of who maintains them, there is no log book. Period. So it is a virtual, just simply at a specific geological location. So are we ok'ing geological virtuals, even if they don't qualify as an earthcache? Inconsistent. And I don't like inconsistencies.

---

And in regards to getting back to the original idea of a geocache... The original cache contained food and, if I remember correctly, beer - both of which would be prohibited under modern guidelines. So again, inconsistent. If the idea was to get back to the original geocache...a few things have been missed. Puzzles would be gone - originally, the idea was to post the coordinates so someone could go out and find the container, not solve puzzles to figure out where to go. Not that I have a problem with puzzles at all. I just have a problem, like I said above, with inconsistencies.

I didn't say that they were trying to get back to the original geocache. I said they were trying to get back to "what" a geocache is. Or, I guess what geocaching is. You find the coords online, you go to a location, you find a container with things inside - at the very minumum, a logbook/sheet - you sign it, you go home. I'm not going to quibble about what the contents were in the first geocache - like we all need to copy it exactly to get back to the roots? Come on. Nor will I quibble about how you get those coordinates online (in regards to puzzle caches). You still go to the cache page and get coordinates. I don't find this inconsistant at all.

2.3k · September 8, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Not too difficult? It was difficult, and I'm confident that the volunteer reviewers made every effort to make this work. Quite frankly, I find your 'lazy' comment to be insulting. I'm sure the reviewers aren't going to like it, either.

I edited the previous post while you were replying. I feel it would have worked fine - that is my opinion and I am entitled to express it. We have what appears to be 5-6 reviewers in my area (and it is a very active area for caches). There appear to be an average of 1-2 caches approved per day within 50 miles (and being on a lake, a lot of that 50 miles in in 3 of the 8 main compass directions is off limits), which I would assume involves a number of emails back and forth on average.

It was not intended to knock the reviewers. Only to say that if the virtuals are important enough to keep, I feel very strongly that they are important enough to continue to add. If they're not important enough to keep, they should be locked and removed. I don't think they should be. Only that saying "The ones we have, which could or might not be good, will get to stay, but no new ones, no matter how good, will ever be added" is inconsistent, as I mentioned in another thread. They locked locationless ones. I don't think they should have, but I see why they did. They didn't lock virtuals - just made it so people like me, who didn't really get into it until 2 years ago or so, don't have the option to place one, no matter HOW important the location we feel is.

I don't feel you can do the middle of the road type thing. Remember the karate kid? Do Karate, or Don't Do Karate, but "Maybe" do Karate, get squished like grape.

---

And in regards to Earthcaches, regardless of who maintains them, there is no log book. Period. So it is a virtual, just simply at a specific geological location. So are we ok'ing geological virtuals, even if they don't qualify as an earthcache? Inconsistent. And I don't like inconsistencies.

---

And in regards to getting back to the original idea of a geocache... The original cache contained food and, if I remember correctly, beer - both of which would be prohibited under modern guidelines. So again, inconsistent. If the idea was to get back to the original geocache...a few things have been missed. Puzzles would be gone - originally, the idea was to post the coordinates so someone could go out and find the container, not solve puzzles to figure out where to go. Not that I have a problem with puzzles at all. I just have a problem, like I said above, with inconsistencies.

I didn't say that they were trying to get back to the original geocache. I said they were trying to get back to "what" a geocache is. Or, I guess what geocaching is. You find the coords online, you go to a location, you find a container with things inside - at the very minumum, a logbook/sheet - you sign it, you go home. I'm not going to quibble about what the contents were in the first geocache - like we all need to copy it exactly to get back to the roots? Come on. Nor will I quibble about how you get those coordinates online (in regards to puzzle caches). You still go to the cache page and get coordinates. I don't find this inconsistant at all.

'What' a geocache 'is' is open for debate. Once this site started listing virtuals etc. they were in fact 'geocaches'. After a period of time it was apparently decided that they didn't want to list them anymore- as is their prerogative. That does not make them any less a geocache in many, if not most, cachers eyes.

September 8, 2007

'What' a geocache 'is' is open for debate. Once this site started listing virtuals etc. they were in fact 'geocaches'. After a period of time it was apparently decided that they didn't want to list them anymore- as is their prerogative. That does not make them any less a geocache in many, if not most, cachers eyes.

Therefore, it would make sense, if this estimate is true ("many, if not most") of the people who consider virtuals as geocaches, to allow new ones.

What would we need to do to get this site to recognise this fact and take this course of action?

All things considered, there is much less fighting over virtuals than there has ever been about micros.

8k · September 8, 2007

'What' a geocache 'is' is open for debate. Once this site started listing virtuals etc. they were in fact 'geocaches'. After a period of time it was apparently decided that they didn't want to list them anymore- as is their prerogative. That does not make them any less a geocache in many, if not most, cachers eyes.

TBTP listed virtuals because someone had suggested them as an alternative for areas where you could not place a physical cache. The concept seemed simple. You would give the coordinates of an object. The finder would have to use the GPS to find the object and there would be some way to verify that he found the object in lieu of a log book. Almost immediately this definition began to cause problems.

First there was the meaning of "could not place a physical cache". Did this mean areas like National Parks where the land manager did not allow physical caches or would it also apply to an area where caches kept getting muggled, or one where the cacher thought a physical container would be inappropriate, like a 9/11 memorial. I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides.

Next came the definition of an object that you could find with a GPS. Some people listed mountain summits, scenic overview, parks, and large structures like bridges as virtuals. You probably didn't need a GPS to find these and even if you did, exactly what were you finding? The idea was to have to search for something when you got to the coordinates. This concept seems too difficult for some people to grasp. Some did understand the search part and decided that any sign, historic marker, tombstone, etc. etc. could make a virtual cache. This resulted in a flood of virtuals - because they were too easy to make; even easier than throwing a 35mm film can under a lamppost. So TPTB add the "Wow" guideline that said

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.

The Wow guideline cause nothing but headaches for the volunteer cache reviewers. They were accused of applying it inconsistently or even of having personal agendas in deciding which virtuals to approve or not. Approving a virtual took up a significant amount of the reviewers' time; time which could have been spent reviewing physical caches. Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service.

September 8, 2007

Thanks to ODragon, I started putting a disclaimer in my virtual cache pages (shouldn't have to, but it seems to have come to this lately). Here's an example (my note is in green): Wood End.

People who do armchair logging will frequently state that they didn't know that they had to go there physically, so now if they say that, I can point them to my disclaimer and not feel bad at all.

I would love to have the html you used to create that disclaimer. As well as the html to create the dropdown box for your other caches!

PNC

14.3k · September 8, 2007

Thanks to ODragon, I started putting a disclaimer in my virtual cache pages (shouldn't have to, but it seems to have come to this lately). Here's an example (my note is in green): Wood End.

People who do armchair logging will frequently state that they didn't know that they had to go there physically, so now if they say that, I can point them to my disclaimer and not feel bad at all.

I would love to have the html you used to create that disclaimer. As well as the html to create the dropdown box for your other caches!

PNC

If you go to the View menu and hit "Page Source" then you can copy and paste those sections.

September 8, 2007

...It is identical to virtual caching except for the .
Is the smiley really what prompted the change?
No, but it prompts many of Brian's rants.
Then what did? I haven't heard the "official" reasoning...is it noted somewhere by GC.com? Not that it matters...just curious.
As I understand it, there were two reasons (in no particular order):
It was often difficult to negotiate with land managers for geocaches to be placed. It was too easy for them to allow virts instead of 'real' caches.

The quality of virts was often questionable. Rather than allow every piece of trash and decaying animal to be a virt, they initiated the 'wow' test, but this was difficult (or impossible) for the reviewers to manage and only served to cause additional angst.

Uh....What???

September 8, 2007

The point of a virtual seems to be that you ask a question or questions that would almost guarantee that a cacher has visited the site. If you block activities just because some people might cheat, this old Earth would come to a standstill!

But the value of a virtual is far too important for GC.com to just summarily dismiss them.

For example, I spend several months each year in northern Texas. The caches tend to be historical virtuals or else micros placed in high places. If you put a regular cache at ground level on public property, chances are it's gonna wind up in the Gulf after the next heavy rain. History is a big part of of Texas pride, and virtuals are often based on historical and local enlightenment of historical facts. Seems to me that that's a lot more important than somebody taking a bouncy ball out of a regular cache.

Virtuals should be based on specifics, such as memorials or buildings or plaques, which are far more likely to have a greater permanence than most physical caches

I never realized that the purpose of caches were to be convenient to reviewers. I'm really beginning to wonder who is guiding this activity. It seems to be evolving into a sport of political administrators rather than those of us who are out in the woods and fields enjoying the hunt and the find, and what interests us.

I never saw a notice or explanation why virtuals were sent to the gulag. Nor, as a long-standing premium member, was I asked my opinion.

Here in Northern Wisconsin, I recently decided to do a series of virtuals that involved tributes to military veterans. These were typically in cemeteries and at special monuments, and were intended to introduce fellow cachers to the importance of the contributions of our people in our many services of their contribution to our country, through war and peace. These are not places you want to desecrate with containers full of trinkets. Rather, it was meant to be a tribute to our veterans, where cachers visits would be rewarded two-fold, with the ability to log a "find" and to learn something so very important in our country's history and people.

Today I discovered that Virtuals had been proclaimed to be banished. I can't imagine how many positive experiences will be missed because somebody worried about the carcass of a dead animal becoming a tasteless virtual. How ridiculous! I'd like to see a front page vote regarding the reinstatement of virtuals.

September 8, 2007

'What' a geocache 'is' is open for debate. Once this site started listing virtuals etc. they were in fact 'geocaches'. After a period of time it was apparently decided that they didn't want to list them anymore- as is their prerogative. That does not make them any less a geocache in many, if not most, cachers eyes.

TBTP listed virtuals because someone had suggested them as an alternative for areas where you could not place a physical cache. The concept seemed simple. You would give the coordinates of an object. The finder would have to use the GPS to find the object and there would be some way to verify that he found the object in lieu of a log book. Almost immediately this definition began to cause problems.

First there was the meaning of "could not place a physical cache". Did this mean areas like National Parks where the land manager did not allow physical caches or would it also apply to an area where caches kept getting muggled, or one where the cacher thought a physical container would be inappropriate, like a 9/11 memorial. I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides.

Next came the definition of an object that you could find with a GPS. Some people listed mountain summits, scenic overview, parks, and large structures like bridges as virtuals. You probably didn't need a GPS to find these and even if you did, exactly what were you finding? The idea was to have to search for something when you got to the coordinates. This concept seems too difficult for some people to grasp. Some did understand the search part and decided that any sign, historic marker, tombstone, etc. etc. could make a virtual cache. This resulted in a flood of virtuals - because they were too easy to make; even easier than throwing a 35mm film can under a lamppost. So TPTB add the "Wow" guideline that said

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.
The Wow guideline cause nothing but headaches for the volunteer cache reviewers. They were accused of applying it inconsistently or even of having personal agendas in deciding which virtuals to approve or not. Approving a virtual took up a significant amount of the reviewers' time; time which could have been spent reviewing physical caches. Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service.

Again, it comes down to the fact that someone (TPTB in this example) thought they were too much trouble to deal with. Trouble is a matter of opinion. There are many people that feel the reviewers apply some guidelines for physical caches inconsistently as well. This doesn't mean they should be banned, or no new listings should be allowed. They have no trouble dealing with this.

And again - you can't tell me that they are important enough to keep but too much trouble to get new ones.

And again, I ask - what do we need to to do get them considered to be moved off the "no new" list?

Edited September 8, 2007 by FireRef

September 9, 2007

'What' a geocache 'is' is open for debate. Once this site started listing virtuals etc. they were in fact 'geocaches'. After a period of time it was apparently decided that they didn't want to list them anymore- as is their prerogative. That does not make them any less a geocache in many, if not most, cachers eyes.

TBTP listed virtuals because someone had suggested them as an alternative for areas where you could not place a physical cache. The concept seemed simple. You would give the coordinates of an object. The finder would have to use the GPS to find the object and there would be some way to verify that he found the object in lieu of a log book. Almost immediately this definition began to cause problems.

First there was the meaning of "could not place a physical cache". Did this mean areas like National Parks where the land manager did not allow physical caches or would it also apply to an area where caches kept getting muggled, or one where the cacher thought a physical container would be inappropriate, like a 9/11 memorial. I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides.

Next came the definition of an object that you could find with a GPS. Some people listed mountain summits, scenic overview, parks, and large structures like bridges as virtuals. You probably didn't need a GPS to find these and even if you did, exactly what were you finding? The idea was to have to search for something when you got to the coordinates. This concept seems too difficult for some people to grasp. Some did understand the search part and decided that any sign, historic marker, tombstone, etc. etc. could make a virtual cache. This resulted in a flood of virtuals - because they were too easy to make; even easier than throwing a 35mm film can under a lamppost. So TPTB add the "Wow" guideline that said

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.
The Wow guideline cause nothing but headaches for the volunteer cache reviewers. They were accused of applying it inconsistently or even of having personal agendas in deciding which virtuals to approve or not. Approving a virtual took up a significant amount of the reviewers' time; time which could have been spent reviewing physical caches. Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service.

Again, it comes down to the fact that someone (TPTB in this example) thought they were too much trouble to deal with. Trouble is a matter of opinion. There are many people that feel the reviewers apply some guidelines for physical caches inconsistently as well. This doesn't mean they should be banned, or no new listings should be allowed. They have no trouble dealing with this.

And again - you can't tell me that they are important enough to keep but too much trouble to get new ones.

And again, I ask - what do we need to to do get them considered to be moved off the "no new" list?

Amen. You stated it well. Thank You

3.5k · September 9, 2007

September 9, 2007

It wouldn't be a dead horse if TPTB would listen to the people who play the game, the people who make their business possible, the people who (well, some of us) contribute to keep this site running. Obviously it's not dead if there is any interest in resurrecting the virtuals.

September 9, 2007

I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides.

And what has moving virts to Waymarking.com done to slow the bleeding on this particular issue?

Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service.

Then why are we not having the volunteers on Waymarking.com review the virts for geocaching.com?

I think that there is more to this than meets the GPSr....

21.9k · September 9, 2007

I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides.

And what has moving virts to Waymarking.com done to slow the bleeding on this particular issue?

I think it's been tremendously helpful. I have not heard any feedback from a land manager in the past few years about how they weren't too comfortable with physical caches, but wanted to encourage virtual caches. To the contrary, more and more land managers are allowing physical caches, often under some type of permit system. Prior to phasing out virtuals, I heard several times per year about land managers who only wanted to allow virtual caches.

The above is based on my experience working with more than 30 different land manager permit or ban regulations in my own review territory, as well as monitoring what my colleagues report on from other review territories.

Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service.

Then why are we not having the volunteers on Waymarking.com review the virts for geocaching.com?

I think that there is more to this than meets the GPSr....

Waymarking is set up to allow for a decentralized category management and review system. Geocaching isn't. Waymark reviews focus on meeting the category requirements, and the managers know them better than anyone, and have an interest in the subject matter. Geocache reviews involve dozens of considerations besides the subject matter, such as cache density, ability to maintain the cache, etc. It is not practical to bring hundreds of new reviewers on board just to review virtual geocaches. They're doing fine over at Waymarking.

Nothing was harder for me as a cache reviewer than reviewing virtual caches. There was no shortage of forum threads complaining about the review standards, and no shortage of name calling and hate mail. In contrast, I greatly enjoy reviewing waymarks in the limited number of categories where I'm a manager.

September 9, 2007

I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides.

And what has moving virts to Waymarking.com done to slow the bleeding on this particular issue?

I think it's been tremendously helpful. I have not heard any feedback from a land manager in the past few years about how they weren't too comfortable with physical caches, but wanted to encourage virtual caches. To the contrary, more and more land managers are allowing physical caches, often under some type of permit system. Prior to phasing out virtuals, I heard several times per year about land managers who only wanted to allow virtual caches.

The above is based on my experience working with more than 30 different land manager permit or ban regulations in my own review territory, as well as monitoring what my colleagues report on from other review territories.

Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service.

Then why are we not having the volunteers on Waymarking.com review the virts for geocaching.com?

I think that there is more to this than meets the GPSr....

Waymarking is set up to allow for a decentralized category management and review system. Geocaching isn't. Waymark reviews focus on meeting the category requirements, and the managers know them better than anyone, and have an interest in the subject matter. Geocache reviews involve dozens of considerations besides the subject matter, such as cache density, ability to maintain the cache, etc. It is not practical to bring hundreds of new reviewers on board just to review virtual geocaches. They're doing fine over at Waymarking.

Nothing was harder for me as a cache reviewer than reviewing virtual caches. There was no shortage of forum threads complaining about the review standards, and no shortage of name calling and hate mail. In contrast, I greatly enjoy reviewing waymarks in the limited number of categories where I'm a manager.

I guess I don't understand how having complaints about standards and "name calling and hate mail" should be enough to cause a complete ban on virtuals as a new cache type.

There is nothing wrong with having a virtual in a place a physical cache could be - both take you to the site, both require you to do some looking around, both possess the possibility of doing damage to the site. As for permission, I don't see how permission would even need to be gained for virtuals in places such as parks, where the public is encouraged to go. You're not leaving anything, and you're not taking anything but information away from the site. I can see how TPTB want to make sure containers are placed wherever they can be, by permission in those places. But to completely scrap a category just because you want to have more container caches... that doesn't make any sense to me.

It isn't necessary to bring more reviewers online to review virtuals should we convince TPTB that they should return. They really aren't covered at WM.com, since that specifically seems to address the type of cache formerly referred to (and closed/locked) as locationless, by the way the categories are set up. Simply attempting to be consistent in what reviewers approve as a virtual cache would eliminate that problem. You can't make all the people happy all the time - I'm sure you as a reviewer (and as a moderator... ah-hem) have irritated a large number of people over a long period of time with some of your decisions. And I'm sure all reviewers have. In general, they do a good job, but they can't please everyone 100% of the time. If the complaints and hate mail increase for container caches, will they be turned off too?

It all seems to be an interpretation of how to play the game. If you want to go with the original interpretation, virtuals shouldn't be allowed, food should be allowed, and only really big containers should be allowed. Obviously, the game has changed since cache #1, but if the players (and again, you don't have a game without players, and you don't have a website without those of us who choose to contribute... unless those google ads are bringing in enough to make everyone premium members for free!) want to see them returned, shouldn't they be returned? Or, be consistent, and shut them all down. I don't want to see option #2, but this is a pretty big inconsistency.

I think this should be put to the players... not just made as a decision by the people that run the website. Yes, Groundspeak owns the site - however, without players, you don't have a reason to have a site. The decision was made a while back, and I (and apparently others as well) feel it was made incorrectly.

September 9, 2007

I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides.

And what has moving virts to Waymarking.com done to slow the bleeding on this particular issue?

I think it's been tremendously helpful. I have not heard any feedback from a land manager in the past few years about how they weren't too comfortable with physical caches, but wanted to encourage virtual caches. To the contrary, more and more land managers are allowing physical caches, often under some type of permit system. Prior to phasing out virtuals, I heard several times per year about land managers who only wanted to allow virtual caches.

The above is based on my experience working with more than 30 different land manager permit or ban regulations in my own review territory, as well as monitoring what my colleagues report on from other review territories.

Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service.

Then why are we not having the volunteers on Waymarking.com review the virts for geocaching.com?

I think that there is more to this than meets the GPSr....

Waymarking is set up to allow for a decentralized category management and review system. Geocaching isn't. Waymark reviews focus on meeting the category requirements, and the managers know them better than anyone, and have an interest in the subject matter. Geocache reviews involve dozens of considerations besides the subject matter, such as cache density, ability to maintain the cache, etc. It is not practical to bring hundreds of new reviewers on board just to review virtual geocaches. They're doing fine over at Waymarking.

Nothing was harder for me as a cache reviewer than reviewing virtual caches. There was no shortage of forum threads complaining about the review standards, and no shortage of name calling and hate mail. In contrast, I greatly enjoy reviewing waymarks in the limited number of categories where I'm a manager.

Please excuse my ignorance but those answers just don't make sense to me. I'm no lemming, so please don't expect me to believe that the only reason land managers preferred virts to physicals was because GC.com was hosting them. And that moving the virts to another website where they were someone elses problem made that preference vanish? There must be some other explaination for this change. Please offer your opinion as to why this happened.

Also you cannot be suggesting that Earthcaches and virts are different enough that one should be 'listed' on gc.com and the other should not. Could it be that if virts were hosted here there would be no reason to maintain Waymarking.com? Last time I checked it was 'Copyright 2007 by Groundspeak, Inc.'

If Groundspeak can make it work there surely they can make it work here. Please, please help me understand why they don't want to as the above answers only produce more questions for me...

(edited for spelling)

Edited September 9, 2007 by Span 24

September 9, 2007

<snip long post>

While most Waymarking categories are basically trying to create inventory lists of places, some of which some people might want to visit, there is nothing about the structure of Waymarking that prevents having categories where you need to find something already at the location in order to confirm that you were at the waymark. I attempted to create such a category with Best Kept Secrets. I really hoped that other people who feel that the generic Waymarking categories miss the essence of virtual caches to create other categories like Best Kept Secrets so that virtual caches could find a place to live. But instead all I ever heard was people whining that they no longer can create virtuals on geocaching.com and that Waymarking wasn't the same thing. At the same time, many waymarkers have decided it is a game about inventorying places and have made it harder to get creative kinds of categories approved. With no support from people who want something that resemble virtuals, Waymarking has become what it has become. I'd like to thank everyone for their support You missed your opportunity to create an environment were both virtual and other "games" could be played.

By George I think you've done it! These look amazingly like a VC, even with the confirmation and puzzles. Good work, I may be submitting some Waymarks soon.

8k · September 9, 2007

There doesn't seem to be so much angst about locationless caches all being archived when Waymarking was launched. Perhaps that is because there was a moratorium on new locationless for a least a couple of years prior to them going away. As Jeremy and others at Groundspeak looked for a solution for locationless caches they came to the conclusion that virtuals would be locations that fit into one or more Waymarking categories. By allowing visits to waymarks people would still be able to list a cool place they wanted to share with others - ostensibly the purpose of hiding a virtual cache. I think that initially Jeremy intended to move the virtuals to Waymarking just like all locationless caches were give the opportunity to become Waymarking categories. However, it soon became clear that some virtuals would not fit into any of the existing Waymarking categories and that it would take some time for these categories to be created. In addition it was argued that many virtual caches were meant as a surprise where you would not know what it is that you would find at the location until you visited it. As a compromise, Jeremy decided to allow the existing virtuals to remain as grandfathered caches while new virtuals would be waymarks. I don't believe that Jeremy would buy FireRef's argument that if you are keeping some grandfathered caches you should allow new virtual caches. The grandfathered caches remain because there is no easy way to make these all into waymarks.

Of course there were many people, including myself, that argued that a waymark did not capture the feel of finding a virtual cache. Aside from the opportunity for surprise, and the fact that virtuals were supposed to have a verification requirement that could only be met by visiting the location, virtuals would often take you to an interesting place that was not necessarily in a category you are interested in. Jeremy would often ask cachers to define what is was that made the virtuals interesting. No matter what people said, it didn't seem to sway Jeremy's opinion that a cache should at a minimum have a log you can sign. But Waymarking did provide a way to answer Jeremy at last. There was nothing in Waymarking that limited a categories to a concrete classification like historic markers or Starbucks outlets. You could have a category that defined what you thought would be a better definition than "wow" for interesting places and the category group could require that waymarks in this category should have a verification question. The group management of the category would decided if the submissions met the qualification for this category. Initially, I humorously proposed the Wow! category. From the responses I got, I went on to form the Wow Waymarkers group. I took the time discussing with group members and other geocachers to try to find what they thought made the best virtual caches. There were many different answers. The one I focused on were the virtuals that took you some place that you didn't know was there. We decided on the name Best Kept Secrets and proposed this as a Waymarking category. In May of 2006 this was approved as new Waymarking category.

I had hoped that others would follow and create other categories that explore what they thought made a good virtual cache and that these categories could work to get features added to make the experience even more like a virtual cache. Perhaps even have waymarks in these categories appear when doing searches for nearby caches. Instead there has been only luke warm interest in the Best Kept Secrets category. While most submissions have been approved, there are a significant number (for a Waymarking category) that the group has denied. Mostly because the location just didn't seem to be that much of a secret. Again I had hoped there would be other categories with different definitions so that these locations which may have made good virtuals could also be accepted.

What really bothers me it that after doing all that work to find a home for virtuals in Waymarking.com, I still see these threads of people pleading with Jeremy to allow virtuals back on Geocaching.com The primary reason that new virtuals are not being allowed it that Jeremy does not think they are geocaches. Nobody is going to convince him by whining about it in the forums. Nobody has ever given a definition of what a virtual cache is (as opposed to a waymark) that Jeremy finds satisfactory. But if you want to continue to whine about instead of trying to find ways to make a home for virtual caches over on Waymarking go ahead. Unfortunately the few people who want to share interesting locations in a way that is just as fun as finding virtual caches over on Waymarking will be lost in a sea of Starbucks and historical marker categories because there does seem to be any desire to carve out a niche in Waymarking for something cool and interesting like virtual caches.

edit: while posting this I see that Sun Chasers has gone and taken a look at Best Kept Secrets. There is hope left :lol:

Edited September 9, 2007 by tozainamboku

September 9, 2007

But if you want to continue to whine about instead of trying to find ways to make a home for virtual caches over on Waymarking go ahead. Unfortunately the few people who want to share interesting locations in a way that is just as fun as finding virtual caches over on Waymarking will be lost in a sea of Starbucks and historical marker categories because there does seem to be any desire to carve out a niche in Waymarking for something cool and interesting like virtual caches.

Even though your post seems highly confrontational and a little self serving I did find interesting content which sheds some light on the fate of virts on GC.com. I also appreciate your effirts to find a place for them on Waymarking.com. I will not try them, but I appreciate the effort;

Ford guys continue to buy Fords even though Chevy has those cool displays on the rear view mirror. We complain that Fords don't have them but it's not enough to make us buy a Chevy!

September 9, 2007

What really bothers me it that after doing all that work to find a home for virtuals in Waymarking.com, I still see these threads of people pleading with Jeremy to allow virtuals back on Geocaching.com The primary reason that new virtuals are not being allowed it that Jeremy does not think they are geocaches. Nobody is going to convince him by whining about it in the forums. Nobody has ever given a definition of what a virtual cache is (as opposed to a waymark) that Jeremy finds satisfactory. But if you want to continue to whine about instead of trying to find ways to make a home for virtual caches over on Waymarking go ahead. Unfortunately the few people who want to share interesting locations in a way that is just as fun as finding virtual caches over on Waymarking will be lost in a sea of Starbucks and historical marker categories because there does seem to be any desire to carve out a niche in Waymarking for something cool and interesting like virtual caches.

I don't believe any of what we are doing is whining. It is a very logical argument, that so far the reasons given, at least in this thread, don't address the actual issue:

1) Too much work - volunteers accept work by volunteering. Complaining to make it easier isn't really what they're supposed to do. (I'm a volunteer fireman... um, please don't catch that apartment building on fire, because it really would be just too much work to put out. So lets ban anyone in the apartment building from having matches, lighters, electricity, gas, etc... to make my work easier. I don't think so...)

2) Jeremy said so. (see below)

3) Too hard to define what a virtual should be - volunteer reviewers have decided what consititutes a legitimate geocache for a long time. Why should this be any different? How close is too close to a school, how close is too close to a bridge, etc... These kinds of decisions are difficult also.

4) Not a real geocache - well, unless you go back to what they were originally (posted coordinates to a spot with a large container with objects of reasonable value inside and a log book to sign), most caches out there today don't meet this standard. And some of the things in the original cache you will never find in caches today, or aren't allowed in caches listed by this site.

5) There isn't any inconsistency - well, if the site decides something isn't a geocache, then it isn't. Period. You can't say "well, it was a geocache then, so we'll keep it, but the same kind of thing in the same kind of location, just somewhere else, isn't, so we won't list it.". You can't have it both ways!

"Jeremy" does not define geocaching. He does own/run Groundspeak and Geocaching.com (as well as Waymarking.com and whatever else falls under that umbrella). Whether he thinks they are geocaches really isn't as important as what the players think. If he decides that all geocaches must be at least 10 square inches in size or bigger, and removes/deletes/archives/locks anything that doesn't fit this category, some people will be happy, some will be upset. Does that make them any more/less geocaches? Not really.

Technically, any kind of event isn't a geocache either, because regardless of the log book, there isn't a container. And they don't fit the definition of a cache by the website either, since they are all temporary. Again, more inconsistency. So lets get rid of event and mega-event and CITO caches. They're no more (or, no less) a geocache than a virtual. Why approve one and not the other?

Waymarking is not the same as geocaching. Geocaching has a much more clearly defined set of rules, you don't have to deal with some random person, running on their own rules, deciding that your waymark doesn't fit their category. You also can't run PQ's over there to search for all of the ones in your area. You are expected by many to claim a "visit" to your own waymarks... unlike geocaches, where you either hide one or you find it.

I think we have to be careful in letting one person define the game. No one has answered my statement that if there is a significant amount of desire to have virtuals return, the players voices should be heard and the virtuals returned. You can't run the game without the players.

September 9, 2007

But if you want to continue to whine about instead of trying to find ways to make a home for virtual caches over on Waymarking go ahead. Unfortunately the few people who want to share interesting locations in a way that is just as fun as finding virtual caches over on Waymarking will be lost in a sea of Starbucks and historical marker categories because there does seem to be any desire to carve out a niche in Waymarking for something cool and interesting like virtual caches.

Even though your post seems highly confrontational and a little self serving I did find interesting content which sheds some light on the fate of virts on GC.com. I also appreciate your effirts to find a place for them on Waymarking.com. I will not try them, but I appreciate the effort;

Ford guys continue to buy Fords even though Chevy has those cool displays on the rear view mirror. We complain that Fords don't have them but it's not enough to make us buy a Chevy!

But it might make Ford get them... which is exactly my point. If people the people who play the game want them, why not satisfy them?

September 9, 2007

But it might make Ford get them... which is exactly my point. If people the people who play the game want them, why not satisfy them?

HAHAHAHAHA! Nice! So open a "Who wants virts back?" thread so that I can open a "Come bet on how long it takes Jeremy to close the 'Who wants virts back thread" thread....

Ouch, that post made my head hurt! :lol:

21.9k · September 9, 2007

I guess I don't understand how having complaints about standards and "name calling and hate mail" should be enough to cause a complete ban on virtuals as a new cache type.

They weren't. I was simply responding to two narrow questions, about land managers and about category reviews. There are many other reasons why, as early as 2003, Groundspeak decided to start moving in a different direction for locationless and virtual caches. I'm not going to review the entire history as it's getting rather late. But please don't extrapolate beyond the boundaries of the narrow answers I provided. Thanks.

21.9k · September 9, 2007

Please excuse my ignorance but those answers just don't make sense to me. I'm no lemming, so please don't expect me to believe that the only reason land managers preferred virts to physicals was because GC.com was hosting them. And that moving the virts to another website where they were someone elses problem made that preference vanish? There must be some other explaination for this change. Please offer your opinion as to why this happened.

Land managers could visit the Geocaching.com website and see that virtual caches were an available alternative. Waymarking is an entirely separate activity. I think that accounts for part of the shift. Another reason is the overall "mainstream acceptability" of geocaching that we've seen in recent years.

Also you cannot be suggesting that Earthcaches and virts are different enough that one should be 'listed' on gc.com and the other should not. Could it be that if virts were hosted here there would be no reason to maintain Waymarking.com? Last time I checked it was 'Copyright 2007 by Groundspeak, Inc.'

My post did not address earthcaches. They are an island unto themselves; they are not subject to the geocache review process and volunteer cache reviewers like me have nothing to do with them. I express no opinion about them in my capacity as a cache reviewer.

September 9, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers. Not to put them down - they do a great job most of the time, and they do it on their own time. However, if they, as a group, decide it is too much work to approve puzzles, or multi's, will they ban them too?

And what about webcams? Not like there are millions of them out there... why were these banned?

In general, Groundspeak wanted to get back to what a geocache is: a container with a logbook. Webcams don't fit that description. Nor does virtuals and locationless.

Yes, we still have events and earthcaches. But most events have a logbook, and earthcaches are managed by someone else, not Groundspeak volunteer reviewers.

Well if you read the glossary a cache also must have a pen/pencil to _sign_ the log with, just as a letterbox hide includes its own stamp book and a stamp. But even this definition by Groundspeak isn't in keeping with the traditional concept of a cache, which always meant something of value was hidden. A container with a log is actually just a cache-less container. To wit: I sought out Little Park of Horrors (GC13937) which has over a dozen decoy cache containers hidden containing notes saying, "Keep looking!" Although I love the concept, by definition I can sign the note (a log) in any decoy (a hidden container found by GPS) and get a smiley. Not what the owner intended, but why not?

As far as reviewers, the solution seems simple enough but requires collaboration between two parties. The "Best Kept Secrets" category of Waymarks nearly perfectly emulates the Virtual Cache. All GC.com needs to do is let Waymarking do the dirty review work, then approve a virtual based on the simple question, "Is it a geocache (a thing of value needing a GPSr to locate)?" Wow factor is already screened by Waymarking, so if the answer is yes, then approve a new Virtual. If the answer is no, decline it.

Proposed guidelines for approving a new virtual cache:

1. Is the object at the listed coordinates an approved Waymark in "Best Kept Secrets" or another location-centric Category?

2. Is there confirmation knowledge required from the site (something to find) that is not "spoiled" by the listing or photos?

3. Is a GPSr required to find the knowledge?

Objects meeting the above criteria meet the definition of a cache (the log is electronic and maintained at geocaching.com) and should be considered for listing s Virts.

September 9, 2007

Land managers could visit the Geocaching.com website and see that virtual caches were an available alternative. Waymarking is an entirely separate activity. I think that accounts for part of the shift. Another reason is the overall "mainstream acceptability" of geocaching that we've seen in recent years.

Here is why I have trouble with this; If I am a land manager and I know that Waymarking.com exists (and I have no reason to believe that they don't) and I want to limit physical caches I tell GC.com members the same thing Groundspeak is telling them regarding virts. "Go to Waymarking.com".

My post did not address earthcaches. They are an island unto themselves; they are not subject to the geocache review process and volunteer cache reviewers like me have nothing to do with them. I express no opinion about them in my capacity as a cache reviewer.

Here is what I meant; If the problem was that the review process for virts was killing the reviewers then pass all processes associated with virts on to Waymarking.com then post the caches on GC.com. Just like they do with Earthcaches! Why has this been considered and adopted for caches which have scientific (geological) significance but not for those which have historical significance?

September 9, 2007

All they needed to do was have the reviewers not approve virtuals which didn't have some kind of significance - redo the rules to specify that it had to have some significant historical or other (as specified in the rules) value - it can't be the rock down the block from my house that is just "there".

They tried this. It failed. The problem was that no one could come up with an adequate definition of 'some kind of significance' (the WOW factor).

edit: wording

Well, reviewers already have a wide latitude in judgement (sometimes too wide in my opinion, but I have a problem with authority anyway ), so this doesn't seem too difficult. If the hider can't demonstrate to the reviewer (or whoever they end up appealing to) that they have something of significance, then it doesn't get approved.

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers. Not to put them down - they do a great job most of the time, and they do it on their own time. However, if they, as a group, decide it is too much work to approve puzzles, or multi's, will they ban them too?

And what about webcams? Not like there are millions of them out there... why were these banned?

In general, Groundspeak wanted to get back to what a geocache is: a container with a logbook. Webcams don't fit that description. Nor does virtuals and locationless.

Yes, we still have events and earthcaches. But most events have a logbook, and earthcaches are managed by someone else, not Groundspeak volunteer reviewers.

Well if you read the glossary a cache also must have a pen/pencil to _sign_ the log with, just as a letterbox hide includes its own stamp book and a stamp. But even this definition by Groundspeak isn't in keeping with the traditional concept of a cache, which always meant something of value was hidden. A container with a log is actually just a cache-less container. To wit: I sought out Little Park of Horrors (GC13937) which has over a dozen decoy cache containers hidden containing notes saying, "Keep looking!" Although I love the concept, by definition I can sign the note (a log) in any decoy (a hidden container found by GPS) and get a smiley. Not what the owner intended, but why not?

As far as reviewers, the solution seems simple enough but requires collaboration between two parties. The "Best Kept Secrets" category of Waymarks nearly perfectly emulates the Virtual Cache. All GC.com needs to do is let Waymarking do the dirty review work, then approve a virtual based on the simple question, "Is it a geocache (a thing of value needing a GPSr to locate)?" Wow factor is already screened by Waymarking, so if the answer is yes, then approve a new Virtual. If the answer is no, decline it.

Proposed guidelines for approving a new virtual cache:

1. Is the object at the listed coordinates an approved Waymark in "Best Kept Secrets" or another location-centric Category?

2. Is there confirmation knowledge required from the site (something to find) that is not "spoiled" by the listing or photos?

3. Is a GPSr required to find the knowledge?

Objects meeting the above criteria meet the definition of a cache (the log is electronic and maintained at geocaching.com) and should be considered for listing s Virts.

I would agree with this kind of setup, other than the fact that it references WM.com. I guess this is acceptable though. Or you could have another site, like www.virtualcacheapprovals.com, ok them, and then GC.com could list them. If this is good enough for Earthcaches, it should be good enough for any other grouping.

8k · September 9, 2007

"Jeremy" does not define geocaching. He does own/run Groundspeak and Geocaching.com (as well as Waymarking.com and whatever else falls under that umbrella). Whether he thinks they are geocaches really isn't as important as what the players think. If he decides that all geocaches must be at least 10 square inches in size or bigger, and removes/deletes/archives/locks anything that doesn't fit this category, some people will be happy, some will be upset. Does that make them any more/less geocaches? Not really.

You're right Jeremy owns Groundspeak and Geocaching.com so he doesn't get to define what is a geocache. You can still get a virtual listed on terracaching.com or you could start your own site. Jeremy does get to decide what gets listed on geocaching.com and he gets to decides if things that used to be listed, like moving caches, are grandfathered or not. You could try taking advantage of the "less clearly defined" Waymarking site and creating categories over there for virtuals. I doubt you could use to get new moving cache approved but why not give that a try too.

No one has answered my statement that if there is a significant amount of desire to have virtuals return, the players voices should be heard and the virtuals returned. You can't run the game without the players.

I doubt Jeremy will waste his time but maybe he will. They you can quit, join terracaching or create your own site and take the masses who believe that not having the option to hide a virtual and get a smilie for it is the end of the world.

September 9, 2007

"Jeremy" does not define geocaching. He does own/run Groundspeak and Geocaching.com (as well as Waymarking.com and whatever else falls under that umbrella). Whether he thinks they are geocaches really isn't as important as what the players think. If he decides that all geocaches must be at least 10 square inches in size or bigger, and removes/deletes/archives/locks anything that doesn't fit this category, some people will be happy, some will be upset. Does that make them any more/less geocaches? Not really.

You're right Jeremy owns Groundspeak and Geocaching.com so he doesn't get to define what is a geocache. You can still get a virtual listed on terracaching.com or you could start your own site. Jeremy does get to decide what gets listed on geocaching.com and he gets to decides if things that used to be listed, like moving caches, are grandfathered or not. You could try taking advantage of the "less clearly defined" Waymarking site and creating categories over there for virtuals. I doubt you could use to get new moving cache approved but why not give that a try too.

No one has answered my statement that if there is a significant amount of desire to have virtuals return, the players voices should be heard and the virtuals returned. You can't run the game without the players.
I doubt Jeremy will waste his time but maybe he will. They you can quit, join terracaching or create your own site and take the masses who believe that not having the option to hide a virtual and get a smilie for it is the end of the world.

Sarcasm aside, your post really doesn't address any specific issues other than Jeremy gets to run his site as he sees fit. And that's fine.

Parker Brothers gets to make Monopoly gameboards and rules. They don't, however, ban people from playing by slightly different rules. Just because the people in charge of PB don't make it a rule that you can put $500 on free parking, or collect fines on free parking, doesn't mean people don't do it. And they certainly don't say "Well, if you want to do it, you're violating our rules, so we're not going to sell you games anymore if you don't follow our rules." ... or "so we're going to sue you for not following the rules we set", or something equally as ludicrous.

Obviously the site runs well, or at least reasonably well, most of the time. Sometimes user comments and ideas are considered. Most of the time, it appears, from reading the forums, that they aren't. I know I called the company with a complaint two and a half weeks ago, and haven't received a phone call back yet - and I am a paying customer. Is it perfect? No. Could it be better? Of course - just about anything could. Should the ideas and considerations of those who use the site be considered in making it better? Yes. Should they be considered in a significant way? Maybe, depending on what is proposed, and what effect it has on the business of the site. Will it cause the site to crash or fail or go bankrupt? Probably not a good idea. Will it increase the enjoyment of some, most, or all of the users? Then it should be considered strongly.

Simply saying "Waymarking.com was created for these "not-so-real" caches, so go do them over there if you want them so bad" isn't a legitimate argument, since they didn't move the old ones over there. Again, I raise the point of inconsistency. And "Go make your own site and watch everyone flock to it" is a cop out. I'm asking for consideration of an idea that people obviously have support for. How much? Not sure... obviously there's not the support that was expected for Waymarking.com, so most of the support must be back here for virtuals to continue.

Or we could start a poll... or maybe not... maybe TPTB could start a poll and see what the real feeling on this one is.

Edited September 9, 2007 by FireRef

21.9k · September 9, 2007

Land managers could visit the Geocaching.com website and see that virtual caches were an available alternative. Waymarking is an entirely separate activity. I think that accounts for part of the shift. Another reason is the overall "mainstream acceptability" of geocaching that we've seen in recent years.

Here is why I have trouble with this; If I am a land manager and I know that Waymarking.com exists (and I have no reason to believe that they don't) and I want to limit physical caches I tell GC.com members the same thing Groundspeak is telling them regarding virts. "Go to Waymarking.com".

I am telling you, based on all the land managers I deal with, month in and month out, that I have never heard any of them mention Waymarking as an alternative to geocaches. Nor do I recall any other cache reviewer saying that this happened to them. So my statement was based on empirical observation of change from the 2002-2005 era vs. 2005 to the present. It is different. Has your experience with land manager discussions been otherwise? If so, please share.

My post did not address earthcaches. They are an island unto themselves; they are not subject to the geocache review process and volunteer cache reviewers like me have nothing to do with them. I express no opinion about them in my capacity as a cache reviewer.

Here is what I meant; If the problem was that the review process for virts was killing the reviewers then pass all processes associated with virts on to Waymarking.com then post the caches on GC.com. Just like they do with Earthcaches! Why has this been considered and adopted for caches which have scientific (geological) significance but not for those which have historical significance?

You would need to ask the GSA, or the Earthcache reviewer, or Groundspeak. Since I have no official responsibility for earthcaches it would be inappropriate for me to comment or speculate about a decision in which I was not involved.

As for sites with historic significance, I am greatly enjoying my work as a category manager for Pennsylvania Historic Markers. It's a subject in which I have a personal interest, and I'm very happy to see that more than 1,000 historic signs have been waymarked. That is 1,000 virtual cache submissions that I would have been compelled to archive under the virtual cache listing guidelines. I far prefer listing them as waymarks to archiving them as geocaches.

EDIT: for bad grammar, onaccountabecause it's late.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Keystone

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment