Any truth to the rumour?

[+Simply Paul]

I hear that our Masters Across The Ocean have ruled that Virtual caches can't be transferred from cacher to cacher through the usual adoption process, presumably in the hope that they'll die out faster that way. Do our own The Powers That Be have any news on this, or shouldn't I believe all I hear (believable though it is)?

 

I could ask via email, but I feel this is a question of interest to the wider community which is why I'm asking here.

[Deceangi]

I hear that our Masters Across The Ocean have ruled that Virtual caches can't be transferred from cacher to cacher through the usual adoption process, presumably in the hope that they'll die out faster that way. Do our own The Powers That Be have any news on this, or shouldn't I believe all I hear (believable though it is)?

 

I could ask via email, but I feel this is a question of interest to the wider community which is why I'm asking here.

 

Nope Virtual or Webcam caches as they are a Grandfathered category may not be Adopted over by their owner, and neither will Groundspeak Adopt them over if requested to do so. This policy has been in place for at least 12 months if not longer.

[+Simply Paul]

Thanks Deceangi, it seems rumours are moving slower these days.

Can you point me to a public announcement on this?

[Mittellegi]

Nope Virtual or Webcam caches as they are a Grandfathered category may not be Adopted over by their owner, and neither will Groundspeak Adopt them over if requested to do so. This policy has been in place for at least 12 months if not longer.

 

It may be against policy, but it is possible to adopt over webcam caches, although it appears you need to bribe a reviewer to do it

 

ZueriCam was transferred from kuedepi to ernies by swissgeocache on 8 March 2007. Check out the logs either side of this one.

 

The cache has been subsequently archived as the camera is being physically relocated to new offices.

[+Team Sieni]

This seems to be the relevant bit, although it doesn't specifically mention adoption.

 

Edited to add, there's a thread going over old ground here

Edited May 22, 2007 by Team Sieni

[+Simply Paul]

This seems to be the relevant bit, although it doesn't specifically mention adoption.

 

Edited to add, there's a thread going over old ground here

Thanks for those TS, but as neither mention a bar on transferring grandfathered caches in the way you can with physicals, we're no further forward

[+Team Sieni]

Thanks for those TS, but as neither mention a bar on transferring grandfathered caches in the way you can with physicals, we're no further forward

 

Gaw blimey, some people are never satisifed. :D

 

How about This FAQ that says

3. The volunteer cache reviewer will determine whether adoption is appropriate and, if so, he or she will make a further effort to contact the owner. Note that grandfathered cache types cannot be adopted through this procedure. This includes virtual caches, moving caches and webcam caches.

That's talking specifically about nonconsensual adoption - ie if the current owner has gawn orf. For consensual adoption they give This link, and maybe it works if the owner is co-operating. Or maybe not. I dunno.

[nobby.nobbs]

of course if the owner is no longer going to cache there is another way..... if they give you their password you could log in as them once a month... i'm going to get told off now aren't i?

[+maxkim]

I hear that our Masters Across The Ocean have ruled that Virtual caches can't be transferred from cacher to cacher through the usual adoption process, presumably in the hope that they'll die out faster that way. Do our own The Powers That Be have any news on this, or shouldn't I believe all I hear (believable though it is)?

 

I could ask via email, but I feel this is a question of interest to the wider community which is why I'm asking here.

 

Nope Virtual or Webcam caches as they are a Grandfathered category may not be Adopted over by their owner, and neither will Groundspeak Adopt them over if requested to do so. This policy has been in place for at least 12 months if not longer.

 

Very strange when Deceangi gave this reply in February to Jazz666's plea to save virts by adopting them....

 

"Virtual caches along with Webcam caches, can be Adopted over by their owners if they can be contacted and agree to the Adoption. They just have to visit the Adoptions Page with the GC No and the user name of the person Adopting it

 

And I'm going to be evil and not tell you how many or which ones, but you've listed caches which are in compliance with the guidelines

 

My list is current as I had a check on them all, just before reading this topic and updated the list "

 

Is it me or are the sands shifting somewhat???

 

Link to thread

Edited May 23, 2007 by maxkim

[Deceangi]

I hear that our Masters Across The Ocean have ruled that Virtual caches can't be transferred from cacher to cacher through the usual adoption process, presumably in the hope that they'll die out faster that way. Do our own The Powers That Be have any news on this, or shouldn't I believe all I hear (believable though it is)?

 

I could ask via email, but I feel this is a question of interest to the wider community which is why I'm asking here.

 

Nope Virtual or Webcam caches as they are a Grandfathered category may not be Adopted over by their owner, and neither will Groundspeak Adopt them over if requested to do so. This policy has been in place for at least 12 months if not longer.

 

Very strange when Deceangi gave this reply in February to Jazz666's plea to save virts by adopting them....

 

"Virtual caches along with Webcam caches, can be Adopted over by their owners if they can be contacted and agree to the Adoption. They just have to visit the Adoptions Page with the GC No and the user name of the person Adopting it

 

And I'm going to be evil and not tell you how many or which ones, but you've listed caches which are in compliance with the guidelines

 

My list is current as I had a check on them all, just before reading this topic and updated the list "

 

Is it me or are the sands shifting somewhat???

 

Link to thread

 

And after someone tried this out, they found out that Virtual and Webcam caches are blocked by the system from being adopted over. And kindly informed me of this. It's a case of finding out that the presumption that all caches can be adopted over using the facility was wrong, but not until well after the post was made.

 

Not a case of shifting sands, more a case of a Reviewer doing a pratt fall

[+Team Sieni]

Not a case of shifting sands, more a case of a Reviewer doing a pratt fall

Which just goes to show ... give the choice between consipiracy or cockup, the cockup explanation wins every time!

[+maxkim]

Thanks for that, I still see the end of verts being another loss to the fun.

[Deceangi]

Thanks for that, I still see the end of verts being another loss to the fun.

 

Not the way the UK community rally round to make sure that doesn't happen. You only have to look at the amount of action that took place when I did a sweep of UK Virtual caches to insure the owners complied with the guidelines

Edited May 23, 2007 by Deceangi

[+Simply Paul]

So *is* there a public announcement on this anywhere - and I don't mean Dec's first post above? - If even reviewers weren't informed (although there must have been communication since, to know the rule has been there for 'at least 12 months if not longer') it suggests not.

 

Given virts represent variety in caching, its heritage, un-mugglable(ish) city caches, international-traveller-friendly caching, there are strong arguments to keep the grandfathered ones. They've been marked for death, along side web cam caches, in what amounts to caching genocide by attrition. I took the ban of new ones with good grace. I didn't cry when reverse/locationless were handed their cards and a gold watch, but I'm less than impressed with Groundspeak about this. I will be writing to Jeremy about it. If you feel the same, I ask you to do the same. Here's his profile, written in the third person.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I will be writing to Jeremy about it. If you feel the same, I ask you to do the same.

I say let them die off with dignity . There's loads of traditional caches nowadays anyway!

[+Team Sieni]

So *is* there a public announcement on this anywhere - and I don't mean Dec's first post above? - If even reviewers weren't informed (although there must have been communication since, to know the rule has been there for 'at least 12 months if not longer') it suggests not.

Well, in my searches above (post #7) I did manage to turn up the FAQ that says that nonconsensual adoption of grandfathered caches is not possible. (I can't believe I just typed that gobbledegook!) That entry was dated Mar 17 2006

 

It's not specific on consensual adoption but deceangi above says this was tried and turned out not to work.

 

On the actual GC.com site, however, the guidelines are not specific.

 

However, I don't get the feeling that there has been any stealth or cover-up here. Groundspeak were pretty open that virtuals were being deprecated (for want of a better word).

 

I have to say I'm ambivalent about this. I've done one fantastic virtual (GC3660), but that would've worked well as an offset multi too.

 

There may be more in the Geocaching Announcements forum, or somewhere like that, which is where such stuff sometimes turns up. I got bored with searching I'm afraid.

[+Simply Paul]

Non-consensual adoption is another issue altogether. I'm talking about a situation where all parties are keen for the transfer of ownership, but Groundspeak aren't. I've had a look too, and can't find any announcement (other than Dec's above) about it. I've written to Jeremy asking for a comment, or a link to a public discussion of it online somewhere.

 

It does come down to your personal feelings about virtuals, but I've done enough great ones, in places you can't put a physical, to be unimpressed they're being exterminated by the back door.

[Deceangi]

unimpressed they're being exterminated by the back door.

 

Sorry Paul but Virtual caches are not being exterminated they have their own hone on Waymarking.com. Agreed it is not as functional as GC yet, but with upgrades such as PQ's it will be [unless your just a No's junkie ]

 

If Groundspeak wished to exterminate Virtual caches, they could have simply done the same as happened to Locationless caches and set a specific date and just removed them from the site.

[+Simply Paul]

unimpressed they're being exterminated by the back door.

Sorry Paul but Virtual caches are not being exterminated they have their own hone on Waymarking.com. Agreed it is not as functional as GC yet, but with upgrades such as PQ's it will be [unless your just a No's junkie

As they cease to be caches when they move to Waymarking (where they're waymarks) I can't agree their slow removal from GC.com isn't extermination of a class of caches, as I understand caching.

If Groundspeak wished to exterminate Virtual caches, they could have simply done the same as happened to Locationless caches and set a specific date and just removed them from the site.

Give it time.

[Nediam]

Was there a specific cache you wanted to adopt/have adopted?

[+Simply Paul]

Was there a specific cache you wanted to adopt/have adopted?

No. It's more a question of not being allowed to should I -or anyone else- wish to adopt and maintain a virtual (or web cam) cache that the owner would like to pass on.

[markandlynn]

we have documented the features of Geocaching.com so we don't miss anything in the new design! We've also documented Waymarking.com since the back end will be running identical code. That means that new features on either site will be implemented. It also means that we'll be able to share data across the different web sites so you can, say, download geocaches and waymarks at the same time!

 

 

From the man himself.

 

The waymark site works much better now and is worth a second look.

[+Alibags]

I can't help but wonder, if the new Friends feature is the beginning of the end for seeing cachers stats (unless they are your 'friend'), people who like the numbers game may find alternatives to seeing the 'league tables' (for want of a better word). Bear with me....

 

Now the reason alternative cache listing sites have not really taken off is due in part to the fact that people like to look at a nice shiney table of stats to see what they have done, and compare against others stats. If this gets killed off, I wonder if an alternative stats listing system/site would include stats from other cache listing sites. In which case, as these other sites have different rules, perhaps this could lead to people setting and finding virtual caches via these sites?

 

Just a thought.

 

(and no matter how much stick TPTB apply, the carrot of Waymarking is just not juicy or tempting enough for most, it seems!)

Edited May 23, 2007 by Alibags

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can't help but wonder, if the new Friends feature is the beginning of the end for seeing cachers stats

You may be right, but as I see it, the Friends feature addresses a request for the ability to have e-mails when a particular cacher ("friend") logs any finds/DNF's/notes. I've wanted that for a long time - on several occasions I've wondered why someone I know hasn't logged anything on their caching day out, only to be asked later what I thought to their epic DNF. Or to be informed about logs from someone who's on holiday on the other side of the world and has promised to log a couple of caches, rather than having to keep on searching via their profile to see whether they logged anything.

 

(and no matter how much stick TPTB apply, the carrot of Waymarking is just not juicy or tempting enough for most, it seems!)

I take it to be an indication that virtuals are not as tempting as caches. I must confess that I've only done a feeble 22 waymarks, and only 6 of these are "virtual caches": although I quite enjoy collecting them, there's not quite the same appeal as finding something secretly hidden.

[+Simply Paul]

<- 1133 finds, 63 of them virtuals= 5.56%, or better than 1 in 20 caches I've done was a virtual. That's without having a particular fondness for them (vs. puzzles, trads or multis) and I don't think my stats are unusual at all. They remain a popular element of caching, but for how long? Sorry to bang on about this, but I think it's important.

[cdhandley]

<- 1133 finds, 63 of them virtuals= 5.56%, or better than 1 in 20 caches I've done was a virtual. That's without having a particular fondness for them (vs. puzzles, trads or multis) and I don't think my stats are unusual at all. They remain a popular element of caching, but for how long? Sorry to bang on about this, but I think it's important.

Totally agree, this is important. If it aint broke, don't try to fix it!

In other words leave them alone, let adoptions take place and bring back the chance to set more as the other site is, to put it mildly, a pile of poo!

[+Happy Humphrey]

a pile of poo!

In your opinion!

I actually think that it's better than geocaching.com now, much slicker and more modern with some features that gc.com could really do with. The saved searches, for instance. I expect that geocaching will be changed to match in the next year or so.

bring back the chance to set more

 

<- 1133 finds, 63 of them virtuals= 5.56%, or better than 1 in 20 caches I've done was a virtual. That's without

3.4% for me. Nowadays I wouldn't bother at all: I think the last one was in Kefalonia, just so I had a Greek cache logged. I did a few in Germany recently but they were on wm.com.

[+Team Sieni]

the other site is, to put it mildly, a pile of poo!

I assume you're referring to Waymarking. Well, I use it and I think it's good.

 

No doubt you have sound reasoning to support your opinion, but unfortunately there are some other cachers who are simply agin it, come what may, either because of the rather heavy handed way Groundspeak introduced it, or because it doesn't boost their numbers. This is unfortunate, IMHO, but hey ho ... life goes on. De gustibus non est disputandum and all that.

[+Alibags]

(and no matter how much stick TPTB apply, the carrot of Waymarking is just not juicy or tempting enough for most, it seems!)

I take it to be an indication that virtuals are not as tempting as caches. I must confess that I've only done a feeble 22 waymarks, and only 6 of these are "virtual caches": although I quite enjoy collecting them, there's not quite the same appeal as finding something secretly hidden.

 

No, that's not what I meant at all. I personally dont find Waymarking as tempting as geocaching.com. I like virtuals. A good virtual is miles better than a lame physical.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

I can't help but wonder, if the new Friends feature is the beginning of the end for seeing cachers stats (unless they are your 'friend'), people who like the numbers game may find alternatives to seeing the 'league tables' (for want of a better word). Bear with me....

 

 

I hope the openly viewable stats feature does not disapear.

 

I've no particular friends I would wish to track via the Friends Feature.

 

I do however look up those that move my bugs and coins, and when things go wrong like absent logs, or delayed placing the nature of a cachers stats will influence the wording of any subsequent correspondence I will make.

[+Team Sieni]

I hope the openly viewable stats feature does not disapear.

 

I've no particular friends I would wish to track via the Friends Feature.

AFAIK the friends thingy doesn't presage the end of viewable stats. I can't see why Groundspeak would want to make stats hidden by default. But what do I know ? (hint: the answer is "not much") And Groundspeak can move in mysterious ways sometimes.

 

There's a thread on Friends on the general forum here

[+ryme-intrinseca]

Just to add my probably irrelevant thoughts here - I like Virtuals and Earthcaches just as much as regulars, as long as the location is worth the visit.

 

Some of the Virtuals we've found could easily be replaced by micros or nanos, but others couldn't. For instance:

Paddington Dare gave us something to do whilst waiting for the train, but you couldn't put a physical cache here.

Tyneham is a great Virtual, IMHO it wouldn't be appropriate to put a Regular here.

 

Also, I am interested to know about permission issues. When new Virtuals were listed, was landowner permission needed? For example, if it's a plaque, then this is intended to be looked at by as many people as possible, would you need special permission for it to be a virtual cache? If the answer is 'yes', that would seem a bit silly to me.

 

I know there is an argument that the virtual site could be used as a clue to gain co-ords for a regular, but this would seem a bit pointless in some cases. If I were to set a virtual because e.g. I wanted to show someone an interesting historical location, what's the point of taking them to that location and then sending them off on another walk?

 

Obviously, Virtuals are never coming back, but I think it's a real shame if the existing ones can't be adopted. As someone above has said - pretty much muggle free, maintenance free, and taking people to interesting locations (where permission for a Regular may not be given), which in my opinion, is the main point of geocaching.

[+Alibags]

....anyway, if TPTB decide that a cache must consist of a container with a logbook that you can sign... how come they have not archived benchmarks?

[+Mr'D]

....anyway, if TPTB decide that a cache must consist of a container with a logbook that you can sign... how come they have not archived benchmarks?

Good point Ali

There usually seems an exception to the rule

 

edited for typo... it's late!

Edited May 25, 2007 by Mr.Dewdrop

[Edgemaster]

....anyway, if TPTB decide that a cache must consist of a container with a logbook that you can sign... how come they have not archived benchmarks?

Oh, not this argument, again. They have admitted benchmarks were a mistake, they want to get rid of them.

Canada has been wanting to get their benchmarks listed, and I'm sure people here wanted trigs listed. There is no further expansion of this part of the site, and as with virtuals/locationlesses, there's a space on Waymarking for them.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Edgemaster