My input on virtuals

[+EraSeek]

I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but I wish to add my input.

I recently made a trip to D.C. Most all caches there are virtuals. I am now a firm believer that virtuals should be brought back to Geocaching.

 

I know that Waymarking was suppose to be the new place for virtuals and locationless, and I am all for leaveing locationless out of this site, but Virtuals have value as Geocaches. I had a cache that was moved over to Waymarking and I'm not really sure it fit into any category, but once ownership was removed and switched over to group management I wanted nothing to do with Waymarking.

 

I wish to own my caches and own my finds. To take pride in them. Locationless do not take you to a place, they are more like a collection of things you come across, but Geocaches and virtuals do. The whole idea is that you use your GPS technology to lead you to a coordinate. Where it takes you and what it shows you is where quality caching comes in. I could care less if there is junk at the end or not, but I do care if it provides some value. The virtuals I experienced in DC did that. Waymarking never has.

 

Sorry, nice try on the new site. Maybe others will use it, but I for one would like Virtuals returned.

[+Miragee]

Thank you for stating this very well.

 

I also wish Virtuals would be brought back to this site, the way Earthcaches were. I think it could be done in a way to take the pressure off Reviewers so they wouldn't have problems with people submitting things that don't qualify.

[AbercrombieHollister]

RIGHT ON!! i strongly believe that too. I have tryed making a discussion about it earlier , but no-onew took mcuh interest. Glad you did!! i miss virtuals

[+ke6n]

I agree with the OP 100%. But why bother? You see, geocaching is all about finding a plastic tupperware filled with broken McCrap. Apparently the object of the game, since the original geocache was a container (buried or not), is to find a physical container. Any variation on that is blasphemy. The minions will tell you so! It doesn't matter that you have a wonderful or interesting location that won't support a physical cache that you'd like to share (and still retain "ownership" of the listing.) No McCrap, no geocache! No McCrap and it can't be listed on this site. Oh, OK... micros with no room for trade still get through but there are plenty of McCrap collectors and dispursers who complain about those and how they'd like for them to be banned, also.

 

But again I ask... Why bother? You'll be shot down for bringing it up.

[+opa and oma]

There was another thread about this in regards to a "HistoricalCaching" much like "EarthCaching". I would be in favor of such "caches". The "treasure" you find is in the knowledge and senses you obtain. Worth MUCH more than trinkets. What better cache than to learn something new, or see something awsome.

 

I've tried the Waymarking. I even have a couple listed. Not the same though. You can see that by looking at the "finds" a "Virtual" or EarthCache may get compared to the Waymarks.

[+DeLooters]

Well I'd like to add that I think Virtual geocaches are a great way to add to exploring our world without harming it. I'm one of those people that would Never be called an environmentalist or anything close. I like the CITO aspect of geocaching and have always practiced "Leaving it better than the way you found it". I just seems that taking away virtuals has only left putting things out that definitely always disturb the environment to some degree (we can try to have a minor impact but it just doesn't happen). So, why did they remove a method of caching that can and in most instances completely leave the environment alone (with the exception of breathing and driving there) and that would have taken us to an interesting place while using our GPS ??? Is it because of the abuse of a few that have affected the many??? Just my 2 bits!

[+Miragee]

Well I'd like to add that I think Virtual geocaches are a great way to add to exploring our world without harming it. I'm one of those people that would Never be called an environmentalist or anything close. I like the CITO aspect of geocaching and have always practiced "Leaving it better than the way you found it". I just seems that taking away virtuals has only left putting things out that definitely always disturb the environment to some degree (we can try to have a minor impact but it just doesn't happen). So, why did they remove a method of caching that can and in most instances completely leave the environment alone (with the exception of breathing and driving there) and that would have taken us to an interesting place while using our GPS ??? Is it because of the abuse of a few that have affected the many??? Just my 2 bits!

I agree. Because of poor implementation of Virtuals on this site, all new Virtual caches were banned. That shouldn't have been the only option considered.

 

On the Waymarking site, there are some Categories that have very strict posting rules, with questions to answer before the submission will go through.

 

Something like that could be implemented for Virtual caches on this site. If someone chose "Virtual" for the type of cache, the page would refresh with a different form. There would be limiting questions that would have to be answered. Very little interaction between the Reviewer and the cache submitter would be required because the limiting questions would ensure that the location had some "Wow" factor. Something like that would prevent the disagreements that occurred, in the past, between Reviewers and cachers wishing to post Virtual caches.

 

Just a thought . . .

[+tozainamboku]

There would be limiting questions that would have to be answered. Very little interaction between the Reviewer and the cache submitter would be required because the limiting questions would ensure that the location had some "Wow" factor. Something like that would prevent the disagreements that occurred, in the past, between Reviewers and cachers wishing to post Virtual caches.

Could you give some examples of the questions that would ensure the location has a "wow" factor? It seems that no one could give answer to this when new virtuals wers allows on GC.com and I doubt that this has changed.

[+mtn-man]

I agree with the OP 100%. But why bother? You see, geocaching is all about finding a plastic tupperware filled with broken McCrap. Apparently the object of the game, since the original geocache was a container (buried or not), is to find a physical container. Any variation on that is blasphemy. The minions will tell you so! It doesn't matter that you have a wonderful or interesting location that won't support a physical cache that you'd like to share (and still retain "ownership" of the listing.) No McCrap, no geocache! No McCrap and it can't be listed on this site. Oh, OK... micros with no room for trade still get through but there are plenty of McCrap collectors and dispursers who complain about those and how they'd like for them to be banned, also.

 

But again I ask... Why bother? You'll be shot down for bringing it up.

Posts like this don't help the cause in the least. In fact, they hurt it.

[+StarBrand]

To me its all in the definition.

 

If virtual caches had never existed on this site and had only been on Waymarking - I seriously doubt we would have very many raging arguments to add them.

 

A geocache equals finding something hidden somewhere.

 

A virtual equals finding somewhere. aka a waymark.

 

Give Waymarking a chance, it really does work to find interesting places. Just ignore things that are not interesting to you.

[+mtn-man]

There would be limiting questions that would have to be answered. Very little interaction between the Reviewer and the cache submitter would be required because the limiting questions would ensure that the location had some "Wow" factor. Something like that would prevent the disagreements that occurred, in the past, between Reviewers and cachers wishing to post Virtual caches.

Could you give some examples of the questions that would ensure the location has a "wow" factor? It seems that no one could give answer to this when new virtuals wers allows on GC.com and I doubt that this has changed.

One big problem with virtual submissions was the fact that some cachers cannot take "no" for an answer. It is almost illustrated in this topic frankly.

 

Reviewers spent a lot of time dealing with denials. Most would just accept it and move on, but there would always be someone who would beg for their submission to be listed... or worse, would cuss us out if we did not list their submission. It is like n6mhg's post above. Most posts in this topic have been nice and have asked that they be brought back. Then you get a sarcastic post, which to me was over the top (and was intended to be). It was like this with virtual submissions. Most would just move on, but every now and then someone would go to the wall trying to get their submission listed. While you may think there is some way to come up with some test, there will be a small subset that just will not take "no" for an answer. As illustrated with n6mhg's post, some people can get nasty about it. I spent more time dealing with people who would not take "no" for an answer on virtual submission than anything else cache related back then. Now that they are gone, cache review is pretty much a black and white issue. There really are few grey areas. Not so with virtual submissions.

 

I don't see how you could develop a list of limiting questions so cachers would accept "no" as the answer.

[+ke6n]

I agree with the OP 100%. But why bother? You see, geocaching is all about finding a plastic tupperware filled with broken McCrap. Apparently the object of the game, since the original geocache was a container (buried or not), is to find a physical container. Any variation on that is blasphemy. The minions will tell you so! It doesn't matter that you have a wonderful or interesting location that won't support a physical cache that you'd like to share (and still retain "ownership" of the listing.) No McCrap, no geocache! No McCrap and it can't be listed on this site. Oh, OK... micros with no room for trade still get through but there are plenty of McCrap collectors and dispursers who complain about those and how they'd like for them to be banned, also.

 

But again I ask... Why bother? You'll be shot down for bringing it up.

Posts like this don't help the cause in the least. In fact, they hurt it.

Ahh, but you see, you have a falacy in your response. You actually imply that there is a cause. According to you and everybody else who thinks they know, there is no cause as they will never be OK'd again. You regularly go on to point out how "Waymarking" has all that and more. Phbt.

[+ke6n]

As illustrated with n6mhg's post, some people can get nasty about it.

Oh, please.

 

My "nastiness" comes only as response to those who blindly tout Waymarking as the "end all" answer to virtuals and locationless. As many have pointed out, it's not the same game. The site layout sucks. It's not "familiar". As such, it's too much bother.

[+ke6n]

I'd also like to add one more thing. I have never, nor would I ever, bring a complaint about a specific cache that I was trying to get published to the forums. I think that your comparison of that kind of activity to my open discussion of caches and policy in general is unfair and unwarranted. Wouldn't you agree?

[+C&C+COMPANY]

I haven't got into Waymarking....don't see the point. There are like 6 waymarks for the same object sometimes and it would never be like that for virts

[+Knight2000]

I haven't got into Waymarking....don't see the point. There are like 6 waymarks for the same object sometimes and it would never be like that for virts

Ive tried. The site is a bit confusing. Near me there are McDonald's locations, a sandwich shop, and a virtual blog of some sort. Not fun for me. There is not a simple ignore link like on the GC site - so instead of wading through a lot of unappealing listings- i just don't look anymore. Its too bad it couldn't be integrated into the current GC system where users could set their setting or searches for what they are interested in.

[+Miragee]

There would be limiting questions that would have to be answered. Very little interaction between the Reviewer and the cache submitter would be required because the limiting questions would ensure that the location had some "Wow" factor. Something like that would prevent the disagreements that occurred, in the past, between Reviewers and cachers wishing to post Virtual caches.

Could you give some examples of the questions that would ensure the location has a "wow" factor? It seems that no one could give answer to this when new virtuals wers allows on GC.com and I doubt that this has changed.

One big problem with virtual submissions was the fact that some cachers cannot take "no" for an answer. It is almost illustrated in this topic frankly.

 

Reviewers spent a lot of time dealing with denials. Most would just accept it and move on, but there would always be someone who would beg for their submission to be listed... or worse, would cuss us out if we did not list their submission. It is like n6mhg's post above. Most posts in this topic have been nice and have asked that they be brought back. Then you get a sarcastic post, which to me was over the top (and was intended to be). It was like this with virtual submissions. Most would just move on, but every now and then someone would go to the wall trying to get their submission listed. While you may think there is some way to come up with some test, there will be a small subset that just will not take "no" for an answer. As illustrated with n6mhg's post, some people can get nasty about it. I spent more time dealing with people who would not take "no" for an answer on virtual submission than anything else cache related back then. Now that they are gone, cache review is pretty much a black and white issue. There really are few grey areas. Not so with virtual submissions.

 

I don't see how you could develop a list of limiting questions so cachers would accept "no" as the answer.

When I submitted my first Waymark to the "National Registry of Historic Places," I had to find out a lot of information before the Waymark would go through. Presumably, the Category owner never knew about the work I was going through to answer the limiting questions.

 

When I went to submit my first WiFi waymark, I couldn't submit it because there were so many limiting questions you needed an IT degree to answer the questions.

 

If someone chose "Virtual" for their cache type, the form would change and would present limiting questions, such as "Virtual Type."

• Historical
  
• Sculpture
  
• Pre-historical evidence (Petroglyphs, Bedrock Mortars)
  
• National Park (Viewpoint, Historical Building, Geological Formation)
  
• National Wildlife Refuge (Waterfall, Geological Formation)
  

and whatever else GC comes up with.

 

There could be a question about why a Traditional or Multi-cache cannot be placed at that location. There could also be limiting questions about how the Virtual is to be logged. One of my favorite Virtual caches required several questions to be answered and I learned a lot. I never would have understood what I was seeing if I had just signed a log in a hidden container some place close to "SD Historical 1890."

 

If someone goes through the hoops on the "Virtual Cache Submission Page," and it is approved, and cachers get to the location and find it does not live up to what it was stated to be, they can submit an SBA log.

 

A Reviewer should not have any of the level of involvement they had before.

 

It's just an idea. However, I think it could work. I can always hold out hope since Earthcaches were moved back.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If virtual caches had never existed on this site and had only been on Waymarking - I seriously doubt we would have very many raging arguments to add them....

 

Where did benchmarks come from? Ideas expand and grow this activity. Some will be viable and some not.

 

A waymark visit is a different thing than a virtual cache. Sometimes the difference doesn't have to be large to spell the difference between success and failure. Coke, Pepsi both have a ton of support. Mountain Dew vs? What? There is no viable substitute it's been tried. I'm not sure that some people can see the difference between a waymark or a virtual cache. A lot can. The substitue has not yet been found.

[+Renegade Knight]

...One big problem with virtual submissions was the fact that some cachers cannot take "no" for an answer. It is almost illustrated in this topic frankly....I don't see how you could develop a list of limiting questions so cachers would accept "no" as the answer.

This is backwards. The real problem was that reviewers were required to hold a virtual cache to a high WOW standard. That's 100% subjective. There is no bright line test for WOWSERS!.

 

You can either open up virtuals to anything which creates another set of issues. Or you can try another means of "Limiting" them. Not WOW but perhaps another criteria. Beats me what that may be, but it should be different from WOW. The problems are solvable, or at least you can replace them with different and perhaps more acceptable problems.

[+tozainamboku]

...If virtual caches had never existed on this site and had only been on Waymarking - I seriously doubt we would have very many raging arguments to add them....

 

Where did benchmarks come from? Ideas expand and grow this activity. Some will be viable and some not.

 

A waymark visit is a different thing than a virtual cache. Sometimes the difference doesn't have to be large to spell the difference between success and failure. Coke, Pepsi both have a ton of support. Mountain Dew vs? What? There is no viable substitute it's been tried. I'm not sure that some people can see the difference between a waymark or a virtual cache. A lot can. The substitue has not yet been found.

I agree with RK that even if Waymarking had come first, someone would come here and suggest a virtual cache idea for places where you couldn't place a physical cache. There is something that makes people want to have caches everywhere. I don't really see why you need to have caches in National Parks any more than you need to have caches in Wal*Mart parking lots. Its just that in one case the responsible management has banned caches and in the other the management has been silent so far.

 

With regard to using a virtual as a stage in a multi. I think this is a very good solution. I have done several multis like this that have highlighted historic locations in a town or neighborhood. The idea that there was a cache to find at the end did not detract from my enjoyment of the history and it certainly removed any controversy as to whether I was geocaching.

 

I also agree with RK that the basic idea of Waymarking does not capture what a virtual cache does.

 

Waymarking has attracted many people who have asked to just have a collection of interesting places to visit - perhaps using their GPS to get there. The Waymarking categories allow people to find which waymarks interest them. That is why the same location may be listed as multiple waymarks in different categories. One person may be interested in abandoned factories, another in local history, and another in movie locations. Each could find the location listed in the appropriate category. The activity of visiting a Waymark is very different from that of finding a virutal cache.

 

Virtual caches should have you find something and to prove that you found it by answering a question whose answer could only be found at the site or by taking a picture of the target. I think TPTB made a mistake by not emphasizing this aspect of virtuals and instead coming up with the impossible to define "wow" requirement. There were many "virtuals" that I had no idea what I was supposed to do to claim a find. To me these weren't anything more than waymarks I could visit - it didn't matter how "wow" the place was. But there may be some who still think there should be something extra to be virtual besides having a definite target to find. Different people probably have different definitions as to what this is.

 

I'd like to propose a compromise. Geocaching.com would be limited to physical caches with logs , and there be one or more "special" Waymarking categories for new games that are more like virtual caching. Members can form Waymarking Groups to define their own criteria for what a virtual cache should be. Someone who has an object they want to make into a virtual cache could be directed to these special Waymarking categories. Geocachers who want to find virtual caches could then look for these. Perhaps they could be integrated back into the geocaching website so they show up in searches for the nearest caches. You might have to go to Waymarking.com to create a "virtual" cache, but a cache finder might be able to log their "find" from Geocaching.com.

[+mtn-man]

When I submitted my first Waymark to the "National Registry of Historic Places," I had to find out a lot of information before the Waymark would go through. Presumably, the Category owner never knew about the work I was going through to answer the limiting questions.

They are just asking for accurate information. Virtual caches tended to be a "no work" way to do a cache. If submitting to that category, I would hope you would want to provide the information. That is what the category is for I would think, not just a tick on your counter. It is to give this information about this historic place.

When I went to submit my first WiFi waymark, I couldn't submit it because there were so many limiting questions you needed an IT degree to answer the questions.

That was changed long ago. You might try giving it another shot.

 

If someone chose "Virtual" for their cache type, the form would change and would present limiting questions, such as "Virtual Type."

• Historical
  
• Sculpture
  
• Pre-historical evidence (Petroglyphs, Bedrock Mortars)
  
• National Park (Viewpoint, Historical Building, Geological Formation)
  
• National Wildlife Refuge (Waterfall, Geological Formation)
  

and whatever else GC comes up with.

 

There could be a question about why a Traditional or Multi-cache cannot be placed at that location. There could also be limiting questions about how the Virtual is to be logged. One of my favorite Virtual caches required several questions to be answered and I learned a lot. I never would have understood what I was seeing if I had just signed a log in a hidden container some place close to "SD Historical 1890."

 

If someone goes through the hoops on the "Virtual Cache Submission Page," and it is approved, and cachers get to the location and find it does not live up to what it was stated to be, they can submit an SBA log.

 

A Reviewer should not have any of the level of involvement they had before.

To me, you have described Waymarking. To submit a virtual in this manner, you would have to know what category to select. You do that with Waymarking. You go to the main Waymarking page (equates to your suggested submission form). From there, you look for the category you want your submission to fall in (equates to the form change with the category selections). You then enter your information (just like entering cache data). Limiting logging requirements are there, such as photos and such (equates to your limiting question suggestion for virtuals).

 

Unfortunately, with your suggested format, if people are so confused by the Waymarking site, they would also be as confused with this new type of submission format for virtual caches. All of your suggestions are already incorporated into Waymarking.

[+Miragee]

...If virtual caches had never existed on this site and had only been on Waymarking - I seriously doubt we would have very many raging arguments to add them....

Where did benchmarks come from? Ideas expand and grow this activity. Some will be viable and some not.

 

A waymark visit is a different thing than a virtual cache. Sometimes the difference doesn't have to be large to spell the difference between success and failure. Coke, Pepsi both have a ton of support. Mountain Dew vs? What? There is no viable substitute it's been tried. I'm not sure that some people can see the difference between a waymark or a virtual cache. A lot can. The substitue has not yet been found.

<snip>

 

I also agree with RK that the basic idea of Waymarking does not capture what a virtual cache does.

 

<snip>

 

The activity of visiting a Waymark is very different from that of finding a virutal cache.

 

Virtual caches should have you find something and to prove that you found it by answering a question whose answer could only be found at the site or by taking a picture of the target. I think TPTB made a mistake by not emphasizing this aspect of virtuals and instead coming up with the impossible to define "wow" requirement. There were many "virtuals" that I had no idea what I was supposed to do to claim a find. To me these weren't anything more than waymarks I could visit - it didn't matter how "wow" the place was. But there may be some who still think there should be something extra to be virtual besides having a definite target to find. Different people probably have different definitions as to what this is.

 

<snip>

I just wanted to include the points in your post I especially agree with.

 

As to "The act of visiting a Waymark is very different from that of finding a Virtual cache," the biggest difference is that very few Waymarks ever get visited.

 

I own several Waymarks and only a couple have ever been visited. If they were on this site as Virtual caches, they would get visits because they would be included in PQs and when people are nearby looking for a cache, they would also visit the Virtual cache.

 

I created an Earthcache on Waymarking and it is now a Geocache. I wouldn't want other Waymarks to make that move automatically . . . , but there are many Waymarks that would certainly fit back on this site as Virtual caches.

[+tozainamboku]

All of your suggestions are already incorporated into Waymarking.

 

Which is why I proposed my compromise

If we used the group management and categorization capabilities that are already part of Waymarking we could control virtuals without having to put a whole new scheme in place on Geocaching.com. Of course we have to contend with Waymarker who prefer simple (and universal) logging requirments for visiting a Waymark and generally prefer that as much information as possible be include on the Waymark page. But a separate area like Waymarking Games could be set aside for things that are really written up as virtual caches with something that has to be found. The compromise is for those geocachers who don't like going to a separate site. The "virtual" cache waymarks could be returned in a search for nearest geocaches and look just like virtual caches.

[+Miragee]

When I submitted my first Waymark to the "National Registry of Historic Places," I had to find out a lot of information before the Waymark would go through. Presumably, the Category owner never knew about the work I was going through to answer the limiting questions.

They are just asking for accurate information. Virtual caches tended to be a "no work" way to do a cache. If submitting to that category, I would hope you would want to provide the information. That is what the category is for I would think, not just a tick on your counter. It is to give this information about this historic place.

When I went to submit my first WiFi waymark, I couldn't submit it because there were so many limiting questions you needed an IT degree to answer the questions.

That was changed long ago. You might try giving it another shot.

 

If someone chose "Virtual" for their cache type, the form would change and would present limiting questions, such as "Virtual Type."

• Historical
  
• Sculpture
  
• Pre-historical evidence (Petroglyphs, Bedrock Mortars)
  
• National Park (Viewpoint, Historical Building, Geological Formation)
  
• National Wildlife Refuge (Waterfall, Geological Formation)
  

and whatever else GC comes up with.

 

There could be a question about why a Traditional or Multi-cache cannot be placed at that location. There could also be limiting questions about how the Virtual is to be logged. One of my favorite Virtual caches required several questions to be answered and I learned a lot. I never would have understood what I was seeing if I had just signed a log in a hidden container some place close to "SD Historical 1890."

 

If someone goes through the hoops on the "Virtual Cache Submission Page," and it is approved, and cachers get to the location and find it does not live up to what it was stated to be, they can submit an SBA log.

 

A Reviewer should not have any of the level of involvement they had before.

To me, you have described Waymarking. To submit a virtual in this manner, you would have to know what category to select. You do that with Waymarking. You go to the main Waymarking page (equates to your suggested submission form). From there, you look for the category you want your submission to fall in (equates to the form change with the category selections). You then enter your information (just like entering cache data). Limiting logging requirements are there, such as photos and such (equates to your limiting question suggestion for virtuals).

 

Unfortunately, with your suggested format, if people are so confused by the Waymarking site, they would also be as confused with this new type of submission format for virtual caches. All of your suggestions are already incorporated into Waymarking.

I'm not describing Waymarking, I'm describing the way I think "worthwhile" Virtuals could be added to this site. The group a Virtual would fit in would be broad enough that a cacher could figure it out. If they wanted to show off a Historical Site in their little town, they wouldn't have a problem figuring out it was an Historical Virtual. If the location was in a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge, the cacher wouldn't have any problem figuring out it would be a NPS or NWR Virtual. If the item the cacher wanted others to visit was a Sculpture, they would choose "Sculpture Virtual." Easy peasy.

 

In fact, that step could be removed, however that would be a "limiting" question that the cache owner would have to answer. There would be no category for "Dead bear in the woods" or "Piece of limestone sitting out in a field."

 

Oh, and I knew that about the WiFi Hotspots because I ultimately submitted some after the limiting questions were explained, and loosened up. I just included that to show how limiting the questions could be if GC.com wanted to make sure the quality level was high, and the requirements to be met for a new Virtual cache were very specific.

 

Edit for grammar . . .

Edited May 30, 2007 by Miragee

[+Thrak]

I guess I'm just one more person who LOVES the virtual caches. I did try Waymarking - I even submitted a web cam there. I think it's been listed as being visited twice since I put it there which was right after Waymarking started. I went to the Waymarking site a number of times trying to make myself like it but I failed. I just don't care for it at all and don't plan on going back. It's great that some folks apparently like it but in my case I'd MUCH rather have virtuals back where they started.

 

When I'm on a trip and do a pocket query for the area I always make sure to do the virtuals in the area. I may miss some of the other caches but I tend to make sure I find the virtuals.

[+EraSeek]

Sorry, I haven't read through all of the posts, but there are 2 things I totally dislike about Waymarking.

 

First and foremost "group management" !

Removing ownership of caches removes any personal investment in the cache, it's creativity, and its quality! If this was ever instituted into geocaching I would quit!!

 

Secondly, endless categorization. Confussing, needless, and also a creativity killer! Please, no! One thing that drew me to geocaching was the creative aspect. It has declined, as I knew it would, with the evolution of caching and the increased rules and restrictions. I can live with that. Just don't kill it any further! Please.

 

I'd love to have it back as it was with virtuals included, but not at the expense of making the site Waymarking II.

[Keystone]

Sorry, I haven't read through all of the posts, but there are 2 things I totally dislike about Waymarking.

 

First and foremost "group management" !

Removing ownership of caches removes any personal investment in the cache, it's creativity, and its quality! If this was ever instituted into geocaching I would quit!!

 

Secondly, endless categorization. Confussing, needless, and also a creativity killer! Please, no! One thing that drew me to geocaching was the creative aspect. It has declined, as I knew it would, with the evolution of caching and the increased rules and restrictions. I can live with that. Just don't kill it any further! Please.

 

I'd love to have it back as it was with virtuals included, but not at the expense of making the site Waymarking II.

A type of waymark called a "geocache" is managed by a management group known as the "Volunteer Cache Reviewers." The individual who submits the geocache waymark owns the geocache waymark listing, and the management group reviews the submission for compliance with the category requirements. So, viewed in that light, I truly hope you don't quit geocaching because you are one of the best contributors to that category that I've ever come across.

 

Categorization has several benefits in Waymarking. It allows the user to filter out categories which they find lame or uninteresting, leaving others alone to enjoy them. It allows review and management by a group of people with an abiding interest in the category, who are willing to volunteer their time and bring their knowledge and enjoyment of the category to the management team.

 

Contrast this with Geocaching.com. Wouldn't it be great if there were categories like "park and grabs," "nice hikes in the woods," "scuba caches," "night only caches," etc.? You can filter out the ones you don't want to find. And the reviewer of your scuba cache probably has no knowledge of scuba.

 

When I reviewed virtual cache submissions, 90 percent of them were an annoyance, dealing with subjects in which I had no knowledge or interest, and were quickly archived. When I review waymarks, I enjoy each one because I only see them for the categories where I've volunteered to be a manager. My publication rate is greater than 90 percent.

 

Please, let's not return to a system where the subjective judgement of a small group of reviewers, who may not have any interest in the subject matter, would be brought to bear on a pool of virtual submissions that would yield a publication rate of less than ten percent.

[+Miragee]

Sorry, I haven't read through all of the posts, but there are 2 things I totally dislike about Waymarking.

 

First and foremost "group management" !

Removing ownership of caches removes any personal investment in the cache, it's creativity, and its quality! If this was ever instituted into geocaching I would quit!!

 

Secondly, endless categorization. Confusing, needless, and also a creativity killer! Please, no! One thing that drew me to geocaching was the creative aspect. It has declined, as I knew it would, with the evolution of caching and the increased rules and restrictions. I can live with that. Just don't kill it any further! Please.

 

I'd love to have it back as it was with virtuals included, but not at the expense of making the site Waymarking II.

I agree with you there. When Waymarking was still in "beta" I gave it a try for a while. I got excited when, while looking for a Geocache, we found some Bedrock Mortars, so I thought, "Cool, I'll post these on Waymarking."

 

Not!

 

I had to create a Category to put something on Waymarking that should have already had a category. But, no, the "Petroglyphs" category was too narrow, so my Bedrock Mortars wouldn't fit.

 

Then, since I'm a great bargain hunter, I thought maybe others would like to know where local Thrift Stores were located. Couldn't list those either . . . not until I created a new category.

 

Sheesh. How narrow do the categories have to be?

[+bobndwoods]

I like Virtual caches. Bring them back to Geocaching, please. They allow cachers to bring our game to interesting places where a physical cache is not practical or appropriate.

 

I have never tried Waymarking. I don't want to play another game. I want to Geocache. And, I like finding Virtual caches. I know a lot of other geocachers like finding them too.

 

So what, if there is no container and no log book. It's not about the containers, the logs, the locations, or the numbers. It's about the fun. Virtual caches are fun

[+TrailGators]

Sorry, I haven't read through all of the posts, but there are 2 things I totally dislike about Waymarking.

 

First and foremost "group management" !

Removing ownership of caches removes any personal investment in the cache, it's creativity, and its quality! If this was ever instituted into geocaching I would quit!!

 

Secondly, endless categorization. Confussing, needless, and also a creativity killer! Please, no! One thing that drew me to geocaching was the creative aspect. It has declined, as I knew it would, with the evolution of caching and the increased rules and restrictions. I can live with that. Just don't kill it any further! Please.

 

I'd love to have it back as it was with virtuals included, but not at the expense of making the site Waymarking II.

A type of waymark called a "geocache" is managed by a management group known as the "Volunteer Cache Reviewers." The individual who submits the geocache waymark owns the geocache waymark listing, and the management group reviews the submission for compliance with the category requirements. So, viewed in that light, I truly hope you don't quit geocaching because you are one of the best contributors to that category that I've ever come across.

 

Categorization has several benefits in Waymarking. It allows the user to filter out categories which they find lame or uninteresting, leaving others alone to enjoy them. It allows review and management by a group of people with an abiding interest in the category, who are willing to volunteer their time and bring their knowledge and enjoyment of the category to the management team.

 

Contrast this with Geocaching.com. Wouldn't it be great if there were categories like "park and grabs," "nice hikes in the woods," "scuba caches," "night only caches," etc.? You can filter out the ones you don't want to find. And the reviewer of your scuba cache probably has no knowledge of scuba.

 

When I reviewed virtual cache submissions, 90 percent of them were an annoyance, dealing with subjects in which I had no knowledge or interest, and were quickly archived. When I review waymarks, I enjoy each one because I only see them for the categories where I've volunteered to be a manager. My publication rate is greater than 90 percent.

 

Please, let's not return to a system where the subjective judgement of a small group of reviewers, who may not have any interest in the subject matter, would be brought to bear on a pool of virtual submissions that would yield a publication rate of less than ten percent.

I would love to have categories in geocaching. I think it would really enhance it.

[+mtn-man]

I'm not describing Waymarking, I'm describing the way I think "worthwhile" Virtuals could be added to this site. The group a Virtual would fit in would be broad enough that a cacher could figure it out. If they wanted to show off a Historical Site in their little town, they wouldn't have a problem figuring out it was an Historical Virtual. If the location was in a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge, the cacher wouldn't have any problem figuring out it would be a NPS or NWR Virtual. If the item the cacher wanted others to visit was a Sculpture, they would choose "Sculpture Virtual." Easy peasy.

 

In fact, that step could be removed, however that would be a "limiting" question that the cache owner would have to answer. There would be no category for "Dead bear in the woods" or "Piece of limestone sitting out in a field."

Sorry, but you did describe Waymarking. I detailed it in the parenthesis.

 

Here is the problem with your proposal. Say people want McDonald's virtuals. The site says it doesn't want McDonald's virtuals. Forum topics start saying the site is limiting virtuals too much. Sound familiar? It does to me for sure.

[+mtn-man]

I would love to have categories in geocaching. I think it would really enhance it.

We have that. The categories are traditional caches, multicaches, puzzles/unknown caches, letterbox hybrids, earthcaches, regular event caches, CITO event caches and mega-event caches.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

When I reviewed virtual cache submissions, 90 percent of them were an annoyance, dealing with subjects in which I had no knowledge or interest, and were quickly archived. When I review waymarks, I enjoy each one because I only see them for the categories where I've volunteered to be a manager. My publication rate is greater than 90 percent.

In my posts earlier in this thread, I suggested a possible solution where new Virtual caches would have "value," but the Reviewer wouldn't be involved in determining that. The limiting questions on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" could do that.

 

If some Categories on Waymarking require very specific answers to specific questions before the submission will go through, why wouldn't that work for GC.com, so Virtuals could be brought back?

 

Since cachers would be visiting a Historical site, or a Sculpture, or a viewpoint in a National Park, or a waterfall in a National Wildlife Refuge, it wouldn't be the same type of Review necessary for a container being left behind in a park or a parking lot.

 

If cachers went to the Virtual location and it wasn't what it was "billed" to be, they could post an SBA note.

 

As I said before, just because it was implemented poorly the first time doesn't mean it can't be done better the second time around.

[+TrailGators]

I would love to have categories in geocaching. I think it would really enhance it.

We have that. The categories are traditional caches, multicaches, puzzles/unknown caches, letterbox hybrids, earthcaches, regular event caches, CITO event caches and mega-event caches.

You're a riot Alice. I meant the categories like they have in Waymarking.....

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

When I reviewed virtual cache submissions, 90 percent of them were an annoyance, dealing with subjects in which I had no knowledge or interest, and were quickly archived. When I review waymarks, I enjoy each one because I only see them for the categories where I've volunteered to be a manager. My publication rate is greater than 90 percent.

In my posts earlier in this thread, I suggested a possible solution where new Virtual caches would have "value," but the Reviewer wouldn't be involved in determining that. The limiting questions on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" could do that.

 

If some Categories on Waymarking require very specific answers to specific questions before the submission will go through, why wouldn't that work for GC.com, so Virtuals could be brought back?

 

Since cachers would be visiting a Historical site, or a Sculpture, or a viewpoint in a National Park, or a waterfall in a National Wildlife Refuge, it wouldn't be the same type of Review necessary for a container being left behind in a park or a parking lot.

 

If cachers went to the Virtual location and it wasn't what it was "billed" to be, they could post an SBA note.

 

As I said before, just because it was implemented poorly the first time doesn't mean it can't be done better the second time around.

I think the peer review that Waymarking already has is a great solution. Plus the code has already been written!

[+EraSeek]

Sorry, I haven't read through all of the posts, but there are 2 things I totally dislike about Waymarking.

 

First and foremost "group management" !

Removing ownership of caches removes any personal investment in the cache, it's creativity, and its quality! If this was ever instituted into geocaching I would quit!!

 

Secondly, endless categorization. Confussing, needless, and also a creativity killer! Please, no! One thing that drew me to geocaching was the creative aspect. It has declined, as I knew it would, with the evolution of caching and the increased rules and restrictions. I can live with that. Just don't kill it any further! Please.

 

I'd love to have it back as it was with virtuals included, but not at the expense of making the site Waymarking II.

A type of waymark called a "geocache" is managed by a management group known as the "Volunteer Cache Reviewers." The individual who submits the geocache waymark owns the geocache waymark listing, and the management group reviews the submission for compliance with the category requirements. So, viewed in that light, I truly hope you don't quit geocaching because you are one of the best contributors to that category that I've ever come across.

 

Categorization has several benefits in Waymarking. It allows the user to filter out categories which they find lame or uninteresting, leaving others alone to enjoy them. It allows review and management by a group of people with an abiding interest in the category, who are willing to volunteer their time and bring their knowledge and enjoyment of the category to the management team.

 

Contrast this with Geocaching.com. Wouldn't it be great if there were categories like "park and grabs," "nice hikes in the woods," "scuba caches," "night only caches," etc.? You can filter out the ones you don't want to find. And the reviewer of your scuba cache probably has no knowledge of scuba.

 

When I reviewed virtual cache submissions, 90 percent of them were an annoyance, dealing with subjects in which I had no knowledge or interest, and were quickly archived. When I review waymarks, I enjoy each one because I only see them for the categories where I've volunteered to be a manager. My publication rate is greater than 90 percent.

 

Please, let's not return to a system where the subjective judgement of a small group of reviewers, who may not have any interest in the subject matter, would be brought to bear on a pool of virtual submissions that would yield a publication rate of less than ten percent.

 

I'll probably hate myself for taking this any further, but here goes: The world as I see it;

With geocaching, the cache, the page, the creative input is mine. I put it together, created it, gave it birth. The geocaching site, which I love, has provided me with the tools to present my ideas on the website and listed it. It is a listing service. If my cache does not fall within the parameters of its rules and regulations, it will not list it. If there were another listing site worth a darn I could take the whole thing there, but we all know there is not another site as good as this. I own the cache and the idea for the cache, the site owns the internet. My personal reason for being here is my creative ownership and the enjoyment of others creativity.

 

Along comes Waymarking. I list a waymark, soon my ownership is stripped from me and assigned to group management. Hmm. Do I want to be a manager of my former cache? No.

Ask yourself, what is the difference between personal ownership and group management. Well it is certainly easier to manage. Less creative. Greater formalized beuracracy. Less productive. You could practically automate everything. No one needs to think, or work or make desicions anymore. It is much like the "no-tolerance-policies these days; no personal judgements need be made anymore. Pretty much a nanny-state.

 

I believe in independant thought. Yes it is messy! Yes, there are conflicts! Yes, yes, yes. But this is where creativity thrives. Please keep Geocaching as a place where this can take place.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Along comes Waymarking. I list a waymark, soon my ownership is stripped from me and assigned to group management...

Does this really happen? It hasn't with my waymarks. And I thought that Keystone countered your argument quite well.

Personally, I can't really see much difference between a waymark such as this one (chosen simply because it's top of the list in a category) and a virtual cache, except that the site has a different look and feel (for the moment...I expect that there will be more and more crossover in the next few months!).

 

HH

[+Bambography]

I've had a quick read through but not read everything in depth. However my impression is this. Geocachers would, in general, like to see Virtuals returned to the Geocaching site, Reviewers don't want them back.

The difficulty I see here is that the Reviewers do a cracking job at the moment but if virtuals were to return, would this damage (or even stop) this good work?

I myself would love Virtuals to return. The cache guidelines state that physical caches much not pose security threats or be placed near potential terrorist targets. This prevents physical caches being placed in front of some truely amazing locations such as Big Ben & the Houses of Parliament in London. A virtual here would have a valid place in geocaching.

The overall problem revolves around what and how good a virtual should be. A McDonalds is not a place of interest, Big Ben is. I agree that the subjective descision would have to sit with someone and it looks to me like the cache reviewers do not want to be those people.

[+Miragee]

I've had a quick read through but not read everything in depth. However my impression is this. Geocachers would, in general, like to see Virtuals returned to the Geocaching site, Reviewers don't want them back.

 

The difficulty I see here is that the Reviewers do a cracking job at the moment but if virtuals were to return, would this damage (or even stop) this good work?

 

I myself would love Virtuals to return. The cache guidelines state that physical caches much not pose security threats or be placed near potential terrorist targets. This prevents physical caches being placed in front of some truely amazing locations such as Big Ben & the Houses of Parliament in London. A virtual here would have a valid place in geocaching.

 

The overall problem revolves around what and how good a virtual should be. A McDonalds is not a place of interest, Big Ben is. I agree that the subjective descision would have to sit with someone and it looks to me like the cache reviewers do not want to be those people.

If it was very clear, on the "Virtual Cache Submission Page," that a Virtual cache had to have Historical relevance, or had to be a a location within a National Park/NWR where a physical cache could not be placed, and the form was very specific, such as this one on Waymarking, couldn't that work?

 

Wouldn't the form itself eliminate most of the "subjective" work by the Reviewer?

 

On the form, it would state that anything that did not have significant value, to fit within the very few designations listed (Historical, Sculptural, National Park/NWR, etc.), the cacher was welcome to post the item on Waymarking. That way no one would be upset about not being able to list their favorite McDonalds.

[+Escapades]

We love virtuals also. We just got back from Nashville and the virtuals in that city showed us a lot of interesting historical places we would have missed otherwise.

Mike

[+Western Mass Clan]

To me, you have described Waymarking. To submit a virtual in this manner, you would have to know what category to select. You do that with Waymarking. You go to the main Waymarking page (equates to your suggested submission form). From there, you look for the category you want your submission to fall in (equates to the form change with the category selections). You then enter your information (just like entering cache data). Limiting logging requirements are there, such as photos and such (equates to your limiting question suggestion for virtuals).

 

Hello mtn-man. I thought I would chime in with my 2 cents on Waymarking. The thing that turns me off to Waymarking are all the postings that, when I first look at them, illicit the question, "Why would I treck all the way over there to see that?" It seems to me the way Groundspeak has chosen to implement Waymarking has taken the "Wow" factor to the other extreme. To be frank, most of the listings on WM.com are just ... well ... boring! (Sorry, that is my honest assessment.)

 

To emphasize my point, here is a summary of my 25 closest waymarks from Waymarking.com:

 

Restaurants (2)

Churches (3)

Dr. Suess Memorial (4 - though it is listed 4 times ... so really only 1 waymark here)

Graffiti (1)

Liraries (2)

Benchmark (1)

Stores (3)

Town Halls (2)

Large Bell (1)

Fake Fountain (1)

Blog (1)

Fire Department (1)

Historic Colonial Home (1)

Somebody's Pokemon collection in their house (??Huh??) (1)

 

Of those, I would say the Dr. Suess memorial (listed multiple times) and perhaps the Colonial Home may be worth going to see. Maybe I'm missing the point of Waymarking ... if so I apologize.

 

One could counter my argument by saying, "But Waymarking is a completely different hobby!!" I agree that Waymarking is a significantly different hobby than geocaching - which is why I feel it is not a suitable replacement for virtual caches. I'm a cacher, not a waymarker. Unlike geocaching, Waymarking is not a product that motivates me to go out and log these things. You seem to be pushing the idea Waymarking as a replacement for virtual caches. I would agree with that if you didn't have to wade through dozens of "ho hum" waymarks to find something halfway interesting. As with any business, you want to create a product that your target market will want to use. If your target market is primarily made up of geocachers, then Waymarking seems to have missed the mark. I came along after virtuals were removed, but if virtuals on geocaching.com were supposed to have a "Wow" factor, then my take is that Waymarking.com has taken the "Wow" factor completely out of it in favor of a system that allows people to submit just about everything under the sun. I get the impression that I could go out and randomly snap a picture and log the coordinates of just about anything and the chances are better than average that I'd find a home for it on Waymarking.com. Perhaps good for the number ho's amongst us, but not good if you're in the game to find interesting and fun places to visit. []

 

Just my 2 cents. If you're interested in why I avoid Waymarking, that is why. Thanks!

 

Matt

Edited May 31, 2007 by Western_Mass_Clan

[+TrailGators]

I've had a quick read through but not read everything in depth. However my impression is this. Geocachers would, in general, like to see Virtuals returned to the Geocaching site, Reviewers don't want them back.

 

The difficulty I see here is that the Reviewers do a cracking job at the moment but if virtuals were to return, would this damage (or even stop) this good work?

 

I myself would love Virtuals to return. The cache guidelines state that physical caches much not pose security threats or be placed near potential terrorist targets. This prevents physical caches being placed in front of some truely amazing locations such as Big Ben & the Houses of Parliament in London. A virtual here would have a valid place in geocaching.

 

The overall problem revolves around what and how good a virtual should be. A McDonalds is not a place of interest, Big Ben is. I agree that the subjective descision would have to sit with someone and it looks to me like the cache reviewers do not want to be those people.

If it was very clear, on the "Virtual Cache Submission Page," that a Virtual cache had to have Historical relevance, or had to be a a location within a National Park/NWR where a physical cache could not be placed, and the form was very specific, such as this one on Waymarking, couldn't that work?

 

Wouldn't the form itself eliminate most of the "subjective" work by the Reviewer?

 

On the form, it would state that anything that did not have significant value, to fit within the very few designations listed (Historical, Sculptural, National Park/NWR, etc.), the cacher was welcome to post the item on Waymarking. That way no one would be upset about not being able to list their favorite McDonalds.

 

It would work and it does work. However, I just wish that the acceptance of a new waymark took more than just one vote. It seems like it should require at least take two votes from the peer reviewers.

[+mtn-man]

I would love to have categories in geocaching. I think it would really enhance it.

We have that. The categories are traditional caches, multicaches, puzzles/unknown caches, letterbox hybrids, earthcaches, regular event caches, CITO event caches and mega-event caches.

You're a riot Alice. I meant the categories like they have in Waymarking.....

My comment was serious. I don't appreciate the comment I've made bold. I see no need to complicate geocaching beyond what we have. Replies like this one is one reason why I have tried to stay out of these discussions recently.

 

I'm done with the topic. Again.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Sheesh. How narrow do the categories have to be?

 

Here you go:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification

 

We just need something similar for non biological things since I don't yet think waymarks cover moving things.

 

The game 20 questions probably gives you a good idea on where things would be headed and how to break them down quickly...My family seldom wins in 20 questions so I supposed you need 20 or more layers to drill down into.

[+TrailGators]

I would love to have categories in geocaching. I think it would really enhance it.

We have that. The categories are traditional caches, multicaches, puzzles/unknown caches, letterbox hybrids, earthcaches, regular event caches, CITO event caches and mega-event caches.

You're a riot Alice. I meant the categories like they have in Waymarking.....

My comment was serious. I don't appreciate the comment I've made bold. I see no need to complicate geocaching beyond what we have. Replies like this one is one reason why I have tried to stay out of these discussions recently.

 

I'm done with the topic. Again.

That was a well-known Jackie Gleason quote from the Honeymooners. It was meant to be humorous. I'm really sorry if you took it the wrong way....

 

Anyhow, I replied to Keystone's direct reference to Waymark categories and said that I would love to have categories (like those) in geocaching. The size and type of cache are categories but are not nearly as descriptive and useful as the Waymarking categories.

Edited May 31, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

...Sheesh. How narrow do the categories have to be?

 

Here you go:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_classification

 

We just need something similar for non biological things since I don't yet think waymarks cover moving things.

 

The game 20 questions probably gives you a good idea on where things would be headed and how to break them down quickly...My family seldom wins in 20 questions so I supposed you need 20 or more layers to drill down into.

I love playing 20 questions! I also like playing "I Spy" (colder, warmer).

 

I think categories can be creative and useful. Waymarking has done a good job so far. It doesn't really have to be scientific.

Edited May 31, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Driver Carries Cache]

My only observation...

 

According to Merriam-Webster:

 

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

By definition, a virtual is not a cache, therefore how can it possibly be a geocache? I think this is the delineation made by TPTB when they moved virtuals to Waymarking.com

 

I've found my share of virtuals and while they can be educational, I do find them mildly anticlimactic. I'm fine with the grandfathered ones, and could even see an argument to allow them in National Parks, but for the most part, I'll pass on them.

 

DCC

[+TrailGators]

My only observation...

 

According to Merriam-Webster:

 

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

By definition, a virtual is not a cache, therefore how can it possibly be a geocache? I think this is the delineation made by TPTB when they moved virtuals to Waymarking.com

 

I've found my share of virtuals and while they can be educational, I do find them mildly anticlimactic. I'm fine with the grandfathered ones, and could even see an argument to allow them in National Parks, but for the most part, I'll pass on them.

 

DCC

....and this same reasoning is why they allowed Earthcaches back on GC.com.....

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

I agree with the OP 100%. But why bother? You see, geocaching is all about finding a plastic tupperware filled with broken McCrap. Apparently the object of the game, since the original geocache was a container (buried or not), is to find a physical container. Any variation on that is blasphemy. The minions will tell you so! It doesn't matter that you have a wonderful or interesting location that won't support a physical cache that you'd like to share (and still retain "ownership" of the listing.) No McCrap, no geocache! No McCrap and it can't be listed on this site. Oh, OK... micros with no room for trade still get through but there are plenty of McCrap collectors and dispursers who complain about those and how they'd like for them to be banned, also.

 

But again I ask... Why bother? You'll be shot down for bringing it up.

Posts like this don't help the cause in the least. In fact, they hurt it.

 

They really don't help or hurt it, what really matters is that I sometimes think TPTB don't read this at all when they should be looking at what their market is saying. Oh I forgot, they don't need to do that unless/until a truly successful competitor site can challenge them. I think if they did more of that you wouldn't get frustrated, angry posts like the above.

 

The truth is, Locationless did need to move elsewhere and Waymarking is the perfect fit for them. But the rest (Virts, Earthcaches, Webcam caches) really did not. If Jeremy, etc. thought they oh-so-are-NOT Geocaching, why did he put them on the site a few years ago to begin with? It almost makes you think it's all about the running suspicion I semi-humorously post on here every so often that the real reason for all this is that making them less popular on Waymarking lowers the server overload without totally angrying the Geocaching public by eliminating them altogether.

 

But I do agree that besides making it less of a pain on reviewers, to get them back one would also have to make them more "cheatproof" in this age of Google research that barely if at all existed in say 2001 and makes it easy to do many virtuals without visiting them.

[+mtn-man]

That was a well-known Jackie Gleason quote from the Honeymooners. It was meant to be humorous. I'm really sorry if you took it the wrong way....

Thanks for the clarification and the PM. No worries. Edited May 31, 2007 by mtn-man