My input on virtuals

[+Harriet the Spy]

I don't want to speak for Eraseek, but I think I understand what he is trying to say by "ownership" of the page. Eraseek has some wonderful cache pages, sometimes he puts in his own prose, or adds some unique pictures. (BTW one of my favorite is the old map you put on Barges of Port Gardner) Although I have just started to experiment with Waymarking, it seems the personal touches (like the examples above) are not available to be put on the waymark page, thus making it less of an expression of a person and more a cookie cutter experience.

Edited May 31, 2007 by Harriet the Spy

[+tozainamboku]

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.....

Geocaching has bookmark lists. Start a bookmark list for the "category" you would like to manage. Post in the local forums for people to suggest caches to add to your bookmark list. If enough people started doing this you could ask for the ability for group management of bookmark lists and for enhancements in searching for bookmark list. Perhaps we could have a directory of bookmark list that could be searched by category as well as location of the caches in those list.

[+mtn-man]

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.

There is a very small percentage requesting this. If 100,000 cachers wrote in, it would carry more weight. Twenty-five or fifty or so shows a very small percentage.

[+Road Rabbit]

There is a very small percentage requesting this. If 100,000 cachers wrote in, it would carry more weight. Twenty-five or fifty or so shows a very small percentage.

 

Well then, add my voice to those wanting a return of the virtuals. That'll make it twenty-six or fifty-one or so. I tend hunt virts while traveling for other reasons (business, etc.) when my time and opportunities are limited.

[+ke6n]

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.

Amen, brother! Well said.

[+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.

 

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.

Whoa, insite! Now, if only it would spread...

[+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.....

Geocaching has bookmark lists. Start a bookmark list for the "category" you would like to manage. Post in the local forums for people to suggest caches to add to your bookmark list. If enough people started doing this you could ask for the ability for group management of bookmark lists and for enhancements in searching for bookmark list. Perhaps we could have a directory of bookmark list that could be searched by category as well as location of the caches in those list.

I already manage one bookmark list and it is very cumbersome and clunky compared to a Waymarking category that I also help manage. I'm not looking for suggestions on workarounds. I want to stick to/support the idea that Keystone suggested. If it vanishes into thin air then so be it.....

[+ke6n]

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.

There is a very small percentage requesting this. If 100,000 cachers wrote in, it would carry more weight. Twenty-five or fifty or so shows a very small percentage.

By that same reasoning, I wonder how many have written in requesting that virts never come back. (Besides reviewers.) And so you realize, the world doesn't revolve around the small number of geocachers who actually use the forums. There is a huge silent majority out there who cache and never visit the forums.

[+TheAprilFools]

To add to the chorus, I love virtuals also and would really like them to come back. The biggest problem I have with Waymarking is that its separate from geocaching.

 

But there is one type of virtual that you can still create, they are called earthcaches.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

Waymarking does alllow for a vote by the category officers for the acceptance/rejection of a waymark. I've recently started using this for Best Kept Secrets because I got tired of rejecting submissions that weren't very secret Now all the officers get a chance to vote and the waymark is accepted if the majority of voting officers agree. But most Waymarking categories are not so subjective that a single officer couldn't make a decision. This is just like a cache reviewer deciding if the Geocaching.com guidelines for a cache are met or not. (Waymark submitters can post a reviewer note to provide an explaination of why the waymark meets the guidelines for that category).

 

...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.

Waymarking categories are not meant to be a classification taxonomy. They are simply categories that the group has defined to collect waymarks they are interested in. They can be as broad or as narrow as the group wants - although when the category is submitted to peer review the community is asked to look at this aspect and suggest that the category be made broader or narrower if needed. There has also been some discussion in the Waymarking forum about how categories can be combined if they are too narrow, or split apart if they are too broad. Categories can overlap somewhat and a given location may be a waymark in more than one category. A lot of people who come from a geoacaching background where there is a cache saturation guideline have a problem with this. If I have a virtual cache that is a statue, how can someone else use the same location for a civil war monunment? But this is perfectly acceptable in Waymarking.

[+TrailGators]

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.

Waymarking does alllow for a vote by the category officers for the acceptance/rejection of a waymark. I've recently started using this for Best Kept Secrets because I got tired of rejecting submissions that weren't very secret Now all the officers get a chance to vote and the waymark is accepted if the majority of voting officers agree. But most Waymarking categories are not so subjective that a single officer couldn't make a decision. This is just like a cache reviewer deciding if the Geocaching.com guidelines for a cache are met or not. (Waymark submitters can post a reviewer note to provide an explaination of why the waymark meets the guidelines for that category).

I get emails telling me that a new waymark has been submitted for approval. When I got to review it, I get another message that says that it was already approved. I haven't had any disagreements, but it would be fun to be part of the approval process. Plus it would feel more like a true consensus.

[+bobndwoods]

There is a very small percentage requesting this. If 100,000 cachers wrote in, it would carry more weight. Twenty-five or fifty or so shows a very small percentage.

 

I suggest a scientific test of this theory: bring back virtual caches and see how many complaints you get.

[+ThirstyMick]

I think my biggest problem with Waymarking is that i just don't have the time for another hobby. I've enjoyed most of the virtuals I've done.. I checked out the Waymarking site; it seemed too confusing, and the time it would take to get used to a new site just wasn't worth it to find mcdonalds locations. I honestly don't need another thing to obsess over..

 

I've come across a few letterboxes while geocaching, and letterboxing intrigued me. My stamp when I get around to carving it will probably look like my sig item when i get around to making it (and yes, letterboxing is a very different thing that deserves its own place(s) on the web as its been around so much longer than geocaching; but its interesting that geocaching wanted to absorb it!?) And really, right now I'm a half-a**ed letterboxer; only if it's near a Geocache; but I suspect that when/if i get more into it and obsess over letterboxing (seems a lot of thought is put into every aspect), I'll only find geocaches that are convenient for my letterboxing hunt. So, I have two things to look for when I'm planning a trip..area geocaches and area letterboxes. Not to mention all the various other things I'm planning that have nothing to do with any geocaching-type hobby! I just don't have the time to search for waymarks also (and what's next?!) and keep it all separated in my head what goes on which site to log; I'm still logging my cache finds for Memorial Day weekend (I did the caches where I left trackables first, but even then someone "discovered" a TB before I "dropped" it!). Not to mention the benchmarks...which I don't seek out on their own yet, but I'll log if I stumble across, they do seem to be in nice locations so maybe I'll start hunting them out; you know if I can figure out how to figure out where they are......

 

Basically it was nice to have it all on one site. Maybe Waymarking is for some people, but my time seems to be pretty well taken up; so I probably won't be taking it up. Guess I'll just have to deal with not being able to list those really cool petroglyphs I came across...

[+cache_test_dummies]

When I see posts 'casting a vote' for the return of virtuals, I don't understand what is being asked for.

 

As I see it, on GC.com, there have been three different phases of virtuals. In the First Phase, a smallish number of relatively interesting locations got listed. Once the virtual idea took hold and grew in popularity, we entered the Second Phase, a more anything-goes style of virtual (in which we saw the creation of virtuals ranging from interesting places to a sneaker in the woods). In the Third Stage, we saw the implementation of the "wow" factor, a time in which almost nothing got approved, and the reviewers were under considerable pressure.

 

So when people ask for virtuals to come back, what are they asking for? First Phase virtuals? I don't see that as being possible, since that was then, and this is now. Second Phase virtuals? I don't see that as being acceptable to most people, since there would be no effective way to cull the 'good' virtuals from the 'bad' virtuals (and my guess is the 'bad' would substantially outnumber the 'good'). How about bringing back 'Third Phase' virtuals? Never, ever going to happen.

 

Besides Earthcaches, will some form of non-container cache ever make it back onto GC.com? Something that would give you the equivalent of a 'found it' smiley for finding a place without a cache? Who knows? But if something like this does come to GC.com it won't be the capital V virtuals as we've known them in the past. They can't come back. It's been tried. Once virtuals grew out of the First Phase, they just no longer worked.

 

If something virtual-like ever does make it back to this site, it would have to be different than what we had before. I am a supporter of Waymarking, and have been from the beginning. I think the Waymarking site has done a fantastic job of capturing the spirit of Locationless caches, but I also think that so far, Waymarking has not come close to capturing the spirit of Virtuals (but I still have hope). To those who are truly seeking a better alternative through constructive and thoughtful contributions to topics like this, I appreciate your efforts, even if in they end there is no return of virtuals (such contributions here could ultimately impact Waymarking in a positive manner). To those who are simply casting a 'bring back the virtuals' vote in this discussion, your vote in this topic (or the next twenty that will surely follow) isn't going to do it. A better appoach, IMO, would be to give some serious consideration to what has happened to virtuals in the past, and with that understanding in mind, suggest real-world, workable solutions.

[+Prying Pandora]

I don't see Waymarking as a reasonable substitute for virtuals at all. I think it is more of an improvement on the locationless caches, the big improvement being that if somebody else has already listed a location, you can still visit it and get credit for being there. It is true that the site is awkward to navigate when you're looking for categories and could use some improvement, but it's more organized than locationless caches ever were.

 

What about virtuals then? I love visiting them and wish they would be allowed back in. There are some places that you absolutely cannot hide a physical cache. But there are two sides to every coin.

• They did cause a lot of difficulty for our volunteer reviewers.
  
• While there are many great virtual caches, there are also many nonsensical ones out there that give them a bad name. (please resist the urge to point out that lamp post skirts and guard rail caches are still allowed)
  
• The WOW factor is subjective and cannot be measured.
  

Perhaps a new system for reviewing them could bring them back without as much of the trouble that led to their demise:

• New virtuals would need to be approved by at least two reviewers, so no one reviewer could be blamed for not properly appreciating the WOW factor.
  
• Disputes would be limited to... say, 3 emails to allow the owner to say what they need to say but stop those who just won't give up.
  
• If the hider is rude or abusive to the reviewer, any remaining email dispute "allowance" is revoked.
  

Since I am not a reviewer, there are probably additional problems that I don't know about. Ultimately, any system should be up to them since they're the ones that will take the heat.

[+tozainamboku]

By that same reasoning, I wonder how many have written in requesting that virts never come back.

At least the the one that matters

 

I suggest a scientific test of this theory: bring back virtual caches and see how many complaints you get.

You might be surprised. When they were allowed there were plenty of threads by people who hated virtuals. Of course you could dismiss them by saying that no one is forced to hunt virtuals. One complaint was that virtuals were subject to the same saturation rules as physical caches so a virtual in or near any area where a physical cache could be placed would block the physical cache. The guideline was changed when the virtuals were grandfathered so it may not be so big a problem any more. But, aside from people who never though a virtual was a cache, there were plenty of problems with virtuals and just bringing them back without addressing these problems won't fly.

 

Virtuals seemed like a good idea for places where you couldn't put a physical cache. If you has a specific object to find and a way to confirm that you found it (answering a question or taking a picture) it would be close to caching. At the time there weren't many parks that actually had policies banning physical caches so the meaning of not being able to hide a physical cache was broadly interpreted. Lots of early virtuals were "I had a physical cache here but it kept getting muggled so I'm making it a virtual". And of course the "I found this great spot on vacation but am unable to maintain a physical cache here so I'm making it a virtual". The guidelines were eventually changed on vacation caches to include virtuals and that action continued to get a lot of forum discussion right up till the virtual type was grandfathered. Once the virtual type as establish, many park managers who had not made a decision on allowing caches now had the easy out of saying "We allow caches - only virtuals". It may be that virtuals would be a good way to allow caches in places that don't allow physical caches, but it might also be the case that by having virtuals we are giving land managers an easy way to eliminate physical caches and still say they are pro-caching.

 

Virtuals were also very easy to place and maintain. No need to buy a container, stock it with swag, or maintain the log book. Many more virtuals got placed than anyone expected and most were not particularly interesting. You could compare it to the spew of cheap urban micros in uninteresting places like parking lots. "I asked Wal*Mart for permission to hide a cache in their parking lot and they wouldn't give it, so I'm making it a virtual. Please email the numbers written on this lamp post". This resulted in the "Wow" requirement. A virtual had to be unique and have a special historic, community, or geocaching quality. The "Wow" requirement underwent several revisions because people kept submitting virtual caches that weren't wow. A lot of people had the idea that if there was a plaque or marker it would make a good virtual cache. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues and historical markers were explicitly added to the guidelines as being generally too common to qualify as virtuals. Jeremy kept asking for suggestion to define "wow" better so that there wouldn't be all the posts in the forums where people appealed a reviewer's rejection of their virtual cache. There weren't any workable ideas other than remove the "Wow" requirement.

 

Both virtuals and locationless caches were causing a lot of problems for the reviewers. A moratorium was placed on locationless until a better solution could be found for them. Jeremy and others spent a lot of time thinking about how this would look and as it developed they saw it as a solution to the problem of virtuals as well. There were many people who want to share their favorite fishing spot or a little known historic location with others. There were making these in virtuals because they had no interest in placing a cache there or using the location as a virtual waypoint in a multi. And there were people who enjoyed visiting places like this who didn't want to be bothered by having to find the answer to a particular question or taking a picture of their GPSr. In Waymarking, there would be categories defined by the users to collect waymarks of interesting places they wanted to share. If someone was interested in McDonald's restaurants they could have a category for McDonald's restaurants. If someone was interested in Historic Markers they could have a category for historic markers. Eventually there would be hundreds of categories and almost anything that anyone ever submitted as a virtual cache could be in at least one of these categories. There would be no need for Wow requirements, the fact that there is a category means some users are interested in it. And since it would be outside of geocaching there is no need for saturations rules or limting to places where you can't place a cache. You can even submit a waymark you visited on vacation.

 

But there was a downside. Waymarks are not on Geocaching.com and you don't get a smiley for visiting them. A few people also pointed to some interesting virtual caches that may have told you about the area where they were located but kept the exact nature of what you would find a secret. People would be surprised when they got to the location. Those few virtuals that really capture the idea of finding something using your GPS and verifying that you found it by answering a question or taking a picture were not being reproduced on the Waymarking site. It's not like they didn't try. Originally either the category or the individual waymark could have verification requirments and Waymark owners could delete logs if someone didn't meet the requirements. However, the early waymark adopters took the attitude that the point was to create interesting categories and get them populated with waymarks. Changes were made to the site to give more control to the category managers and take away control from Waymark owners. Verification requirements specific to a waymark is frowned upon. It has become nearly impossible to create a category like I did with Best Kept Secrets to try to have an experience similar to virtual caching.

 

I used to argue that instead of bring virtuals back to Geocaching, Waymarking was where they belonged and I argued for changes to Waymarking to encourage something akin to virtual caches. It was always clear to me that most waymarks would be the "here's a neat place in this category to visit". Most of the rejected virtuals were like this but they would be acceptable in Waymarking. I thought we could have a few Waymarking categories reserved for the "here's something you can find and send email with the answer to prove you found it" type of waymark. I'm not sure if this is welcomed there anymore. My suggestion is to use the Waymarking model of categories managed by user groups. A general requirment for all these categories would be that the coordinates take you to existing physical objects that can be found and verified. List these on Geocaching.com as virtual caches so that geocaches who want to find a virtual don't have to go to another site to look.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't see Waymarking as a reasonable substitute for virtuals at all. I think it is more of an improvement on the locationless caches, the big improvement being that if somebody else has already listed a location, you can still visit it and get credit for being there....

 

Completly changing subjects. What I liked about locationless caches (and only some) was the challenge. One in particular caught my interest. A Frank Lloyd Wright house. We had one in Idaho in Bliss. Some one driving through logged it and that was that. I could not log it at all. As a waymark I could use their work and visit it. But I don't want to do that. I want to complete the challenge the capstone of which would have been a locationless log. I'd rather not see any logs on any locationless so I can do them and enjoy them. Once done then I'd like to see who else figured it out. That's exactly backwards from Waymarking.

 

Back on subject. Waymark Visits vs. Virtual Cache finds. It's more about what aspect of virtuals you enjoyed as to which version you would like better.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You might be surprised. When they were allowed there were plenty of threads by people who hated virtuals. Of course you could dismiss them by saying that no one is forced to hunt virtuals. One complaint was that virtuals were subject to the same saturation rules as physical caches so a virtual in or near any area where a physical cache could be placed would block the physical cache....

 

That last part was a valid complaint. I never understood why they did it. If they come back they should drop proximity as an issue.

 

As proven by an Earth Cache that sits on top of one of my caches you really don't need to have separation issues. If you are looking for a virtual and find a box...that's not it. If you are looking for a box and find a virtual...you probably wouldn't know.

[BioGeo2Chic]

I also like virtuals and would love to be able to place these on geocaching.com. I am still kinda new to caching and virtuals were no longer able to be created and placed on gc.com when I began caching.

 

I enjoy virtuals when I am traveling, especially to National Parks or other federal land. I also think they are a better option for sensitive areas that you want to teach someone else about.

[+Mopar]

I also like virtuals and would love to be able to place these on geocaching.com. I am still kinda new to caching and virtuals were no longer able to be created and placed on gc.com when I began caching.

 

I enjoy virtuals when I am traveling, especially to National Parks or other federal land. I also think they are a better option for sensitive areas that you want to teach someone else about.

 

If you enjoy doing them so much, how come you have never logged one???

[+ke6n]

By that same reasoning, I wonder how many have written in requesting that virts never come back.

At least the the one that matters

And that plays back to my original post in this thread very nicely, the one which grief was directed at me for saying "Why bother?"

[+ke6n]

...You might be surprised. When they were allowed there were plenty of threads by people who hated virtuals. Of course you could dismiss them by saying that no one is forced to hunt virtuals. One complaint was that virtuals were subject to the same saturation rules as physical caches so a virtual in or near any area where a physical cache could be placed would block the physical cache....

 

That last part was a valid complaint. I never understood why they did it. If they come back they should drop proximity as an issue.

Exactly. What's the issue? Nobody has ever mistaken one for the other.

 

[+mtn-man]

...You might be surprised. When they were allowed there were plenty of threads by people who hated virtuals. Of course you could dismiss them by saying that no one is forced to hunt virtuals. One complaint was that virtuals were subject to the same saturation rules as physical caches so a virtual in or near any area where a physical cache could be placed would block the physical cache....

 

That last part was a valid complaint. I never understood why they did it. If they come back they should drop proximity as an issue.

Exactly. What's the issue? Nobody has ever mistaken one for the other.

Keep in mind that some people use things on "virtual" targets as part of their multicaches. It could easily happen where a virtual can give away the answers to the stage of a multicache due to pictures of the virtual being posted on the virtual cache page logs.

[+ke6n]

Keep in mind that some people use things on "virtual" targets as part of their multicaches. It could easily happen where a virtual can give away the answers to the stage of a multicache due to pictures of the virtual being posted on the virtual cache page logs.

OK, valid point. Then again, there are those who take photos and post them of the physical cache at the hiding spot being found so it is a spoiler for everyone else visiting that cache. Granted, with a virtual, such a spoiler would mean nobody would have to physically go to the cache site... I suppose it is mostly a matter of what kind of game a person plays. Do they "cheat" and post finds on caches they've never been to or do they have integrity? I mostly don't care what kind of game others play. I geocache for me and I'll hide things for the enjoyment of others. (Note to self: make up some more hides...)

[+Happy Humphrey]

I thought we could have a few Waymarking categories reserved for the "here's something you can find and send email with the answer to prove you found it" type of waymark. I'm not sure if this is welcomed there anymore.

So can't a virtual cache be added to this category any more? I would have thought that it would solve the whole problem (except for those that can't be bothered to get used to the different format on wm.com).

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

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.

There is a very small percentage requesting this. If 100,000 cachers wrote in, it would carry more weight. Twenty-five or fifty or so shows a very small percentage.

 

I think that is incorrect. Keep in mind that many cachers do not post to the forums. I think more not in raw numbers but in terms of ratios and percents. Like how many cachers post to these forums saying they want virtuals back vs. how many saying they don't and/or love Waymarking. You see more than a couple of forum threads and responses for the former and almost none for the latter.

 

And saying "well there's lots of posts on the Waymarking forums saying they love them", presumably many of them do not geocache and only waymark. This means that virtuals were "taken away" from the geocaching community and totally changed and repackaged for a new and different audience. And I don't even buy that because the lack of or low number of visits to 99% of the waymarks on there I think is more proof.

 

Remember, it is VIRTUALS that people are objecting to, not Locationless. I loved Locationless and miss getting smileys for them, but I can actually understand the need to create Waymarking for them.

[Skippermark]

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

 

I'd be more apt to try Waymarking if there was a "shared" stats page that shows both gecaches and waypoints. If someone doesn't find any waymarks, then that icon doesn't appear.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I have suggested before that virts can still be a stage of a multi.

 

The best cache I found on my trip to GW5 was HL Hunley, a virt in Charleston SC.

 

I saw no reason that virt could not have had a final located outside the cemetery - it doesn't even have to be close by!

 

The category 'Virtual' could still be used to indicate a multi in which the 1st stage is the virtual you want folks to see and the final is a geocache.

 

In fact this would work for every virtual I have ever seen.

 

I found a bunch of virtuals in Ft. Worth last year - if those are ever archived someone could make a virtual tour using the spots as stages 1-6 of a Virtual Tour with the 7th being a geocache final.

 

Solves everything! No one reviews your virtual stages but the finders, you have creativity and ownership control, no subjective 'wow' factor for the Reviewer to deal with - just a cache like any other cache!

 

Maybe I am naive, I just don't see the problem here - if you want to create a virtual, go do it! Just have it lead to a loggable cache.

[+StarBrand]

.....Maybe I am naive, I just don't see the problem here - if you want to create a virtual, go do it! Just have it lead to a loggable cache.

One of the most sensible and honest posts I've seen in a long time. I totally agree!!!

[+Miragee]

.....Maybe I am naive, I just don't see the problem here - if you want to create a virtual, go do it! Just have it lead to a loggable cache.

One of the most sensible and honest posts I've seen in a long time. I totally agree!!!

How would someone learn about what they are seeing when they find a log in a container some distance away from the areas they are taken to with a Virtual like this one, "SD Historical 1890."

 

If I had just gone to the different locations, and then found a logbook to put my name in, I wouldn't have been "forced" to read the article linked to on the cache page and learn about this incredible piece of hidden history. There are many Virtuals like that, probably many that EraSeek found in Washington D.C., where a Multi-cache option just won't work.

 

Since there is another thread now about how few people read the cache pages , how would an interesting location, turned into a Multi, offer the opportunity for education the way many of these wonderful, grandfathered Virtuals do?

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

.....Maybe I am naive, I just don't see the problem here - if you want to create a virtual, go do it! Just have it lead to a loggable cache.

One of the most sensible and honest posts I've seen in a long time. I totally agree!!!

How would someone learn about what they are seeing when they find a log in a container some distance away from the areas they are taken to with a Virtual like this one, "SD Historical 1890."

 

If I had just gone to the different locations, and then found a logbook to put my name in, I wouldn't have been "forced" to read the article linked to on the cache page and learn about this incredible piece of hidden history. There are many Virtuals like that, probably many that EraSeek found in Washington D.C., where a Multi-cache option just won't work.

 

Since there is another thread now about how few people read the cache pages , how would an interesting location, turned into a Multi, offer the opportunity for education the way many of these wonderful, grandfathered Virtuals do?

 

By making reading it be how you learn of the next stage. In a way it's tricky because you obviously need to have a number to add to another to get coords, but maybe if there's nothing numeric at the site you could make that number as simple as "count how many words are in the plaque" or "take the number of letters are in the 10th and 14th words on the plaque and add them up".

 

We recently set out our first such cache like this (in this case you look at the last 4 digits of 2 phone numbers on a sign that you can't avoid reading and add them to 2 numbers to get the coords for the final stage).

[+TrailGators]

.....Maybe I am naive, I just don't see the problem here - if you want to create a virtual, go do it! Just have it lead to a loggable cache.

One of the most sensible and honest posts I've seen in a long time. I totally agree!!!

How would someone learn about what they are seeing when they find a log in a container some distance away from the areas they are taken to with a Virtual like this one, "SD Historical 1890."

 

If I had just gone to the different locations, and then found a logbook to put my name in, I wouldn't have been "forced" to read the article linked to on the cache page and learn about this incredible piece of hidden history. There are many Virtuals like that, probably many that EraSeek found in Washington D.C., where a Multi-cache option just won't work.

I agree.

[+BruceS]

 

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 guess I am missing something here.... With the several waymarks I have I have never felt they were owned by anyone but myself. The group managing the categories I submit to review my waymarks the same as cache reviewers review caches submitted. Their review insures I have the information correct and I follow their guidelines for the category. How I lay out the page, the amount of information I provide beyond the minimum, the number of pictures I embed on the page, that is up to me. When someone visits my waymark I get the email, the group does not. The waymarks are mine... they are not the groups other than to review them.

[+tozainamboku]

By making reading it be how you learn of the next stage. In a way it's tricky because you obviously need to have a number to add to another to get coords, but maybe if there's nothing numeric at the site you could make that number as simple as "count how many words are in the plaque" or "take the number of letters are in the 10th and 14th words on the plaque and add them up".

stage).

You could even use a multiple choice to map answers to numbers. Or count the letters or number of words in the answers.

 

Here are a few of my favorite "virtuals" - they all have an actual cache to find but doing the virtual part to get the final location required reading the signs and learning a lot about the location. All were well put together and had the desired effect of emphasizing the "virtual" part while still having a cache to find. So it can be done.

 

Huntington Beach Historical Walk

Danaus Plexippus

The Silent Service

Eternal Fame - Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills (Tour)

Edendale in the Golden Age of Silent Film

[+TrailGators]

 

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 guess I am missing something here.... With the several waymarks I have I have never felt they were owned by anyone but myself. The group managing the categories I submit to review my waymarks the same as cache reviewers review caches submitted. Their review insures I have the information correct and I follow their guidelines for the category. How I lay out the page, the amount of information I provide beyond the minimum, the number of pictures I embed on the page, that is up to me. When someone visits my waymark I get the email, the group does not. The waymarks are mine... they are not the groups other than to review them.

I didn't understand their point either. The waymark is still yours. The only difference is the review process.

[+EraSeek]

Well then explain it to me what I am missing.

My cache was "A Cache of Palindromes" I believe it was the first cache that could be done internationally.

 

It was moved to Waymarking. Here it is today: http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...1e&exp=True

 

OK, so it is listed as a catagory and I own it. So they have catagories (with is the old cache page) and waypoints (where someone goes to claim a first find for a coordinate), then they have for some reason "visits claims" where someone has already been (seems sensless to me.)

 

I am actively approveing finds (waypoints) and then I learn that a management team will now own my cache! Thanks alot! There goes my cache and ownership. I leave.

 

As I see it, the catagory is the cache page. The waypoints a just finds with pics. The visits?

 

Perhaps I never stuck around long enough to realize there was a way to make waypoints the same as your cache in other catagories. I don't know. I just know what I experienced as a take over of my material.

[+Harriet the Spy]

I found one example rather quickly that state limits what you can and can not do to your page. The City and Town Hall category. http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...10&exp=True

 

It tells you how you are supposed to name your page, what you are required to post pictures of (not for log verification but page layout)

NOTE: No other extraneous elements, such as counters, HTML code (other than to insert photos), or other embellishments will be accepted and will result in a waymark being declined.

 

Want to use some red font instead of black, your listing will be declined. Want to post an image of the town logo? Sorry, not a picture of the building, listing declined. Maybe you want to have a link to the town's web page for more information for the user, sorry declined. Make your listing just the same as any other person's or we aren't going to let you play.

 

It seems that the listing isn't yours, but the groups. It's great if you want to, or don't mind wearing the same uniform as everybody else. But, there are some who desire to be a bit more creative, and don't like being forced to conform to somebody else's idea of what a listing should look like.

[+tozainamboku]

What you had was a locationless cache not a virtual. It may be that since it was one of the first locationless caches it was listed as a virtual. When Waymarking was launched all locationless cache owners were invited to create a Waymarking category for their locationless caches. Some didn't and these became fair game for others to make into a Waymarking category. Perhaps because your cache was mislabeled as a virtual it fell through the cracks. There were a few like this.

 

Group management was added to Waymarking later on. Intead of there being one person to manage the category there would be a group of at least 3 officers. That way new waymarks submitted to a category would sit waiting if the manager went on vacation or took a break from Waymarking. Of course, locationless caches like Coordinate Palindromes mean that people are establishing waymarks that aren't particularly interesting places to visit. The only reason for going there is because the coordinates have a special property. So these waymarks are not particular suited to having people visit them once established. But other categories may be for places that people would like to visit.

[+Renegade Knight]

I found one example rather quickly that state limits what you can and can not do to your page. The City and Town Hall category. http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...10&exp=True

 

It tells you how you are supposed to name your page, what you are required to post pictures of (not for log verification but page layout)

NOTE: No other extraneous elements, such as counters, HTML code (other than to insert photos), or other embellishments will be accepted and will result in a waymark being declined.

 

Want to use some red font instead of black, your listing will be declined. Want to post an image of the town logo? Sorry, not a picture of the building, listing declined. Maybe you want to have a link to the town's web page for more information for the user, sorry declined. Make your listing just the same as any other person's or we aren't going to let you play.

 

It seems that the listing isn't yours, but the groups. It's great if you want to, or don't mind wearing the same uniform as everybody else. But, there are some who desire to be a bit more creative, and don't like being forced to conform to somebody else's idea of what a listing should look like.

Thank you for the clarification. Yuck.

[+Miragee]

You could even use a multiple choice to map answers to numbers. Or count the letters or number of words in the answers.

 

Here are a few of my favorite "virtuals" - they all have an actual cache to find but doing the virtual part to get the final location required reading the signs and learning a lot about the location. All were well put together and had the desired effect of emphasizing the "virtual" part while still having a cache to find. So it can be done.

 

Huntington Beach Historical Walk

Danaus Plexippus

The Silent Service

Eternal Fame - Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills (Tour)

Edendale in the Golden Age of Silent Film

I wonder how many of the caches EraSeek found in Washington, D.C. would be able to have a final container?

 

Also, the cache I linked to above, "SD Historical 1890" does not have any informative signs. The area has changed completely and is a residential and commercial area now. There are some remnants of the amazing Botanical Gardens and "zoo" that existed a long time ago. The best way to do that cache is to visit the location and then do the "learning" back home at your computer where you have time to read the entire article and submit the answers to the cache owner.

 

At the Manzanar Virtual Cache" out in the extremely-desolate Owens Valley area of California, I don't know where the cache owner would hide a final container. Same way with a location like "Mono's Pioneers" and "Movie Flat's Virtual."

 

A final cache in some of these locations might be inaccessible in the winter, but these Virtual caches can be found all year.

[+Renegade Knight]

You could even use a multiple choice to map answers to numbers. Or count the letters or number of words in the answers.

 

Here are a few of my favorite "virtuals" - they all have an actual cache to find but doing the virtual part to get the final location required reading the signs and learning a lot about the location. All were well put together and had the desired effect of emphasizing the "virtual" part while still having a cache to find. So it can be done.

 

Huntington Beach Historical Walk

Danaus Plexippus

The Silent Service

Eternal Fame - Forest Lawn Hollywood Hills (Tour)

Edendale in the Golden Age of Silent Film

I wonder how many of the caches EraSeek found in Washington, D.C. would be able to have a final container?

 

Also, the cache I linked to above, "SD Historical 1890" does not have any informative signs. The area has changed completely and is a residential and commercial area now. There are some remnants of the amazing Botanical Gardens and "zoo" that existed a long time ago. The best way to do that cache is to visit the location and then do the "learning" back home at your computer where you have time to read the entire article and submit the answers to the cache owner.

 

At the Manzanar Virtual Cache" out in the extremely-desolate Owens Valley area of California, I don't know where the cache owner would hide a final container. Same way with a location like "Mono's Pioneers" and "Movie Flat's Virtual."

 

A final cache in some of these locations might be inaccessible in the winter, but these Virtual caches can be found all year.

 

A crappy multi cache is no substitute for a virtual cache. I filter out all multi caches on my PQ's outside my home area. Since I don't know how long a multi will take (you can't filter for that) and I don't know if I will ever get back (you can't filter for that either) to complete it, I'd rather just see the virtual, free and proud the way virtuals were meant to be.

[+EraSeek]

I wonder how many of the caches EraSeek found in Washington, D.C. would be able to have a final container?

 

I would have had to go well off site to find a container. I also had to avoid multi-virtuals for the same reaso that this would not work. There is a lot to see in DC and I was with family. To spend it off site would not have left time for DC and all the important things there. The single virtuals I did there (about a dozen I think) only added to our experience of the historic, the sacred, and the importance. In no way did they detract. This is why virtuals exist. They, nor our trip, was about finding a box.

[+Miragee]

A crappy multi cache is no substitute for a virtual cache. I filter out all multi caches on my PQ's outside my home area. Since I don't know how long a multi will take (you can't filter for that) and I don't know if I will ever get back (you can't filter for that either) to complete it, I'd rather just see the virtual, free and proud the way virtuals were meant to be.

Exactly!

 

When I traveled from California to Colorado, I also filtered out all the Multi-caches, but I got the Virtuals in my PQs and found some places and things I never would have found any other way. Here are some of them and why a final container cannot be hidden any place nearby.

 

Harry and Mike's Place -- Surrounded by either private property or an Indian Reservation

 

Canyon de Chelly - Spider Rock Overlook -- In a National Park and surrounded by Indian Reservations beyond that

 

Four Corners Monument -- Surrounded by an Indian Reservation

 

What Time Is It? -- Very urban location. A multi here would be a crappy micro

 

Memories of Mary -- Fantastic remant of famous amusement park surrounded by "urban renewal"

 

A Truly Great Human Being -- Located in a very large cemetary

 

My long trips last year were made so much better by the cool Virtual caches I found as I drove those 7,000 miles.

[+sar_k9]

Yes, please bring back the virtuals!!

[+TrailGators]

The one thing nice about virtuals is that I can do them with my family. They don't like coming with me to geocache anymore but they haven't wised up to what I am doing by if we swing by a war memorial or some other cool historic site. Having to pull out a micro (just to have a micro) would completely blow it for me...

Edited June 2, 2007 by TrailGators

[+bobndwoods]

With regard to Waymarking, I just don't want to play another game. I don't have enough time to do all the geocaching I want, as it is now.

 

I have suggested before that virts can still be a stage of a multi...

 

...The category 'Virtual' could still be used to indicate a multi in which the 1st stage is the virtual you want folks to see and the final is a geocache....

 

...I just don't see the problem here - if you want to create a virtual, go do it! Just have it lead to a loggable cache.

 

Virtual caches are cool when I travel with the Scouts or with the family because they are quick to locate, and are often located in places we go where a regular cache would not be appropriate or practical. A multicache with virtual stages does not have those same advantages.

Edited June 2, 2007 by bobndwoods

[+TrailGators]

With regard to Waymarking, I just don't want to play another game. I don't have enough time to do all the geocaching I want, as it is now.

 

I have suggested before that virts can still be a stage of a multi...

 

...The category 'Virtual' could still be used to indicate a multi in which the 1st stage is the virtual you want folks to see and the final is a geocache....

 

...I just don't see the problem here - if you want to create a virtual, go do it! Just have it lead to a loggable cache.

 

Virtual caches are cool when I travel with the Scouts or with the family because they are quick to locate, and are often located in places we go where a regular cache would not be appropriate or practical. A multicache with virtual stages does not have those same advantages.

There are some cool waymark categories that I would load into me GPS if any of them were close to here but they all seem to be far away.

[SpaceHiker]

I'm bumping this thread because it's an important issue that Groundspeak needs to deal with. Virtual Caches ARE A NECESSARY CACHE TYPE. Waymarking is not even close to replacing Virtual Caches, but I suppose it's great if I want to find the nearest Starbucks.

 

I have the perfect location for my next cache. Only problem is, I cannot place a traditional cache there because it is so difficult to get there, that I am sure that I will never return, therefore there can be no cache maintenance. Instead, I want visitors to send me a photo of what is there to prove they found it.

 

I'm trying to place caches that push the limit of what is possible, and that can't always be accomplished with a traditional cache. The hike to this cache is only a few miles roundtrip, yet it takes over 8 hours. It is painstakingly difficult. I'm going to maintain this thing? No way. This is a location that people would be amazed to see. Waymarking would spoil the surprise of what is there, assuming there is an actual Waymarking category for this location (which I doubt).

 

If all of the plastic boxes placed next to the road haven't turned me off of Geocaching, the ban on Virtual Caches certainly has. Virtual Caches DO have a place in Geocaching; they are great for those once in a lifetime experiences that are off the beaten path. I realize that not everyone uses Virtual Caches for that purpose (such as the one I found that was placed smack in the tourist trap area of Great Sand Dunes), but used properly, Virtual Caches are a great adventure.

 

BRING THEM BACK!

[vtmtnman]

to a sneaker in the woods

Alright that's it!Does someone have a link to this 'sneaker in the woods' virtual or is it just an extreme example that all of you keep using?This is like the tenth time I've seen this.

[+Mopar]

to a sneaker in the woods

Alright that's it!Does someone have a link to this 'sneaker in the woods' virtual or is it just an extreme example that all of you keep using?This is like the tenth time I've seen this.

Here's the cache, though it's not currently listed as a virtual and all the logs but one have been deleted (the one remaining one I believe is the cache hider's current account). GC3129

 

It caused quite a stir at the time, though since the forum software was changed shortly after that it's kind of hard to search out posts from back then.

 

As for the previous poster.......

If it's such a great spot, I'm sure eventually someone who isn't as lazy as you are will place a REAL cache there.