Virtual Caches: Let's pretend a minute.

[+TrailGators]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

There are waymarks where you can "find" something special like a virtual cache. So these are the ones that could have been/could be virtuals on GC.com. I think most realize that most waymarks would not make good virtuals.

The "WOW" category. That's an exception.

"Wow!" is what I say when I don't find an LPC!

Which reminds me, we were out caching a few weekends ago, and dnf'd a super easy LPC, even after looking for it forever. Everyone's logs kept saying how it took them seconds to find, but nope. We didn't want to give up, we didn't want the humiliation of being the only ones who couldn't find it. We logged DNF's, and afterwards the owner said that they went and checked it and it was right there. Yeah, whatever. I still say they sneeked in a new cache and just said it was there all along.

 

Sorry. Off topic again. I'm having problems with that lately.

No wonder you like Waymarking so much! Back on topic. It seems like waymarks just don't get visited very often. There are some very good waymarks. So I think that if Groundspeak wanted to spark more interest in Waymarking that they could let the better virtual like waymarks that you actually "find," reside on both sites.

There are several reasons why waymarks don't get visited very often. From the sounds of it, a lot of those reasons will be taken care of by Groundspeak when they finish the plans that they have for Waymarking.

I'm sure there are many reasons, but having more exposure on the sister site would help.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I'm staying out of the "wow factor" debate.

 

I suggest requiring explicit permission for new virtual listings. Permission granters contact info must be provided to the reviewerr, and must be listed on the cache page.. I hid one Earthcache, and it took me three trips, just to get the land steward to give me the ok. This requires some effort, and it would most certainly weed out a bunch of haphazard virtual placements.

 

Just curious... But why is it that virtuals must have a much higher standard than many micros?

Exactly!

 

I have asked this over and over!

 

I found 30+ caches yesterday south of Nashville, of those maybe 4 were in interesting locations, but a virt would have to be an extraordinary location?

 

Zero sense in that.

 

From Wikipedia: Arbitrary - Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.

Why can't different types of things listed on a listing web site be subject to different criteria? It's not arbitrary, it's practical. It already happens on GC.com.

 

(I raised the same question in response to one of your posts over in this topic)

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know if this has been suggested, since I haven't read the whole thread, but how about a compromise?

The site's name is geocaching, indicating that a cache should, in some way, be involved. No matter how you twist the definition, a plaque on the side of a building does not a cache make. A waterfall in a National Park is a beautiful location, but it is not a cache. On a similar note, a gathering of nerds eating hotdogs is not a cache. Yet, under the current system, I can increase my find count by locating a virt, locating an earthcache or attending an event.

 

What I propose is that Groundspeak eliminate the find counts for virts, earthcaches and events. Instead, they could have a seperate count called "visits". Under a persons name would be the number of finds they have, and the number of visits they've made. Perhaps then, Groundspeak could feel comfortable bringing back virts? Maybe?

 

I could continue filtering out virts, and those folks who love locating plaques could still get their data from a single source.

[+TrailGators]

What I propose is that Groundspeak eliminate the find counts for virts, earthcaches and events. Instead, they could have a seperate count called "visits". Under a persons name would be the number of finds they have, and the number of visits they've made. Perhaps then, Groundspeak could feel comfortable bringing back virts? Maybe?

 

I could continue filtering out virts, and those folks who love locating plaques could still get their data from a single source.

Aren't you being a tad harsh and maybe a little closed-minded? There are many great virts that are not just "plaques" that you have to "find" things. In the case, of Manzanzar Waterworks Virtual cache you have to find several things including the signature of dead Japanese POW from an old internment camp in central California. The site is very moving and doing the virtual geocache totally adds to the experience. Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

That looks like a kewl place to visit. You get to locate a reservoir inlet, an outlet, something spelled out in pebbles, a couple dates and something "Tommy" wrote. Sounds like a fun place. However, I would argue that an inlet, an outlet, a collection of pebbles, some dates and some words are not a cache. Harsh? How so? The only difference between the existing format and my proposal is that, after you located the inlet, the outlet, a collection of pebbles, some dates and some words, you would get an increase in your "Visit" count, not your "Found Caches" count. Since the folks who located that virt did not find a cache, it seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

How is suggesting a compromise being closed-minded?

 

The most positive aspect of the compromise is that you could continue getting virts through GC, as part of your PQ, and I could continue to ignore them.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+TrailGators]

That looks like a kewl place to visit. You get to locate a reservoir inlet, an outlet, something spelled out in pebbles, a couple dates and something "Tommy" wrote. Sounds like a fun place. However, I would argue that an inlet, an outlet, a collection of pebbles, some dates and some words are not a cache. Harsh? How so? The only difference between the existing format and my proposal is that, after you located the inlet, the outlet, a collection of pebbles, some dates and some words, you would get an increase in your "Visit" count, not your "Found Caches" count. Since the folks who located that virt did not find a cache, it seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

How is suggesting a compromise being closed-minded?

 

The most positive aspect of the compromise is that you could continue getting virts through GC, as part of your PQ, and I could continue to ignore them.

Suggesting a compromise wasn't closed-minded. Your comment about "those folks who love locating plaques" implies that you think that virts are pretty banal and dull. So I gave one example of a cool virt to open your mind a little. There are many more.

 

I could care less about any counts. If that is the worry then don't count them because I don't care. I already suggested having waymarks (that are great virts) separate like benchmarks. I would rather find one of those then any LPC because they are way more fun!

Edited June 4, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

As I was out hiking this afternoon, finding two Terrain '3.5' caches and a Terracache . . . , I realized which Waymark I posted earlier in this thread.

<snip>

 

Earthcaches are fine but not all great virtuals are geologically based.

 

I am serious, can someone post for me a creative "Waymark" that fits the vrtual cache concept? I'd like to view one. I am not talking about Categories. Thanks.

Is a Waymark like this one what you are thinking of?

 

El Cid on Horseback

 

I have a few Waymarks, but only a few of them qualify to be Virtual "caches" on GC.com the way I envision the new Virtuals.

At the time I put that link there, I didn't even give it a thought, but today I remembered that Waymark is in the middle of Balboa Park, a huge, wonderful, ctiy park that has many caches that get found all the time. Even some of the long, multi-stage, time-consuming Multi-caches in that park get found.

 

How many times has that Waymark been "Visited?" Once -- by me -- on a different day than the one when I got the pictures and the information for the original submission.

 

If that was a Virtual on GC.com, it would get found all the time.

 

No wonder I stopped submitting Waymarks . . .

[Clan Riffster]

Your comment about "those folks who love locating plaques" implies that you think that virts are pretty banal and dull.

 

Sorry for the confusion. I can see from my post that you might get that impression. However, that is not an accurate definition of how I feel. In my opinion, virts can be kewl, (like the one you cited), or they can be lame. What they cannot be, (again, just my opinion), is caches, hence my suggestion to keep them alive on the GC site, complete with .gpx files and PQ ability, but remove them from the "Found Cache" count. A while back I attended my first event, and was flabbergasted that my "Found Cache" count increased as a result of my Attended log.

 

I can't help but think that Jeremy might be more amenable to bringing virts back if they didn't change people's find count.

 

Just thinkin'.

[+TrailGators]

As I was out hiking this afternoon, finding two Terrain '3.5' caches and a Terracache . . . , I realized which Waymark I posted earlier in this thread.

<snip>

 

Earthcaches are fine but not all great virtuals are geologically based.

 

I am serious, can someone post for me a creative "Waymark" that fits the vrtual cache concept? I'd like to view one. I am not talking about Categories. Thanks.

Is a Waymark like this one what you are thinking of?

 

El Cid on Horseback

 

I have a few Waymarks, but only a few of them qualify to be Virtual "caches" on GC.com the way I envision the new Virtuals.

At the time I put that link there, I didn't even give it a thought, but today I remembered that Waymark is in the middle of Balboa Park, a huge, wonderful, ctiy park that has many caches that get found all the time. Even some of the long, multi-stage, time-consuming Multi-caches in that park get found.

 

How many times has that Waymark been "Visited?" Once -- by me -- on a different day than the one when I got the pictures and the information for the original submission.

 

If that was a Virtual on GC.com, it would get found all the time.

 

No wonder I stopped submitting Waymarks . . .

The problem is that it doen't show up in PQs. If it showed up in PQs but didn't create a smiley what you think would happen?

[Clan Riffster]

If it showed up in PQs but didn't create a smiley what you think would happen?

I think those folks who like neat places would incorperate virts into their PQ's, whilst those who just like to bump their numbers would not.

[+TrailGators]

Your comment about "those folks who love locating plaques" implies that you think that virts are pretty banal and dull.

 

Sorry for the confusion. I can see from my post that you might get that impression. However, that is not an accurate definition of how I feel. In my opinion, virts can be kewl, (like the one you cited), or they can be lame. What they cannot be, (again, just my opinion), is caches, hence my suggestion to keep them alive on the GC site, complete with .gpx files and PQ ability, but remove them from the "Found Cache" count. A while back I attended my first event, and was flabbergasted that my "Found Cache" count increased as a result of my Attended log.

 

I can't help but think that Jeremy might be more amenable to bringing virts back if they didn't change people's find count.

 

Just thinkin'.

No problem CR. I know we agree on a lot of stuff. Anyhow, my goal is to have fun. Just finding something to get a smiley isn't fun for me. Finding dull caches with a container or without a container isn't fun. Going to an event is fun. When it all comes down to it I don't care about what counts. I think people get way to hung up on that stuff. I liked geocaching better when there was more variety of things to find. I really like Waymarking categories because I can totally customize it to what I enjoy. I wish geocaching had that flexibility.

[+TrailGators]

If it showed up in PQs but didn't create a smiley what you think would happen?

I think those folks who like neat places would incorperate virts into their PQ's, whilst those who just like to bump their numbers would not.

Yep. So what percentage do you think would visit the cool spot?

[+Miragee]

Check out the most recent log for this Virtual I have on one of my Bookmark lists:

 

Manzanar Virtual Cache

 

If that had been moved to Waymarking, no Geocacher would ever have known about it or had such a moving experience.

 

I'm sure there are other places like that which would be wonderful additions to GC.com, but which cannot have a container and a logbook.

[+TrailGators]

Check out the most recent log for this Virtual I have on one of my Bookmark lists:

 

Manzanar Virtual Cache

 

If that had been moved to Waymarking, no Geocacher would ever have known about it or had such a moving experience.

 

I'm sure there are other places like that which would be wonderful additions to GC.com, but which cannot have a container and a logbook.

What's weird is that the people that wrote that log didn't bother doing the the Manzanar Water Works virtual (same area) which is actually a lot more fun to do because you have to find some interesting things in order to log it. I'm not sure what you are supposed to find with the Manzanar virtual, but it would actually make a better waymark because all you do is visit it. It is still a cool spot to visit. Edited June 4, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

Without pulling the other present thread further off topic, I thought it would be fun to explore some issues with virtuals and some what-ifs.

 

There are at least a couple of issues with the old concept of "virtual cache:"

• The problem with land stewards thinking virts are "just as good" as physical caches.
  
• Virtuals caches blocking physical caches.
  
• The "wow factor."
  

Some complaints with the present Waymarking site:

• Hard to navigate. Not "familiar."
  
• Don't get "credit."
  
• More?
  

The goal here is to build a new website, or modify this one, so that it would "bring back" virtuals in a satisfactory way while solving the issues that made them go away in the first place. Make your suggestions and discuss others' input.

 

First you have to agree on the problems.

Land managers liking virtuals over a real cache was/is a problem.

Blocking physical caches should never have been an issue.

WOW: Nope. We can't agree on regular caches, I'm not going to force people to the standard here either.

 

For me it's simple.

A: If this is truly a problem that becomes a defining issue, kill virtuals entirly.

B: Benchmarks don't block caches, neither should virtuals. Done.

C: Maybe this is a good argument for the afinity ratings. Still let creativity and the lack of it rule the day.

 

As for Virtulamarking.com

Benchmarking has it's own site and yet it's part of this site. That's good enough. That's what most of us thought would happen with Locationless instead of the Waymarking thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

Before the Virtuals came to an end on GC.com, the priviledge was being terribly abused. People were submitting a Virtual cache for a dead bear carcass in the woods (certainly a container could have been put there. ) and other equally stupid things.

I hear this all the time in these threads and yet I've never found a virt like that. Are some making the rare exception the rule by claiming this?

 

I don't know. This was already an urban legend by the time I joined. Someone did submit such a virtual (and why the heck would you want to place a container there....) that did get brought up as an example on why we needed WOW, and yet it's the only real example I've ever heard about.

 

Regular caches by rotting carcasses seems to not have killed them off and I've found a few of those...

[+TrailGators]

Before the Virtuals came to an end on GC.com, the priviledge was being terribly abused. People were submitting a Virtual cache for a dead bear carcass in the woods (certainly a container could have been put there. ) and other equally stupid things.

I hear this all the time in these threads and yet I've never found a virt like that. Are some making the rare exception the rule by claiming this?

 

I don't know. This was already an urban legend by the time I joined. Someone did submit such a virtual (and why the heck would you want to place a container there....) that did get brought up as an example on why we needed WOW, and yet it's the only real example I've ever heard about.

 

Regular caches by rotting carcasses seems to not have killed them off and I've found a few of those...

[+tozainamboku]

There is sure are a lot of people suggesting things that were already tried. Does anybody remember the old guideline for submitting virtual caches

1. A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail, beach, or view is NOT a virtual cache. A virtual cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

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

 

3. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

 

4. An original photo posted to the log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the virtual cache owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted. The virtual cache owner is responsible for verifying logs to their cache. The owner is expected to delete/archive logs that don't meet the verification requirements.

 

Virtual Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries and periodically check the physical location. You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. virtual caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by Groundspeak. The virtual cache owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged finds for the virtual cache, and will agree to delete any “found” logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines

 

Logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the virtual cache owner, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the cache owner, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

So a virtual cache had to be a specific object that you could find. It had to be unique and special. It had to have a way to verify a find. And the cache owner was responsible to maintain the logs for their cache. These all seem to be things that people are suggesting. So lets bring back virtuals exactly as they were before.

 

The problem is that before didn't work. Oh sure some people enjoyed finding the virtuals that were there. But you can still find the grandfathered ones. The bigger problem was placing caches. As hard as it is for geocacher to understand what adequate permission means - imaging how hard it is to understand novel and special. Anyone who placed a virtual believed their location was novel and special. It was left to the volunteer reviewers to tell them no. This didn't work. They is no way to have any group of people who can be the arbiters of Wowness for all geocachers. This is why Waymarking does away with wowness and instead has many categories - so that each waymark can decide on which categories are wow to them. And yes, McDonald's Restaurants are Wow to some people - at least some of the time.

 

If we decide to bring back virtuals without a Wow requirement. then prepare for the the complaints that will fill the boards here. You think we have a problem with people wanting to ban LPCs. Just wait till they bring back virtuals without a Wow requirement. It doesn't even matter if virtuals don't block physical cache and you could put a cache right in the same spot as a virtual. Sure you could ignore all virtuals, but people would still complain that all the new virtuals are causing perfomace problems that they clutter the maps rendering them useless. Others would say that they don't want to hide all virtuals because some are worth doing. I just can't imagine allowing virtuals without some kind of Wow requirement, and I just can't imagine some kind of wow requirement that everyone would agree to.

 

I am a little annoyed at some of the people who have been posting in these threads who say they like virtuals because they took you to neat place and then they dis Waymarking. If you just want to go to neat places, Waymarking is the appropriate site. I am 100% opposed to bringing back virtuals if they are just going to be waymarks. Virtuals need to be a specific object you find using latitude and longitude and not just a cool view or a mountain summit or a park. Even it is is specific object, it still should require you to find something and to verify that you found it by answering a question or posting a picture. Anything else is a waymark. I have sympathy that you can't as yet get a GPX file for waymarks in your favorite categories with descriptions you can load in your PDA. I have sympathy that you can't get one GPX file with both waymarks and geocaches so you can do both activities when you visit another city. I have some sympathy (but not much) that you have to go through lots of Waymarking categories to decide that you might not want to visit McDonald's Restaurant but you would like to see Evidence of ancient new world civilization or Ginormous Everyday Objects. I have no sympathy that you don't get a geocaching smiley for visiting a waymark because you do get a Waymarking stat.

[+TrailGators]

I am 100% opposed to bringing back virtuals if they are just going to be waymarks. Virtuals need to be a specific object you find using latitude and longitude and not just a cool view or a mountain summit or a park. Even it is is specific object, it still should require you to find something and to verify that you found it by answering a question or posting a picture. Anything else is a waymark.

I agree. The two Manzanar virts brought up are great examples of the differences between waymarks and virts. One is clearly a waymark and the other is clearly a virt.

 

P.S. I wish you had read my suggestion about allowing certain waymarks (that are true virts and get peer reviewed to ensure "wow") to reside on both sites. I think it would work.

Edited June 4, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

...If you just want to go to neat places, Waymarking is the appropriate site. I am 100% opposed to bringing back virtuals if they are just going to be waymarks. Virtuals need to be a specific object you find using latitude and longitude ...

 

Agreed.

 

I'll kick in a catch. It would not be appropriate to place a cache where it can be confused for a peak register. Thus signing the peak register and then logging the virtual cache...would be a solution. (all on a mountain peak).

 

But I suspect that you would agree that this is viable with a virtual.

[+wandererrob]

otherwise what is the point of going somewhere to find somethat that give you no physical staisfation?

 

The location IS the physical satisfaction, the cache is just a bonus.

[+wandererrob]

• Some complaints with the present Waymarking site:
  • Hard to navigate. Not "familiar."
    
  • Don't get "credit."
    
  • More?
    

The goal here is to build a new website, or modify this one, so that it would "bring back" virtuals in a satisfactory way while solving the issues that made them go away in the first place. Make your suggestions and discuss others' input.

 

The lack of PQs is my biggest complaint with Waymarking. It's rather tedious to add a bunch of waymarks before a trip where I like to load up waypoints and such (geocaches and waymarks alike) before I leave since I likely won't have internet access.

[+MountainMudbug]

As for Virtulamarking.com

Benchmarking has it's own site and yet it's part of this site. That's good enough. That's what most of us thought would happen with Locationless instead of the Waymarking thing.

 

This is where I took issue with the whole moving Virtuals and Locationless to the Waymarking site. It was touted as being a good solution for us Virtual lovers. There were given little or no details given (that I'm aware of) while it was being constructed. I had hoped it would be like you say above, that they'd simply move the Virtuals aside like the Benchmarks section, and having the finds tally up seperately, just like benchmarks.

 

Instead, the whole system much more resembles Locationless rather than Virtual. So it really isn't the same thing, it is more a solution for Locationless rather than Virtual..... I don't care for the site and if the geocaching site had had the same format when I'd found that, I probably wouldn't be caching.

I mean I appreciate the effort and everything, but it just doesn't work for me.

 

And for the last time, I couldn't care less about the numbers. I still haven't logged some of my Traditional cache, Virtual cache, and Earthcache finds. So let me not hear anyone say how I'd be logging Waymarks if it would increase my "find" count

 

I can see both sides of the issue, I understand where admin is coming from with the no-container problem, but I just wish it had played out differently. Still, I'm glad I didn't have to mess with the change.

[+wandererrob]

I had hoped it would be like you say above, that they'd simply move the Virtuals aside like the Benchmarks section

 

That certainly would have been a better option in my opinion. But it seems they preferred to take Waymarking in an entirely different direction. I'm guessing their intent was for Waymarking to stand entirely on its own.

[+Renegade Knight]

...In my opinion, virts can be kewl, (like the one you cited), or they can be lame. What they cannot be, (again, just my opinion), is caches, hence my suggestion to keep them alive on the GC site, complete with .gpx files and PQ ability, but remove them from the "Found Cache" count....

 

First, you are right in that there is no cache with a virtual any more than there is with a benchmark. They aren't caches but they do capture some of the thrill of the hunt in a way that waypoint.org or Waymarking doesn't. They are location based do require a hunt, etc. That said, virtuals add to your virtual find count. I'm not sure it matters if they are part of your "overall count" since someone else will figure out how to do the math for all location based finds. Reversing the math isn't that hard either.

 

Maybe what we need is a new term for something that captures the essence that makes caching fun, even though some have a box and some don't.

[+TrailGators]

...In my opinion, virts can be kewl, (like the one you cited), or they can be lame. What they cannot be, (again, just my opinion), is caches, hence my suggestion to keep them alive on the GC site, complete with .gpx files and PQ ability, but remove them from the "Found Cache" count....

 

First, you are right in that there is no cache with a virtual any more than there is with a benchmark. They aren't caches but they do capture some of the thrill of the hunt in a way that waypoint.org or Waymarking doesn't. They are location based do require a hunt, etc. That said, virtuals add to your virtual find count. I'm not sure it matters if they are part of your "overall count" since someone else will figure out how to do the math for all location based finds. Reversing the math isn't that hard either.

 

Maybe what we need is a new term for something that captures the essence that makes caching fun, even though some have a box and some don't.

It is all about fun for me. I am not anal retentive about having a container to have fun. So I like the idea of having a link to our "desired" waymarks (they are very easy to filter on the Waymarking site) on our GC page. Then we could add those to our PQs.

[+tozainamboku]

...In my opinion, virts can be kewl, (like the one you cited), or they can be lame. What they cannot be, (again, just my opinion), is caches, hence my suggestion to keep them alive on the GC site, complete with .gpx files and PQ ability, but remove them from the "Found Cache" count....

 

First, you are right in that there is no cache with a virtual any more than there is with a benchmark. They aren't caches but they do capture some of the thrill of the hunt in a way that waypoint.org or Waymarking doesn't. They are location based do require a hunt, etc. That said, virtuals add to your virtual find count. I'm not sure it matters if they are part of your "overall count" since someone else will figure out how to do the math for all location based finds. Reversing the math isn't that hard either.

 

Maybe what we need is a new term for something that captures the essence that makes caching fun, even though some have a box and some don't.

It is all about fun for me. I am not anal retentive about having a container to have fun. So I like the idea of having a link to our "desired" waymarks (they are very easy to filter on the Waymarking site) on our GC page. Then we could add those to our PQs.

Four types of people

1. Caching purists - a cache must have a container and a log to sign. Trying to require "wow" for a location just leads to angst. Keep it simple and give me something to find and a log to sign. Of course these people could also complain about all the puzzle/mystery type caches. Since when should solving a puzzle have anything to do with geocaching?
   
2. Virtual caches are just like caches with something to find and a way to verify you found it. Particularly in locations where physical caches are not allowed, having the option to use some physical object already at the site in place of hiding a container is nice. Of course one could often just use the virtual as a waypoint in a multi where the final is a physical cache - despite some push back from some that the multi takes away from the virtual or that a multi takes longer to do.
   
3. Virtual caches take me to cool places (and sometime so do physical caches). I like finding hidden tupperware but I also like visiting cool places. But now we have a problem of deciding which places are cool enough to deserve a cache - either physical or virtual. One can use Waymarking to find interesting places and then check if there are caches nearby to hunt while visiting the spot. Or if you are willing to find LPCs and stop once and awhile to look at an historic marker or a war memorial, it would be niced to get a PQ that has both caches and waymarks. Sometimes, a virtual cache can be a surprise. You might be lured by a mysterious write-up and discover something you didn't expect to see. It's too bad that other than Best Kept Secrets, there have been no other Waymarking categories to support this kind of experience. Without some more Waymarking categories like this, this one virtual type experience is missing.
   
4. Who wants to find a 35mm film can in a light pole. Just take me somplace interesting. Waymarking has a attracted a whole new group of people who can't understand why anyone would spend time looking for a box of broken McToys or a micro hidded in a parking lot. They can load up locations of place in the categories they find interesting and start visiting.
   

[+TrailGators]

...In my opinion, virts can be kewl, (like the one you cited), or they can be lame. What they cannot be, (again, just my opinion), is caches, hence my suggestion to keep them alive on the GC site, complete with .gpx files and PQ ability, but remove them from the "Found Cache" count....

 

First, you are right in that there is no cache with a virtual any more than there is with a benchmark. They aren't caches but they do capture some of the thrill of the hunt in a way that waypoint.org or Waymarking doesn't. They are location based do require a hunt, etc. That said, virtuals add to your virtual find count. I'm not sure it matters if they are part of your "overall count" since someone else will figure out how to do the math for all location based finds. Reversing the math isn't that hard either.

 

Maybe what we need is a new term for something that captures the essence that makes caching fun, even though some have a box and some don't.

It is all about fun for me. I am not anal retentive about having a container to have fun. So I like the idea of having a link to our "desired" waymarks (they are very easy to filter on the Waymarking site) on our GC page. Then we could add those to our PQs.

Four types of people

1. Caching purists - a cache must have a container and a log to sign. Trying to require "wow" for a location just leads to angst. Keep it simple and give me something to find and a log to sign. Of course these people could also complain about all the puzzle/mystery type caches. Since when should solving a puzzle have anything to do with geocaching?
   
2. Virtual caches are just like caches with something to find and a way to verify you found it. Particularly in locations where physical caches are not allowed, having the option to use some physical object already at the site in place of hiding a container is nice. Of course one could often just use the virtual as a waypoint in a multi where the final is a physical cache - despite some push back from some that the multi takes away from the virtual or that a multi takes longer to do.
   
3. Virtual caches take me to cool places (and sometime so do physical caches). I like finding hidden tupperware but I also like visiting cool places. But now we have a problem of deciding which places are cool enough to deserve a cache - either physical or virtual. One can use Waymarking to find interesting places and then check if there are caches nearby to hunt while visiting the spot. Or if you are willing to find LPCs and stop once and awhile to look at an historic marker or a war memorial, it would be niced to get a PQ that has both caches and waymarks. Sometimes, a virtual cache can be a surprise. You might be lured by a mysterious write-up and discover something you didn't expect to see. It's too bad that other than Best Kept Secrets, there have been no other Waymarking categories to support this kind of experience. Without some more Waymarking categories like this, this one virtual type experience is missing.
   
4. Who wants to find a 35mm film can in a light pole. Just take me somplace interesting. Waymarking has a attracted a whole new group of people who can't understand why anyone would spend time looking for a box of broken McToys or a micro hidded in a parking lot. They can load up locations of place in the categories they find interesting and start visiting.
   

I think there must be more than four types. I don't fit into any of those types.

[Clan Riffster]

Other than the anti-puzzle twist, I suppose I'd almost fit into the Purist category. For me it's just semantics. This is a cache:

This is not:

 

I reckon my virtual disdain might also be tied to the ALR aspect of the genre. Something that is an instant turn off for me is reading a (non-virt) cache page and seeing some nonsense about "To claim credit for this find you must E-mail me ________" If the cache is kewl enough, I'll jump through the hoops, but it definitely puts a damper on my enthusiasm. My name is in the logbook. If, for some reason, you can't trust your fellow cachers, and you're too lazy to check the logbook, perhaps this game is not for you? Obviously, with a virt, there is no logbook to check, so, although I'm not a fan of sending an E-mail along with my found log, I can understand the reasoning behind it.

 

Which leads to another question: With the new ALR=Puzzle guideline, if virts came back, would they all need to be puzzles?

[+wandererrob]

With the new ALR=Puzzle guideline

 

??

 

 

oh, additional logging requirements... got it now.

Edited June 4, 2007 by wandererrob

[+Renegade Knight]

With the new ALR=Puzzle guideline

 

??

 

 

oh, additional logging requirements... got it now.

 

You got me and I knew what ALR was. A new guidelines might be a suggestion by some regulars who hate ALR's but I'm not sure it really changes the cache type if you want walk up to the cache and find it.

[+TrailGators]

Which leads to another question: With the new ALR=Puzzle guideline, if virts came back, would they all need to be puzzles?

Virts wouldn't have an "additional" logging requirement because they don't have a logbook. So they would just have LRs. Anyhow, we already have grandfathered virts on the site so I'm not sure why it would need to be changed.....

[+Miragee]

Just thought I would say "Thank You" to GC.com for keeping the Grandfathered Virtual Caches on this Site, so I could revisit this fantastic Virtual yesterday, "~OCEAN TO OCEAN~.

 

On the trip, I remembered anther Waymark of mine, "Painted Rock Petroglyph Site." It has never been visited, except by me . . .

 

There is a nearby Geocache which has been found more than a dozen of times since I created the Waymark, even with its remote location in the hot Arizona desert.

 

My Petroglyph Waymark would make an excellent Virtual cache on GC.com, and then maybe people would have another opportunity for a learning experience during their travels, as I did on the Ocean to Ocean bridge yesterday.

 

As a Waymark, my Painted Rock Petroglyph Site is only taking up space on a server as an HTML file.