+John Stead Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Can anyone tell me if they have been able to temporarily disable and then re-enable a virtual, or does the system treat it as archived. I ask because I have a virtual in Prague which attracts a lot of hits but where at the moment a flower bed has grown so high as to obscure the information I request. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 AFAIK you can disable then re-enable such a cache. If you want to try it and find you have a problem get in touch with me and I'll see if I can help. Quote Link to comment
+pklong Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 Can anyone tell me if they have been able to temporarily disable and then re-enable a virtual, or does the system treat it as archived. I ask because I have a virtual in Prague which attracts a lot of hits but where at the moment a flower bed has grown so high as to obscure the information I request. I really wish Groundspeak would bring back the virtuals, most of them I have sought out have been in interesting places. Philip Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I really wish Groundspeak would bring back the virtuals, most of them I have sought out have been in interesting places. This probably belongs in one of the many tedious "bring back virtuals" threads rather than here. Quote Link to comment
+John Stead Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 Thanks Lacto for your reply - with that I will be happy for the thread to be closed before it goes further off tangent, having resisted myself bemoaning the loss of virts - oh dear now I have! Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 ... having resisted myself bemoaning the loss of virts - oh dear now I have! I managed to resist mentioning that there are over 50000 virtuals available in Waymarking.com - oh no, I didn't Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Thanks Lacto for your reply - with that I will be happy for the thread to be closed before it goes further off tangent, having resisted myself bemoaning the loss of virts - oh dear now I have! I think I'll leave this thread open for a while just in case people want to expound on the fate of virtual caches Quote Link to comment
+Team Sieni Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 I think I'll leave this thread open for a while just in case people want to expound on the fate of virtual caches :laughing: Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 ... having resisted myself bemoaning the loss of virts - oh dear now I have! I managed to resist mentioning that there are over 50000 virtuals available in Waymarking.com - oh no, I didn't Nope there are none there at all. There are however apparently 50,000 waymarks. Quote Link to comment
+4 Badgers Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 Bring back Virtuals and Webcam caches, we say!!! Quote Link to comment
markandlynn Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 From reading forum posts by TPTB Waymarking and geocaching will be integrated at some point i would assume (dangerous choice of word !) that stats would get integrated at that point as well. Both sites share profile info at the moment so a basic level of integration allready exisits. Quote Link to comment
+Team Sieni Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 From reading forum posts by TPTB Waymarking and geocaching will be integrated at some point weocaching? geomarching? Quote Link to comment
+Span 24 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 ... having resisted myself bemoaning the loss of virts - oh dear now I have! I managed to resist mentioning that there are over 50000 virtuals available in Waymarking.com - oh no, I didn't And 49992 of them absolutely SUCK! I truely hate them and will not even browse the site anymore. Dupes, bad coords, etc not to mention the CRAP that anyone can provide coords to. Sorry, I digress... We have many sites in our area which are perfect cache sites but because of their historical significance most of these I would not want to 'deface' by placing a physical there. I want them posted on GC.com and want my fellow cachers to get credit for them. But alas, it is not to be. BTW: Just ~why~ did CG.com do away with virtuals anyway? Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 (edited) And 49992 of them absolutely SUCK! I truely hate them and will not even browse the site anymore. Dupes, bad coords, etc not to mention the CRAP that anyone can provide coords to. Sorry, I digress... ... BTW: Just ~why~ did CG.com do away with virtuals anyway? Thanks for your comments: a very useful contribution... I'm not a big fan of virtuals/waymarks but I've recently logged a few in Germany, Spain and the IOM and there was nothing wrong with them perhaps you chose an unsuitable category? Anyway, there are several threads elsewhere discussing virtuals ad nauseum and I can certainly see why they were given a new interface. The argument against waymarks basically boils down to that people can't be bothered to get used to the more sophisticated interface, they don't like some of the categories but are unable to avoid looking at them (for some unexplained reason) and it doesn't add to their geocaching stats. Edited July 15, 2007 by Happy Humphrey Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 BTW: Just ~why~ did CG.com do away with virtuals anyway? Because they were causing issues for physical caches with landowners in the US, who were refusing to allow physical caches as there was Virtuals available. The amount of rubbish that was being submitted as Virtuals towards the end of the category [including name the make of sneaker (trainer)], forced Groundspeak to bring in a mandatory WoW factor. This alone caused the Reviewer community extreme hassle when they turned down the virtual submission, and lead to a large no of complaints making it into the forums. Groundspeak wished to return to geocachings roots of Hide and seek a container with a Log Book. And before anyone points out Earthcaches as being a Type of Virtual. Groundspeak lists them on GC on behalf of GSA [Geological Society of America], GC Reviewers have no dealings with them, which is why they have to be first submitted on a separate site. Quote Link to comment
+Team Sieni Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 And 49992 of them absolutely SUCK! I truely hate them and will not even browse the site anymore. Dupes, bad coords, etc not to mention the CRAP that anyone can provide coords to. Welcome to the UK forum. Thanks for your well written and well argued contribution. Not. Quote Link to comment
+Span 24 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 And 49992 of them absolutely SUCK! I truely hate them and will not even browse the site anymore. Dupes, bad coords, etc not to mention the CRAP that anyone can provide coords to. Welcome to the UK forum. Thanks for your well written and well argued contribution. Not. Well, some things never change. Firstly, I was perusing the forums searching out virtual cache threads and did not realize that I had posted to the UK forum, my mistake. I wanted to leave things alone following the first criticism but I now imagine that if I don't respond they will just keep coming. Secondly, had I realized this I would not have posted. I could go on and on about the six years I spent in the UK and how well excepted the garbage stuff found on WM.com would likely be recieved there or how I would expect that my ~opinion~ (no matter how well written) would be responded to with the absolute best of British candor. But I love my European friends (I have many there) and would not think about forcing my ideals upon them. Are we conserving bits and bytes in Europe now? I apologise for posting negativity to your forum. Good-day Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 I would welcome ANYONE to post in the UK section of the Geocaching.com forums. I also welcome all opinions as long as they abide by the usual forum guidelines (as yours did). Quote Link to comment
+maxkim Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 We enjoy well chosen virtual caches. Indeed we only missed out by a few days on setting up a group of six, placed all over West Yorkshire, which led onto a final cache in the county. TPTB thought long and hard before refusing. I now have six pointless micros out which do not add to the game at all, indeed they keep going missing due to thier special locations, but thats life. There are occasions when a virtual cache is the right and proper cache for a spcific location.... Here's to the hope they will be brought back. MaxKim. Quote Link to comment
+Jango & Boba Fett Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Virtuals and reverse virtuals are alive and kicking on two other listings sites should you wish to do them. I rather enjoy reverse virtuals as it is fun comparing what others have found around the world and am only sorry that we took up caching too late to enjoy this aspect on GC.com too. Quote Link to comment
Edgemaster Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 (edited) (Oh, I like waymarks - I have 4, and have about 4 more in the in-progress queue) Edited July 15, 2007 by Edgemaster Quote Link to comment
+bones1 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Just a short reply to say how we have enjoyed virtuals over the last 3 years,all different and all in interesting places.i hope they come back with some new rules so there would not be any problems.patandjeff=bones1. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.