Jump to content

Virtual caches


nubb1337

Recommended Posts

Does geocacheing.com support virtual caches? I looked for them but couldn't find any.

 

The old ones were grandfathered in, but they no longer allow the publishing of new ones. You have to go to Waymarking.com to pursue similar such endeavors, now.

 

Unless Waymarking has changed significantly in the last week or so, there are no virtual caches there.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

Does geocacheing.com support virtual caches? I looked for them but couldn't find any.

 

The old ones were grandfathered in, but they no longer allow the publishing of new ones. You have to go to Waymarking.com to pursue similar such endeavors, now.

 

Unless Waymarking has changed significantly in the last week or so, there are no virtual caches there.

 

Be careful now, he did say "similar"". ;)

Link to post

Unless Waymarking has changed significantly in the last week or so, there are no virtual caches there.

 

Be careful now, he did say "similar"". :ph34r:

 

Not by even the most loose definition of the word. Similar = Having a likeness or resemblance. By definition, Waymarking is "similar" to scrapbooking. Scrapbooking = the hobby of creating compilations in scrapbook albums, such as keepsakes, pictures, periodical articles, etc.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

Unless Waymarking has changed significantly in the last week or so, there are no virtual caches there.

 

Be careful now, he did say "similar"". :ph34r:

 

Not by even the most loose definition of the word. Similar = Having a likeness or resemblance. By definition, Waymarking is "similar" to scrapbooking. Scrapbooking = the hobby of creating compilations in scrapbook albums, such as keepsakes, pictures, periodical articles, etc.

Well, now, that's an iffy one and "scrapbooking" is off the mark. Once a Waymark is posted and established in a Waymark Category, one can log that single Waymark just like a virtual the only exception being that there are no ALRs required. One can armchair as many as one would like, but it's darned near virtual in nature. Dunno if you can "visit" a scrapbook or not.

 

Posting a new Waymark is like/similar/about the same as listing a locationless cache used to be on GC.COM. The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

Link to post

The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

 

Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

My 2 cents is that Waymarking.com SUCKS! Lets swing Virtuals back into the Geocaching.com.

 

The Steaks

Respectful, articulate and logically reasoned posts like this ought to be just the ticket to convince Groundspeak to shut down the Waymarking website and go back to the good old days. Great post!

Link to post

The problem is not that the thread is a duplicate. The problem is that posters are going off topic to grind their personal axes.

 

It is the same, virtual caches. And, as always, the unrelated wm gets brought up.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

My 2 cents is that WaymarkingGeocaching.com SUCKS! Lets swing Virtuals back geocaches into the Geocaching.com a category at Waymarking.com.

 

The Steaks

 

I fixed your flame for you and I accept your apology.

Link to post

My 2 cents is that Waymarking.com SUCKS! Lets swing Virtuals back into Geocaching.com.

 

The Steaks

 

I fixedBroke your flame for you and I accept your apology.

 

Now its fixed. As was said, Direct and to the point.

 

The Steaks

Link to post

Many of the Virtual Caches were far more interesting to do than many of the micros...including mine.

You're beating a dead horse, the powers that be would rather have 10,000 crummy micros then one good virtual.

Link to post

The problem is not that the thread is a duplicate. The problem is that posters are going off topic to grind their personal axes.

 

It is the same, virtual caches. And, as always, the unrelated wm gets brought up.

 

And as always you claim they are not the same.

 

Here we go "loobe loo"

Link to post
Many of the Virtual Caches were far more interesting to do than many of the micros...including mine.
However, now you can eat at a McDonalds to score a Waymark, and then you can go out into the parking lot and lift up a lamp post cover to score a micro! Ooh aah! :anibad:

 

Mr. OP, there are many grandfathered virtuals still around! :ph34r:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to post

The problem is that one kind of cache was killed and yet other types that have the same exact "non-wow" issues remain. There is an obvious inconsistency there and it is a very valid point.

 

I think the peer review system that Waymarking uses could work for managing new virtuals on GC.com. :lol:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to post

And as always you claim they are not the same.

 

Here we go "loobe loo"

 

Other than possibly stating the obvious, was there a point to this post other than to try to take this off topic?

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to post

And as always you claim they are not the same.

 

Here we go "loobe loo"

 

Other than possibly stating the obvious, was there a point to this post other than to try to take this off topic?

The same thing could be said about every post since #3.

Link to post

And as always you claim they are not the same.

 

Here we go "loobe loo"

 

Other than possibly stating the obvious, was there a point to this post other than to try to take this off topic?

The same thing could be said about every post since #3.

So should they should kill every thread once the question has been answered? Unless of course you would like to hear the same answer expressed 50 different ways....

 

I think once the question has been answered, it should be OK to open the discussion up as to why virtuals are hard to find these days.

Link to post

The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

 

Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

You had your chance to shape Waymarking into something even better than how virtuals and locationless caches were on geocaching.com. I guess there just weren't enough "good" virtuals after all...that fast food waymarks are much more popular. More proof that virtuals are carp.

Link to post

The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

 

Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

You had your chance to shape Waymarking into something even better than how virtuals and locationless caches were on geocaching.com. I guess there just weren't enough "good" virtuals after all...that fast food waymarks are much more popular. More proof that virtuals are carp.
Virts are spots. GCs are containers in spots. So I don't think it's fair to say every spot is carp. To be honest, lifting up a lamp post to find a micro doesn't make the cool spots any better for me.
Link to post

The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

 

Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

You had your chance to shape Waymarking into something even better than how virtuals and locationless caches were on geocaching.com. I guess there just weren't enough "good" virtuals after all...that fast food waymarks are much more popular. More proof that virtuals are carp.
Virts are spots. GCs are containers in spots. So I don't think it's fair to say every spot is carp. To be honest, lifting up a lamp post to find a micro doesn't make the cool spots any better for me.

I've never hidden a cache in a lamp post.

Link to post

And as always you claim they are not the same.

 

Here we go "loobe loo"

 

Other than possibly stating the obvious, was there a point to this post other than to try to take this off topic?

The same thing could be said about every post since #3.

So should they should kill every thread once the question has been answered? Unless of course you would like to hear the same answer expressed 50 different ways....

 

I think once the question has been answered, it should be OK to open the discussion up as to why virtuals are hard to find these days.

I disagree.

 

Once the question has been answered, the thread should drift away, it should not be used as a place for everyone to rev up their favorite angstomatic. For instance, every thread need not become a place for you to tell us that you don't like LPMs.

Edited by sbell111
Link to post

The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

 

Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

You had your chance to shape Waymarking into something even better than how virtuals and locationless caches were on geocaching.com. I guess there just weren't enough "good" virtuals after all...that fast food waymarks are much more popular. More proof that virtuals are carp.
Virts are spots. GCs are containers in spots. So I don't think it's fair to say every spot is carp. To be honest, lifting up a lamp post to find a micro doesn't make the cool spots any better for me.

I've never hidden a cache in a lamp post.

Then I'll buy you a beer! :lol: My point was that some of these spots are just plain blah and that's what killed virts. But now people are hiding blah micros in these blah spots and that doesn't make them any better. So the problem wasn't ever really blah virts. Edited by TrailGators
Link to post
The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.
Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

You had your chance to shape Waymarking into something even better than how virtuals and locationless caches were on geocaching.com. I guess there just weren't enough "good" virtuals after all...that fast food waymarks are much more popular. More proof that virtuals are carp.
Virts are spots. GCs are containers in spots. So I don't think it's fair to say every spot is carp. To be honest, lifting up a lamp post to find a micro doesn't make the cool spots any better for me.
I've never hidden a cache in a lamp post.
Then I'll buy you a beer! :lol: My point was that some of these spots are just plain blah and that's what killed virts. ...
That is not the only reason that virts went away. I'm not even sure that it was in the top two. Edited by sbell111
Link to post
The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.
Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

You had your chance to shape Waymarking into something even better than how virtuals and locationless caches were on geocaching.com. I guess there just weren't enough "good" virtuals after all...that fast food waymarks are much more popular. More proof that virtuals are carp.
Virts are spots. GCs are containers in spots. So I don't think it's fair to say every spot is carp. To be honest, lifting up a lamp post to find a micro doesn't make the cool spots any better for me.
I've never hidden a cache in a lamp post.
Then I'll buy you a beer! :lol: My point was that some of these spots are just plain blah and that's what killed virts. ...
That is not the only reason that virts went away. I'm not even sure that it was in the top two.
I disagree. The "wow" factor played a very significant role. Reviewers got BS from "some" people when they did not approve their non-wow virts.
Link to post

I disagree. The "wow" factor played a very significant role. Reviewers got BS from "some" people when they did not approve their non-wow virts.

The "Wow" factor got a lot of play because no one could define what "wow" was. The reviewers were placed in the unenviable position of not just reviewing caches but being the arbiters or "wowness". Waymarking avoids this problem by having each category managed by a group that gets to say what that category is. Most categories are a bit less subjective than "Wow", but I can tell you that it isn't easy to decide if something is really a secret. If you can find two other people that agree with you on a definition of Wow you can start your own category :lol:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to post

I disagree. The "wow" factor played a very significant role. Reviewers got BS from "some" people when they did not approve their non-wow virts.

The "Wow" factor got a lot of play because no one could define what "wow" was. The reviewers were placed in the unenviable position of not just reviewing caches but being the arbiters or "wowness". Waymarking avoids this problem by having each category managed by a group that gets to say what that category is. Most categories are a bit less subjective than "Wow", but I can tell you that it isn't easy to decide if something is really a secret. If you can find two other people that agree with you on a definition of Wow you can start your own category :wub:

I really like the way Waymarking works. Not only is there a nice peer review system that fans out the workload, but it lets you ignore entire categories that are non-wow to you. This ability to customize is very powerful! :lol:
Link to post
The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.
Not even close. 1. It is more like scrapbooking because it is a "see where I have been" posting by the lister. 2. Unless one of the myriad of fast food resturaunts, gas stations, etc., they are never rarely visted and the previous only through the course of being there. 3. You know EVERYTHING about the waymark prior to going there. Other than the abuses of virtuals, this was not the case with them.

 

As posted in the other thread about this issue, their gone and are not coming back. They were not moved to a like site. Waymarking is another activity all together that, while intentions may have been good, has proven to not be popular. The only similarity is that it is owned by Groundspeak and they use resources to maintain the site that would be put to better use elsewhere.

 

This is a duplicate thread that should probably be closed in favor of this active one.

You had your chance to shape Waymarking into something even better than how virtuals and locationless caches were on geocaching.com. I guess there just weren't enough "good" virtuals after all...that fast food waymarks are much more popular. More proof that virtuals are carp.
Virts are spots. GCs are containers in spots. So I don't think it's fair to say every spot is carp. To be honest, lifting up a lamp post to find a micro doesn't make the cool spots any better for me.
I've never hidden a cache in a lamp post.
Then I'll buy you a beer! :laughing: My point was that some of these spots are just plain blah and that's what killed virts. ...
That is not the only reason that virts went away. I'm not even sure that it was in the top two.
I disagree. The "wow" factor played a very significant role. Reviewers got BS from "some" people when they did not approve their non-wow virts.

 

The bolding is mine.

I agree, that probably is the final reason the virts went away--the volunteer reviewers got tired of being trash-mouthed in the forums so often over virts. I admit, I came into caching just when the wow factor came into play, and my initial impression was that the reviewers were being both too nice and too thin skinned about all the flak. I thought that if they took a stronger stance, and just said, pretty bluntly a few times "You know, your cache idea stinks" and stuck to it, then people would stop trying to place weak virts.

 

I apologize for thinking that way!

 

I teach, so I go through something similar almost every day. I have to tell people their ideas don't go far enough, or they haven't tried hard enough, or they need to redo their work in a quality manner. I try to be diplomatic and provide guidance, but some of them don't want to do more and don't mind sayig so. They think I am too picky; I think they have no idea yet just how much more they have to learn. It's hard to not take it personally once in a while and it's very tiring to continually listen to the arguments, abuse, complaints, disrepect, and utter disregard--and I get paid to be there.

 

There will always be students who try to do less than they need to earn the grade they want and there will always be cachers who love a virt idea that just isn't as sublime as they think. That is the nature of the human species.

 

Personally, I'd love to see virts come back. I've done some really great ones, and seen some I hope to get to yet. But I sure don't want to see individual reviewers go through all that. Perhaps, after the integration of Waymarking with geocaching, there may be a way to tweak the group review process and bring back virtuals in some limited form. Until there is some mechanism like that, the return of the virtual probably won't be given serious consideration by the powers that be.

Link to post

My 2 cents is that Waymarking.com SUCKS! Lets swing Virtuals back into the Geocaching.com.

 

The Steaks

 

I concur

 

Lets hide only Wal-mart LPC's up around Jermy until he lets us bring Virts back

Geocaching is for containers, Waymarking is for non-containers. Why not direct your angst away from destroying geocaching and instead building Waymarking into what you want it to be?

Link to post

Posting a new Waymark is like/similar/about the same as listing a locationless cache used to be on GC.COM. The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

Not quite true: waymarks often have a logging requirement.

Many waymarks differ from virtual caches in the following ways: . :laughing:

Link to post
My 2 cents is that Waymarking.com SUCKS! Lets swing Virtuals back into the Geocaching.com. The Steaks
I concur

Lets hide only Wal-mart LPC's up around Jermy until he lets us bring Virts back

Why not direct your angst away from destroying geocaching and instead building Waymarking into what you want it to be?
I agree. If people are hiding lousy caches out of spite, then this a yet another reason to give us the ability to ignore all caches from certain hiders.
Link to post

My 2 cents is that Waymarking.com SUCKS! Lets swing Virtuals back into the Geocaching.com.

 

The Steaks

 

I concur

 

Lets hide only Wal-mart LPC's up around Jermy until he lets us bring Virts back

I'm thinking that this idea wouldn't work.

 

As I recall, Jeremy has posted that he prefers a cache with a nice hike attached. I suspect that he has figured out how to filter those LPMs out of his PQs.

Link to post

Posting a new Waymark is like/similar/about the same as listing a locationless cache used to be on GC.COM. The function "Visit Waymark (Post Log)" for a posted waymark that you visit is like/similar/about the same as logging a virtual on GC.COM. (didn't say "used to be" there because you can still log grandaddy virtuals) Again, the only thing missing is the ALR.

Not quite true: waymarks often have a logging requirement.

Many waymarks differ from virtual caches in the following ways: . :D

In the olden days, the only requirement for virts was that you took a picture to prove you were there. ALR's came later as the WOW factor creeped in and required the finder do more than photoshop a picture to prove he was there. The ALR's in Waymarking are no different.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...