Jump to content

Virtuals, allow them back in Business?


Recommended Posts

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals, yet I would like to see them come back. My solution is this, to place a new virtual several conditions must first be met; the placer would have to take several pictures of the location and show why it would be a good place for a visit, second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles to approve of it, and lastly write a note on why a traditional cache should not be placed here for whatever fit reason. This I believe would solve the past problems and allow many fun new places to be visited were traditional caches are not appropriate. I would enjoy having them back on GC.com instead of Waymarking, because I don' enjoy the other site as well.

 

edited for clarity

Edited by Rostropovich
Link to comment

second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles of it,

What does that even mean? Sounds like it involves kidnapping.

 

Get rid of micro placers :):anibad:

 

but seriously I meant

To get five cachers within 50 miles to approve of its value as a virtual.

This would be similar to a multiple reviewer deal.

Edited by Rostropovich
Link to comment

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals...

 

The problems with virtuals is not as simple as you have stated. I actually resent the suggestion that "gc.command" was somehow unable to find a solution.

 

There was a lot of discussion about this for almost (or more than) two years. I was a very vocal supporter of virtual caches for the two years leading up to the end of that era. But by the end I saw the logic of moving non-container caches over to another web site. It is best to stick to the gc.com "Prime Directive": Find a hidden container using a gps.

 

This subject is a beaten horse that should be allowed to remain peacefully retired.

Link to comment

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals...

 

The problems with virtuals is not as simple as you have stated. I actually resent the suggestion that "gc.command" was somehow unable to find a solution.

 

There was a lot of discussion about this for almost (or more than) two years. I was a very vocal supporter of virtual caches for the two years leading up to the end of that era. But by the end I saw the logic of moving non-container caches over to another web site. It is best to stick to the gc.com "Prime Directive": Find a hidden container using a gps.

 

This subject is a beaten horse that should be allowed to remain peacefully retired.

 

It took me a little while longer to see the logic, but eventually I did.

 

Still, the best cache I ever logged was a virtual. :anibad:

 

Go figure. So was the worst. :)

Link to comment
:) I for one, LOVE virtuals. Being that I've only been caching for 1 1/2 years, I only get to seek and enjoy the ones that are left. I wish there were more and haven't read Why there aren't any new ones, but have to learn to live with it. Yes, I also enjoy Earth-caches tremendously, Also :anibad:
Link to comment

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals...

 

The problems with virtuals is not as simple as you have stated. I actually resent the suggestion that "gc.command" was somehow unable to find a solution.

 

There was a lot of discussion about this for almost (or more than) two years. I was a very vocal supporter of virtual caches for the two years leading up to the end of that era. But by the end I saw the logic of moving non-container caches over to another web site. It is best to stick to the gc.com "Prime Directive": Find a hidden container using a gps.

 

This subject is a beaten horse that should be allowed to remain peacefully retired.

I feel that TS's comments are very accurate, sane, realistic and relevant to the issue. And I, like TS, was also irritated by the bizarre assumptions and statements made by the OP regarding "gc.command" and their perceived "failure" to find a solution that keeps the OP happy.

 

Bottom line: this is a dead topic, beating a dead horse. There have been literally dozens of similar threads over the past year or two, and they have all died a peaceful death. Virtual (that is, publication of new virtual cache listings) are gone, and thank God that they are gone.

Link to comment
have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

 

I've rarely seen a virtual that could not have been turned into a real cache somehow. If you can't hide a micro at the site, there must be something you can use there to provide an offset to a real cache hidden in the general vicinity. I've used this method for objects on NPS property and in very high traffic areas.

 

In the extremely rare case that there is no way a real cache can be incorporated, perhaps the location would make a good waymark. For fans of virtuals, Waymarking provides a similar experience.

Link to comment

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals, yet I would like to see them come back. My solution is this, to place a new virtual several conditions must first be met; the placer would have to take several pictures of the location and show why it would be a good place for a visit, second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles of it, and lastly write a note on why a traditional cache should not be placed here for whatever fit reason. This I believe would solve the past problems and allow many fun new places to be visited were traditional caches are not appropriate. I would enjoy having them back on GC.com instead of Waymarking, because I don' enjoy the other site as well.

This makes me think of a situation where a baseball player is called up to the majors, and when approaching the batter's box for his first major league at-bat, he begins to instruct the umpire on the technical details of calling balls and strikes. I'd love to be able to listen to that conversation. :)

Link to comment

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals, yet I would like to see them come back. My solution is this, to place a new virtual several conditions must first be met; the placer would have to take several pictures of the location and show why it would be a good place for a visit, second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles of it, and lastly write a note on why a traditional cache should not be placed here for whatever fit reason. This I believe would solve the past problems and allow many fun new places to be visited were traditional caches are not appropriate. I would enjoy having them back on GC.com instead of Waymarking, because I don' enjoy the other site as well.

 

Yes, many cachers agree with you on this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter to anyone who is in a position to do anything about it.

Link to comment

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals, yet I would like to see them come back. My solution is this, to place a new virtual several conditions must first be met; the placer would have to take several pictures of the location and show why it would be a good place for a visit, second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles of it, and lastly write a note on why a traditional cache should not be placed here for whatever fit reason. This I believe would solve the past problems and allow many fun new places to be visited were traditional caches are not appropriate. I would enjoy having them back on GC.com instead of Waymarking, because I don' enjoy the other site as well.

 

Yes, many cachers agree with you on this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter to anyone who is in a position to do anything about it.

Still learning alot on here - didn't know you couldn't log vituals - had already thought of a few really cool spots I have found that i know others would enjoy but were undiscovered. Glad to here it still can be done in another way.

Link to comment

With the obvious exception of Earth Caches..........

 

A Geocache is something hidden somewhere.

A Waymark is just the somewhere.

 

Which is closer to a "virtual" cache??

 

.......and I agree with Briansnat - Easy to include areas you describe into a multi so visitors can still enjoy them. Might also suggest making a Wherigo cartridge highlighting the area.

Link to comment

With the obvious exception of Earth Caches..........

 

A Geocache is something hidden somewhere.

A Waymark is just the somewhere.

 

Which is closer to a "virtual" cache??

 

.......and I agree with Briansnat - Easy to include areas you describe into a multi so visitors can still enjoy them. Might also suggest making a Wherigo cartridge highlighting the area.

 

Geocache. Waymarking is simply Electronic Scrapbooking and has no resemblance to what virtuals were.

 

Why would Earth Caches be an exception other than a decision by GC? I accept that GC made the decision to eliminate virtuals, however feel it was a wrong decision (most probably based on the abuses like "Flag") and an insult to insinuate that Waymarking is anything even close to what they were.

Link to comment

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals...

 

The problems with virtuals is not as simple as you have stated. I actually resent the suggestion that "gc.command" was somehow unable to find a solution.

 

There was a lot of discussion about this for almost (or more than) two years. I was a very vocal supporter of virtual caches for the two years leading up to the end of that era. But by the end I saw the logic of moving non-container caches over to another web site. It is best to stick to the gc.com "Prime Directive": Find a hidden container using a gps.

 

This subject is a beaten horse that should be allowed to remain peacefully retired.

I feel that TS's comments are very accurate, sane, realistic and relevant to the issue. And I, like TS, was also irritated by the bizarre assumptions and statements made by the OP regarding "gc.command" and their perceived "failure" to find a solution that keeps the OP happy.

 

Bottom line: this is a dead topic, beating a dead horse. There have been literally dozens of similar threads over the past year or two, and they have all died a peaceful death. Virtual (that is, publication of new virtual cache listings) are gone, and thank God that they are gone.

 

For the record, they didn't say gc command, they just missed a space, it said gc.com AND their inability

Back to the show.

Link to comment
have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

 

I've rarely seen a virtual that could not have been turned into a real cache somehow. If you can't hide a micro at the site, there must be something you can use there to provide an offset to a real cache hidden in the general vicinity. I've used this method for objects on NPS property and in very high traffic areas.

 

In the extremely rare case that there is no way a real cache can be incorporated, perhaps the location would make a good waymark. For fans of virtuals, Waymarking provides a similar experience.

Now that a 600,000 acre State Park has abruptly changed their Geocaching policy, removing caches without even allowing cache owners to retrieve their containers, it will be difficult to turn those locations into Multi caches. :unsure: The "management" will allow Virtual caches however . . .

 

As for turning those locations into Waymarks, well . . . Waymarking is not Geocaching . . .

Link to comment
Now that a 600,000 acre State Park has abruptly changed their Geocaching policy, removing caches without even allowing cache owners to retrieve their containers, it will be difficult to turn those locations into Multi caches. sad.gif The "management" will allow Virtual caches however . . .

 

It wouldn't be realistic for all of them, but I'm sure some can be.

 

As for turning those locations into Waymarks, well . . . Waymarking is not Geocaching Virtuals were

 

Virtuals were not geocaching, which is why they stopped listing them.

 

Waymarks are a locations or objects that have their coordinates posted online, so people can use their GPS to find them and log their visit online after providing proof of their visit. Sounds like a virtual to me. The only real difference is the smiley.

Link to comment

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals, yet I would like to see them come back. My solution is this, to place a new virtual several conditions must first be met; the placer would have to take several pictures of the location and show why it would be a good place for a visit, second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles of it, and lastly write a note on why a traditional cache should not be placed here for whatever fit reason. This I believe would solve the past problems and allow many fun new places to be visited were traditional caches are not appropriate. I would enjoy having them back on GC.com instead of Waymarking, because I don' enjoy the other site as well.

 

Yes, many cachers agree with you on this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter to anyone who is in a position to do anything about it.

Still learning alot on here - didn't know you couldn't log vituals - had already thought of a few really cool spots I have found that i know others would enjoy but were undiscovered. Glad to here it still can be done in another way.

 

You might be confused. Logging is not the issue. It is the listing of New virtuals that is prohibited. You can log finds on them all you want.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

 

Doesn't seem to stop some people from hiding a micro there anyway. :unsure:

 

Anyhoo...I like the suggestion provided above. Build a Multi: A visit to the first location is used to gather information to provide coordinates to the final located in a location which is suitable for an actual container.

 

Don't get me wrong, I loved Virts and still "find" then when I come across them but most of them could have been done as a Multi without too much more effort.

Link to comment

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals, yet I would like to see them come back. My solution is this, to place a new virtual several conditions must first be met; the placer would have to take several pictures of the location and show why it would be a good place for a visit, second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles of it, and lastly write a note on why a traditional cache should not be placed here for whatever fit reason. This I believe would solve the past problems and allow many fun new places to be visited were traditional caches are not appropriate. I would enjoy having them back on GC.com instead of Waymarking, because I don' enjoy the other site as well.

 

If you want to make someone go to a virtual cache, make it into a multi or mystery, and take information from the virtual spot, to fill in coords for a physical hide. I know, not the best solution, but it works well.

Link to comment

With the obvious exception of Earth Caches..........

 

A Geocache is something hidden somewhere.

A Waymark is just the somewhere.

 

Which is closer to a "virtual" cache??

 

.......and I agree with Briansnat - Easy to include areas you describe into a multi so visitors can still enjoy them. Might also suggest making a Wherigo cartridge highlighting the area.

 

Geocache. Waymarking is simply Electronic Scrapbooking and has no resemblance to what virtuals were.

 

Why would Earth Caches be an exception other than a decision by GC? I accept that GC made the decision to eliminate virtuals, however feel it was a wrong decision (most probably based on the abuses like "Flag") and an insult to insinuate that Waymarking is anything even close to what they were.

A geocache is something hidden somewhere that you find.

 

A virtual geocache is something that already exists somewhere that that you find.

 

A waymark is something that already exist somewhere.

 

Virtual geocaches could be geocaches if you allowed a geocache to be either something that someone hides or something that already exists. The problem was defining what it is you found. Easy for a physical geocache - you find the container and you sign the log. Hard for a virtual cache. Do you take a picture? Do you answer a verification question? Do you just let people log finds because they say they saw the object.

 

Virtual geocaches can be waymarks. Some Waymarking categories are simply inventories of places that fit the category. Some Waymarking categories are places the waymark owner wants you to visit and see because they think the place is interesting, educational, or will make you go "Wow". Some Waymarking categories are more game like - try to take a picture from the same spot as an old photo, visit a place whose coordinates are a palindrome, visit a secret location and be surprised by what you found there. These categories may have visit requirements more like a virtual cache - take a photo or answer a question. While not every waymark is a virtual cache and not every virtual cache could be made into a waymark (if there is no category where it fits) there are waymarks that can give you the same experiences as a virtual cache short of the smiley on Geocaching.com.

 

I agree that the arbitrary decision to list Earthcaches on GC.com doesn't make much sense. The Earthcache category that existed for a short time, was the perfect illustration of the flexibility that Waymarking brings to location based activities. Here was a category that was meant to point out places of geological significance where you not only visited the location but were asked to think like a geologist and try to find explanations for what you were seeing. The real motivation is to encourage interest in geology. Perhaps because you are looking for hidden evidence of geological processes, an Earthcache can be viewed as going to a location and finding something and therefore more cache-like. I suspect that this is not always the case.

Link to comment

It took me a little while longer to see the logic, but eventually I did.

 

Still, the best cache I ever logged was a virtual. :unsure:

 

Go figure. So was the worst. :anibad:

What a cool spot Snoogans. I happen to know TFA and didn't know they had placed a cool virtual in the Caymans.

 

I live near the Mt.Rushmore area and am very surprised that nobody had placed a virtual there. Now it will never become a virtual and you cannot place a cache on national memorial property. I did check out the virtual and earthcache at Devils Tower, and that was a cool adventure. :unsure:

Link to comment

No box, no interest, for me that is. Unlike some others I only do Virtuals if there are some in the area that I'm currently located in. I have heard that some people log all that they can and actually sit at home, how rude.

 

The whole reason behind Waymarking is to allow people to see interesting areas. Now if only the search capability there was good I might have more interest in that. But when there are 20 categories for exactly the same thing how can one not just avoid the whole cocept.

Link to comment

It took me a little while longer to see the logic, but eventually I did.

 

Still, the best cache I ever logged was a virtual. :unsure:

 

Go figure. So was the worst. :anibad:

What a cool spot Snoogans. I happen to know TFA and didn't know they had placed a cool virtual in the Caymans.

 

They never answered my email. Maybe you could tell them that the terrain on their virt needs to be 5 stars since the ONLY way to get there is by boat. :unsure:

Link to comment

I have found several locations were I would love to place a cache; however, the area is unsuitable for a cache.

I would like to place a virtual and understand this is now impossible thanks to GC.comand their inability to find a solution(other than stopping all new placements) for the number of ill placed virtuals, yet I would like to see them come back. My solution is this, to place a new virtual several conditions must first be met; the placer would have to take several pictures of the location and show why it would be a good place for a visit, second they would have to get five cachers within 50 miles of it, and lastly write a note on why a traditional cache should not be placed here for whatever fit reason. This I believe would solve the past problems and allow many fun new places to be visited were traditional caches are not appropriate. I would enjoy having them back on GC.com instead of Waymarking, because I don' enjoy the other site as well.

 

If you want to make someone go to a virtual cache, make it into a multi or mystery, and take information from the virtual spot, to fill in coords for a physical hide. I know, not the best solution, but it works well.

 

What Virtual Cache?

Link to comment
A geocache is something hidden somewhere that you find.

 

A virtual geocache is something that already exists somewhere that that you find.

 

A waymark is something that already exist somewhere.

 

You don't find waymarks? Then what are the coordinates for?

Nope, most waymarks I don't find. Most waymarks I visit. It may be that the waymark owner found the waymark when searching for a location that fits the category; subsequent visitors to a waymark log a 'visited' log. But you may have a waymark where you have requirements for logging a visit that require you to find something.

Link to comment
A geocache is something hidden somewhere that you find.

 

A virtual geocache is something that already exists somewhere that that you find.

 

A waymark is something that already exist somewhere.

 

You don't find waymarks? Then what are the coordinates for?

Nope, most waymarks I don't find. Most waymarks I visit. It may be that the waymark owner found the waymark when searching for a location that fits the category; subsequent visitors to a waymark log a 'visited' log. But you may have a waymark where you have requirements for logging a visit that require you to find something.

 

OK semantics. Yes, the log type is called Visited instead of Found It. The process is the same however. You plug in the coordinates and let your GPS guide you to the object the owner wants you to see.

 

Most waymarks require at least a photo as proof of your "visit". Many virtuals require a photo as proof of your "find". Same thing, different names.

Link to comment
A geocache is something hidden somewhere that you find.

 

A virtual geocache is something that already exists somewhere that that you find.

 

A waymark is something that already exist somewhere.

 

You don't find waymarks? Then what are the coordinates for?

 

[soapbox]

The point is you know what you are going to find even before you get there. As to what are the coordinates for, apparently nothing since rarely, if ever, do they get visited. Looking at about a 30 mile radius of me, there is a huge number of waymarks, mostly McDonalds, Gas Stations, etc. with a few historical places. In there are a 4 or 5 that have been visited in early 2007, mostly the McDonalds. The rest have not been visited since 2006, many 2005 and quite a few, never.

 

What is irritating is that every time someone asks about virtuals, someone inevitably avoids the obvious and correct answer (GC made a decision, for whatever reason, to eliminate them) and try to send them over to Waymarking, which makes as much sense as sending them to http://www.whirlyball.com which would at least be more fun.

 

My feeling, from what we all saw transpire, is GC saw that virtuals were broken and abused, which they were. They attempted to fix them with the "WOW" factor which turned out to be too subjective and cumbersome. Then in an attempt not to alienate a sizable portion of their userbase, Waymarking was introduced. Unfortunately it had none of the characteristics of the virtual and has proven to not be well received.

[/soapbox]

 

Virtuals no longer appear to be in Groundspeak's business plan and all indications are there will be no attempt to re-introduce them. Should you have a place that does not support a container type cache, a good suggestion would be to make it part of a larger multi or puzzle cache.

Link to comment
The point is you know what you are going to find even before you get there

 

Same with many virtuals. I just ran a PQ of the closest 100 virts to my home coordinates. 13 of the first 20

told you right on the page what you were going to find at the coordinates.

 

If not knowing what lies at the end is important, there is an entire waymark category devoted to that.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Virtuals no longer appear to be in Groundspeak's business plan and all indications are there will be no attempt to re-introduce them. Should you have a place that does not support a container type cache, a good suggestion would be to make it part of a larger multi or puzzle cache.

Yes . . . this is sometimes an option, but unfortunately, many people filter out the Multis and Puzzles, especially when they are traveling, something they probably don't do for the Virtual caches.

 

A cool location might get visited more frequently if it is turned into a Multi or a Puzzle than if the location is made into a Waymark, but then again, it might not . . . but at least it is still Geocaching, and not Waymarking.

Link to comment

How about this as a solution: Create a Wherigo cartridge for the location that you want to create a virtual for. If the spot is that interesting and you can't place a physical cache there, use the interaction of Wherigo to bring people to the spot and experience something.

 

Note: No Lackeys paid me for this post. I wish they would, but they didn't.....

 

 

(Runs and hides from the mob that will form now to attack the Wherigo idea....)

Link to comment
[With waymarks,] The point is you know what you are going to find even before you get there.
This phrase helped me realize something. Some of my favorite Virtual Caches were ones that had a set of coords, some obscure description and a title that made you go "Huh?" The fun of it was wondering what you were going to be seeing once you reached the coords. No such mystery in Waymarking.
What is irritating is that every time someone asks about virtuals, someone inevitably avoids the obvious and correct answer (GC made a decision, for whatever reason, to eliminate them) and try to send them over to Waymarking, which makes as much sense as sending them to http://www.whirlyball.com which would at least be more fun.
Now Whirly Ball looks like fun! :D
Virtuals no longer appear to be in Groundspeak's business plan and all indications are there will be no attempt to re-introduce them. Should you have a place that does not support a container type cache, a good suggestion would be to make it part of a larger multi or puzzle cache.
...and you can work that mystery of "what the heck am I being led to?" back into the game, something hard to do when waymarks are filed into well-defined categories.
Link to comment
Please tell how there is any real difference between this and this, other than the smiley.

 

Or this and this

 

Or this and this

For the 1st two, you know one is a Virtual called "Tie a Yellow Ribbon," and that the other is a waymark categorized in "Exceptional Trees." The Virt, you can speculate that it's a tree, the waymark, you KNOW.

 

In the next pair, you can guess the virtual has something to do with a grave since it is titled "Six feet OVER?!" For the waymark, you know you are going to see an "Out of Place Grave," which belongs to Mary Ellis.

 

There is little mystery for the last two. Whoever developed the Virtual on this one wasn't as creative as the other two cachers.

 

Oh... :D

 

That's you, Brian... :lol:

Edited by Too Tall John
Link to comment

Please tell how there is any real difference between this and this, other than the smiley.

 

Or this and this

 

Or this and this

 

The last two waymarks have not been found since December 2006. :D The virtuals have been found in the past couple of months from their postings. People simply do not visit Waymarking.com That is the whole difference. There is hardly any traffic from the difficulty of managing two websites. It would be much simpler to

just run a PQ and download every cache with virtuals mixed in. Than if to have to run it twice, selecting the waymarks you do not want, Subways and etc. It would seem better if they allowed even a small number of virtuals to be made. I.E. Only one new one for every one that is archived(If they do archive Vrits).

Link to comment

Please tell how there is any real difference between this and this, other than the smiley.

 

Or this and this

 

Or this and this

The problem with Waymarking is that you need to have an "interest" before it becomes workable. If I wanted to see Waterfalls or Equestrian statues or some other specific item within a Waymarking category while on a vacation, then I could go to Waymarking and somehow download the coordinates for the things that interested me prior to my travels. faint.gif

 

Virtuals offered variety and surprises. I didn't have to know ahead of time I wanted to look for the gravesite of a cannibal before I visited Littleton, Colorado. :D The caches I remember the most from my 4000 miles of travel in 2006 are the Virtual caches.

Link to comment
The last two waymarks have not been found since December 2006. dry.gif The virtuals have been found in the past couple of months from their postings. People simply do not visit Waymarking.com That is the whole difference.

 

What about virtuals on other geocaching sites? They don't get a lot of visits either. Probably fewer than Waymarking.

 

The number of visitors to the respective sites shouldn't make any difference to the hunter and doesn't change the fact that the activities are nearly identical.

 

The fact remains that if people like finding virtuals, Waymarking fits the bill in most respects. If they are just looking for smileys, then it doesn't. Therein lies the root of the issue. People won't look for waymarks because they don't get to increment their smiley count. If they did most people would be all over the Waymarking site like stink on a dead clam.

 

The problem with Waymarking is that you need to have an "interest" before it becomes workable.
Not necessarily. You can run a zipcode search just like in geocaching, to get a list of all the closest waymarks regardless of category and dowload the coords to your GPS and head out to visit them. Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Most of the arguments against virtuals are severely undercut by the continued listing of Earthcaches. And there are lame Earthcaches and lame parking lot micros, so it's not only virtuals that are sometimes lame.

 

Those who would like to bring back virtuals would seem to have a better chance by trying to expand the Earthcache program, perhaps to historical sites or human artifacts, finding an outside, somewhat official agency to review and approve. (Of course, having an outside reviewer hasn't prevented lame Earthcaches.)

 

Note that this is purely a personal opinion; I have no idea whether an attempt to expand the Earthcache idea would have any chance of landing on fertile ground.

 

As for why not Waymarking ...

 

I looked at the site. In the area I've done most of my geocaching, with many hundreds of geocaches, there is exactly one waymark after excluding a couple of benchmarks. And that's a house -- a Frank Lloyd Wright house, probably quite interesting, but not a peak or a viewpoint or any other natural place, nothing to hike to. Waymarking obviously has not caught on among mountain hikers. This area even includes several large NPS sections, the largest of which has no virtual caches. No waymarks in the NPS areas at all.

 

I find the maps on Waymarking.com to be lame. It's nice having a Google map on the main page, but what then? I could not find any way to expand it beyond the thumbnail size or to change to a different view (sat/topo/etc). That's lame. Maybe there's a trick, but until it's obvious, that's lame.

 

When I panned the map around, no waymarks showed up until I clicked "search from center". That's lame compared with the operation of the Google maps on gc.com. Sure, the latter have their problems, like hanging up my browser for minutes when I hit a spot with too many caches, but it's a far sight better than what I see on wm.com.

 

What would increase my interest in waymarks? Having them show up on my gc.com maps! Obviously this should be controlled by a checkbox on the map, since many will not want to see them. Maybe this option is something planned for the long-rumored Big Upgrade. And then being able to log them via the same interface. I don't care if they count toward my geocache count or if I have a count at all, as long as I can review my list AND I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER WEB SITE TO DO IT.

 

But then ... how would that differ from bringing back virtuals?

 

Edward

Link to comment

Most of the arguments against virtuals are severely undercut by the continued listing of Earthcaches. And there are lame Earthcaches and lame parking lot micros, so it's not only virtuals that are sometimes lame.

 

Those who would like to bring back virtuals would seem to have a better chance by trying to expand the Earthcache program, perhaps to historical sites or human artifacts, finding an outside, somewhat official agency to review and approve. (Of course, having an outside reviewer hasn't prevented lame Earthcaches.)

 

Note that this is purely a personal opinion; I have no idea whether an attempt to expand the Earthcache idea would have any chance of landing on fertile ground.

 

As for why not Waymarking ...

 

I looked at the site. In the area I've done most of my geocaching, with many hundreds of geocaches, there is exactly one waymark after excluding a couple of benchmarks. And that's a house -- a Frank Lloyd Wright house, probably quite interesting, but not a peak or a viewpoint or any other natural place, nothing to hike to. Waymarking obviously has not caught on among mountain hikers. This area even includes several large NPS sections, the largest of which has no virtual caches. No waymarks in the NPS areas at all.

 

I find the maps on Waymarking.com to be lame. It's nice having a Google map on the main page, but what then? I could not find any way to expand it beyond the thumbnail size or to change to a different view (sat/topo/etc). That's lame. Maybe there's a trick, but until it's obvious, that's lame.

 

When I panned the map around, no waymarks showed up until I clicked "search from center". That's lame compared with the operation of the Google maps on gc.com. Sure, the latter have their problems, like hanging up my browser for minutes when I hit a spot with too many caches, but it's a far sight better than what I see on wm.com.

 

What would increase my interest in waymarks? Having them show up on my gc.com maps! Obviously this should be controlled by a checkbox on the map, since many will not want to see them. Maybe this option is something planned for the long-rumored Big Upgrade. And then being able to log them via the same interface. I don't care if they count toward my geocache count or if I have a count at all, as long as I can review my list AND I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER WEB SITE TO DO IT.

 

But then ... how would that differ from bringing back virtuals?

 

Edward

 

I concur

Link to comment

Why Does GC.com not bring back virtuals? I believe a large amount of people would like them back so once again Why do they not bring back virtuals? I believe they want another website. Why? you may ask, I believe they wish to have another website not for the convince and enjoyment of the users as much as monetary gain. Even though we would not like to believe it, GC is a business. With two separate websites GC can now make sponsors pay to advertise on both of them. The other website, also allows "Caches" which may be perceived as a commercial nature. i.e. Mcdonalds and etc. Why is a McDonald's an interesting place to visit. I do not know. If I wished to know where every McDonald's was I would use Google maps or other business finding specific websites. If you ask me, its all about the money.

Link to comment

Why Does GC.com not bring back virtuals? I believe a large amount of people would like them back so once again Why do they not bring back virtuals? I believe they want another website. Why? you may ask, I believe they wish to have another website not for the convince and enjoyment of the users as much as monetary gain. Even though we would not like to believe it, GC is a business. With two separate websites GC can now make sponsors pay to advertise on both of them. The other website, also allows "Caches" which may be perceived as a commercial nature. i.e. Mcdonalds and etc. Why is a McDonald's an interesting place to visit. I do not know. If I wished to know where every McDonald's was I would use Google maps or other business finding specific websites. If you ask me, its all about the money.

 

Ummm, you wouldn't be the first person to trip over the idea that Waymarking came into being as a cash cow to sell the user created database to businesses like Micky D's and Starbucks. :lol:;)

 

I tried it. It left me cold so I ditched it until it becomes more user friendly. Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway? :D

Link to comment

I have read a, its not happening so stop complaining about it several times, but I believe it can happen.

We can get this to change. I encourage everyone who would like the resurection of virtuals to e-mail Groundspeak on this issue since it is highly likely they hardly ever browse the forums. Since the web site is here for our enjoyment and not the GC. owners, there is no reason we should not have what we would like to have. Please bring this to their attention.

Link to comment

I have read a, its not happening so stop complaining about it several times, but I believe it can happen.

We can get this to change. I encourage everyone who would like the resurection of virtuals to e-mail Groundspeak on this issue since it is highly likely they hardly ever browse the forums. Since the web site is here for our enjoyment and not the GC. owners, there is no reason we should not have what we would like to have. Please bring this to their attention.

 

I for one would be happy to see virtuals back in business. Locationless caches too..... But I won't be sending an appeal letter. :D

 

Geocaching.com IS a business, but its not at all like any other business I know of. The owners and operators in charge of steering this ship aren't executive types looking to increase their bottom line. They're cachers like you and me. Or mayyybeee a little unlike you and me, but close enough. ;)

 

I don't agree with all of their decisions, but nothing they have done, SO FAR, has soured me on using this website to list my caches. There are two other large cache listing sites. I use them, but I CHOOSE to use this one for most of my cachin' activity, so they must be doin' somethin' right. :D

 

Sorry. That's all the angst I can muster for your call to arms. :lol:

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