Virtuals, allow them back in Business?

[+hydnsek]

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.

Groundspeak has heard from users on the virtuals issue many, many times. Not just in the forums, but in person. You're about 3 years late to the party. Jeremy has stated specifically and emphatically that virtuals are history and won't be coming back; most reviewers I know heartily support that. I'm sure someone will link to Jeremy's statement on the issue any moment now. Believe all those who are trying to tell you that you're not breaking any new ground here; many equally passionate believers have gone before you. Do a search for past threads and you may find it eye-opening.

[+Glenn]

Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway?

Yes, who indeed would waste their time Waymarking a Starbucks or a McD's. I wonder.

Pedestrian Suspension Bridges are IMHO more interesting anyways.

[+cache_test_dummies]

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.

Groundspeak has heard from users on the virtuals issue many, many times. Not just in the forums, but in person. You're about 3 years late to the party. Jeremy has stated specifically and emphatically that virtuals are history and won't be coming back; most reviewers I know heartily support that. I'm sure someone will link to Jeremy's statement on the issue any moment now. Believe all those who are trying to tell you that you're not breaking any new ground here; many equally passionate believers have gone before you. Do a search for past threads and you may find it eye-opening.

There's no plan to return virtual caches to geocaching.com. Thanks for your feedback.

[+briansnat]

Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway?

 

Probably the same kind of people who think they are great places for geocaches, or perhaps the kind of people who thought manhole covers, fence posts and flagpoles made great virtuals.

[+The Leprechauns]

I enjoy "wasting my time" by Waymarking Starbucks stores. That's because I'm a Starbucks fanatic. Being buddies with CCCooperAgency will do that to you! So, I am one of the managers in that category who looks at the new waymark submissions. I enjoy seeing the stores in different environments. Recently I listed one in Thailand. Coffee is universal!

 

When I'm traveling on a geocaching roadtrip, having information about the nearest Starbucks is VERY important to me. Not just a POI on a map, but a review of the restaurant, noting its hours of operation, whether I can sit down and take a break from the road, etc. So, I will search for those waymarks when planning my trip. That's not possible at Geocaching.com due to the commercialism prohibition. Different website, different capability.

 

In contrast, I do not like McDonalds Restaurants. Don't eat there, don't feel motivated to create or visit waymarks in that category. And that is another beauty of Waymarking. I can ignore the entire McDonald's category so it doesn't clutter up my search results, my mapping software and my GPS.

[+The Leprechauns]

It's a good thing® every few months when a newcomer starts a forum thread demanding the return of virtuals to Geocaching.com. It allows me to look back and see if my perspective has changed any.

 

I still find Waymarking to be a superior solution for virtual points of interest. I *like* knowing what I'm going to visit before I visit. If there's a container to hunt for, I'm easily entertained, but if it's just a place to visit, I had better want to see that place.

 

I went back and looked through the 130-something virtual caches that I've logged. Roughly one-third of them were things or places that I found interesting. Of those, many were set up in locations where a physical cache could easily have been hidden, or where a multicache could easily have been set up. I liked them because they were cool, but a cache container would've been nice. Nowadays you can have a waymark AND a geocache at the same spot!

 

The other two thirds of the virtuals I've found gave me a "so what?" or "is that all?" feeling, similar to what some people feel when they arrive at a guardrail to search for a cache. In most cases, I knew what I'd be visiting, so it's my own darn fault for downloading the waypoint as part of a pocket query and not filtering it out. With waymarks I can be more selective, choosing only the places where I know I'll be pleased with my visit.

 

Only a very small fraction of the virtual caches I've found have truly been a secret surprise, where I thought to myself "I never knew THIS was here, and it took this virtual cache to show it to me." Perhaps that is why there are so few waymarks in the "Best Kept Secrets" category. One of them is here in my home area, and it definitely qualifies, so the category managers are doing a good job in administering the "wow factor" test.

 

I don't miss the "wow factor" test that my daughter invented. I also don't miss being screamed at and threatened for trying to apply it to virtual cache submissions.

 

Yep, life is good.

[+Team Cotati]

Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway?

 

Probably the same kind of people who think they are great places for geocaches, or perhaps the kind of people who thought manhole covers, fence posts and flagpoles made great virtuals.

 

Not to mention the system wherein those things were permitted.

[+Lefty Writer]

<snip>

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

 

<snip>

 

Well said, Snoogs! So far, this is one of my fave caches as well. I would've passed this up had it not been for the extra "incentive" of a smiley.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against virtuals in this reply. It is specifically to comment on, and agree with, Snoogans' opinion on a specific cache.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Lefty Writer

[+baloo&bd]

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

 

Or this and this

 

Or this and this

 

You totally missed my point. There was a a problem with virtuals, many were far from perfect and some, along with many locationless, were downright abused. They needed to be fixed or done away with. GC tried the former and decided to go with the later.

 

My issue was not with virtuals no longer here, it is more with the need for everyone to offer up Waymarking when this question comes up.

 

"I want to place a virtual cache at X (caching is not allowed)" Would never be answered with "If that is what you want, you can do an entry in the community area of Google Earth" because while that is geo related, it is not geocaching. Neither is Waymarking.

 

The answer could/should be "Virtuals are no longer accepted at GC, however you could set this up as a multi or part of a puzzle". Do they get filtered out? Sure, along with Ter/Dif 4 & 5's, micros, etc. Just part of the game.

 

It almost seems like a religion to some who "evangelize" us in the ways of Waymarking.

[+Team Cotati]

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

 

Or this and this

 

Or this and this

 

You totally missed my point. There was a a problem with virtuals, many were far from perfect and some, along with many locationless, were downright abused. They needed to be fixed or done away with. GC tried the former and decided to go with the later.

 

My issue was not with virtuals no longer here, it is more with the need for everyone to offer up Waymarking when this question comes up.

 

"I want to place a virtual cache at X (caching is not allowed)" Would never be answered with "If that is what you want, you can do an entry in the community area of Google Earth" because while that is geo related, it is not geocaching. Neither is Waymarking.

 

The answer could/should be "Virtuals are no longer accepted at GC, however you could set this up as a multi or part of a puzzle". Do they get filtered out? Sure, along with Ter/Dif 4 & 5's, micros, etc. Just part of the game.

 

It almost seems like a religion to some who "evangelize" us in the ways of Waymarking.

 

"many were far from perfect". Unlike all those wonderful micros that get approved by the dozens everyday. Right. Got it.

[+StarBrand]

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.

They DID listen.

 

Even created a whole website for places without a physical container. Waymarking.

[+tozainamboku]

Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway?

 

Probably the same kind of people who think they are great places for geocaches, or perhaps the kind of people who thought manhole covers, fence posts and flagpoles made great virtuals.

The people who question Waymarking Starbucks and McD's are the same ones that believe geocaching should be a tour guide rather than a game of hide and seek where sometimes the cache is not hidden in a place that has anything "Wow" about. The point is to find the cache. The point of waymark to waymark places someone might want to visit for whatever the reason it.

 

Waymarks can be very non-Wow places. (One thing that makes them different from virtuals). But these are places that people may be interested in knowing where their are. If you're visiting some new town, you may want to know where the Starbucks or McDs is. Some people may even want to visit as many McDs or Starbucks as possible. Most tour books have a section that list attractions and another section that list food and lodging. Think of Waymarking as having many sections, most suggested by the users. A particular location can even be listed in multiple categories. And Waymarking even has a section of Waymarking games. These are location that are there for you to have fun with. It can include categories for places you can go visit and be surprised or "Wow'ed" when they visit. People who want to have a virtual cache can download these waymarks and go looking for them. People who want to hide a virtual cache because they want visitors who aren't just interested in Historic Markers or 9/11 memorials might be able to use one of the Waymarking games categories to attract people who just want the old virtual cache experience (if these people would give Waymarking a try instead of whining about the new virtual ban in Geocaching).

[+cache_test_dummies]

Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway?

Who the heck would waste their time riding a bike? Or playing chess? Or climbing a mountain? Or visiting their grandmother? Or looking for a tupperware container in the woods?

 

Every time one of these 'bring back Virtuals' discussions come up, a very familiar pattern follows: someone mentions Waymarking as an alternative, and then someone argues that Waymarks are not Virtuals, and then the Waymarking bashing begins. And inevitably, someone points to the McDonalds category as if that category alone represents the essence of Waymarking. Which, by the way, it doesn't.

 

There are some legitimate issues with Waymarking, so I can understand some of the criticism. But the type of comments that baffle me the most when Waymarking is being criticized in these forums are the comments that seem to call into question the legitimacy of Waymarking as an activity, or seek to demean those who would choose to participate in the activity.

 

Who the heck would waste their time doing anything that may not be of interest you? Perhaps those people who find that thing to be of interest to them.

Edited February 8, 2008 by cache_test_dummies

[+KoosKoos]

Who the heck would waste their time doing anything that may not be of interest you? Perhaps because it is of interest to them.

 

Well, that's just utter nonsense!!! If someone isn't play the games that I play and in the same way that I play, then they're just stupid!

 

I think the earlier poster hit it a little closer. The explanation on virtuals shouldn't just be, go to Waymarking, because it is a different activity. I'm not saying it's better or worse than virtuals, it's just a different alternative.

 

I think a lot of people get disappointed in Waymarking because they expect it to be like virtuals were on gc.com.

 

If people were encouraged to check out the alternative (not substitute) activity of Waymarking or encouraged to place an offset instead of trying a virtual, there might be a little less animosity.

[+JohnnyVegas]

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....)

As Wherigo stands right now, I do not see much of a future for Wherigo. For most cachers in order to play a Wherigo cartridge it is going to reqiure a large investment in a new GPS or a new Pocket PC. These are both going to be large stubling blocks for Wherigo to overcome. I have attended one of the Wherigo events and played a sample cartridge. The Wherigo game is more enjoyable than most of the Virtuals I have done, but it is going take quite a while to become a viable game.

[+trainlove]

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.

 

You have every right to stop using geocaching.com if you do not like the decisions that the powers that be have made a few years ago. It says on every cache page "Please note: To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer. http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx "

And if you want a refund http://www.geocaching.com/subscribe/refunds.aspx.

 

There is a perfectly good site for virtuals, created by Groundspeak the very same people that created geocaching (The Hunt for Boxes in the Woods that Have Log Books). And I have read recently that there are some 800,000 waymarks. I think that's possibly 1 good thing to see and 799,999 Kentucky Fried Chickens. Well even they get lame things, but it's up to us to create good waymarks.

[+cache_test_dummies]

And I have read recently that there are some 800,000 waymarks. I think that's possibly 1 good thing to see and 799,999 Kentucky Fried Chickens. Well even they get lame things, but it's up to us to create good waymarks.

The actual number of Waymarks is currently in the vicinity of 75,000. And only 95 of those are currently listed in the KFC category.

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

Personally... I have always liked Virtuals and I was sorry to see them go...

we have logged many quality virtuals...

great places to see, yet impossible to place a cache...

(like in National Parks)...

Yeah... there were some pretty lame ones too...

But they were easy to weed out...

we have some grandfathered virtuals still out there...

and all our loggers, to this day, have alys expressed positive experiences...

 

I would also like to see the return of "reverse locationless caches"...

we don't do them anymore, as the new Waymarking system is just so lame...

compared to what it was before... the quality has deteriorated...

Just my opinion...

Edited February 8, 2008 by Peconic Bay Sailors

[+JohnnyVegas]

Personally... I have always liked Virtuals and I was sorry to see them go...

we have logged many quality virtuals...

great places to see, yet impossible to place a cache...

(like in National Parks)...

Yeah... there were some pretty lame ones too...

But they were easy to weed out...

 

I would also like to see the return of "reverse locationless caches"...

we don't do them anymore, as the new Waymarking system is just so lame...

compared to what it was before... the quality has deteriorated...

Just my opinion...

As I racall. one of the things that got virtuals band was virtuals at lame places like fast food chains. So now we have nanos at places like fast food chains. What an improvement.

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

Personally... I have always liked Virtuals and I was sorry to see them go...

we have logged many quality virtuals...

great places to see, yet impossible to place a cache...

(like in National Parks)...

Yeah... there were some pretty lame ones too...

But they were easy to weed out...

 

I would also like to see the return of "reverse locationless caches"...

we don't do them anymore, as the new Waymarking system is just so lame...

compared to what it was before... the quality has deteriorated...

Just my opinion...

As I racall. one of the things that got virtuals band was virtuals at lame places like fast food chains. So now we have nanos at places like fast food chains. What an improvement.

 

That seems like an approver problem to me...

[+briansnat]

Personally... I have always liked Virtuals and I was sorry to see them go...

we have logged many quality virtuals...

great places to see, yet impossible to place a cache...

(like in National Parks)...

Yeah... there were some pretty lame ones too...

But they were easy to weed out...

 

I would also like to see the return of "reverse locationless caches"...

we don't do them anymore, as the new Waymarking system is just so lame...

compared to what it was before... the quality has deteriorated...

Just my opinion...

As I racall. one of the things that got virtuals band was virtuals at lame places like fast food chains. So now we have nanos at places like fast food chains. What an improvement.

 

That seems like an approver problem to me...

 

It's not the job of the reviewers to judge cache quality. If the cache conforms to the guidelines, it's published.

[+Renegade Knight]

....As I racall. one of the things that got virtuals band was virtuals at lame places like fast food chains. So now we have nanos at places like fast food chains. What an improvement.

 

That seems like an approver problem to me...

 

JV: Originally were allowed in the same places as regular caches. No restrictions on WOW factor. Then came eyebrow raising virtuals and the WOW standard was imposed. You are right though, regular caches don't have a WOW issue.

 

PBS: After that, it was a guideline probem. Reviewers were told to enforce a subjective guidlene. "Make them be WOW" and Wow varies quite a bit. Take marriage We all marry WOW, but just look at all the folks in love with average peole unlike my own spouse.

 

For reviewers WOW was a losing battle.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Zop]

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

 

I've come across a few Unknown and Multi virtual caches that are not labeled ad virtuals. They simply have an ALR requiring the seeker to send an email with specific information to the hider. Would something like this suit the bill?

[+cache_test_dummies]

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

 

I've come across a few Unknown and Multi virtual caches that are not labeled ad virtuals. They simply have an ALR requiring the seeker to send an email with specific information to the hider. Would something like this suit the bill?

You mean there is no container and no log book, and they aren't listed as a virtual? Sounds like the type of situation where the containers went missing and the owners just made virtuals out of them.

 

I believe the reviewers (when they find out about these caches) require owners to restore the log book and containers, or else risk having their cache archived.

[+Snoogans]

Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway?

 

Probably the same kind of people who think they are great places for geocaches, or perhaps the kind of people who thought manhole covers, fence posts and flagpoles made great virtuals.

The people who question Waymarking Starbucks and McD's are the same ones that believe geocaching should be a tour guide rather than a game of hide and seek where sometimes the cache is not hidden in a place that has anything "Wow" about. The point is to find the cache. The point of waymark to waymark places someone might want to visit for whatever the reason it.

 

Waymarks can be very non-Wow places. (One thing that makes them different from virtuals). But these are places that people may be interested in knowing where their are. If you're visiting some new town, you may want to know where the Starbucks or McDs is. Some people may even want to visit as many McDs or Starbucks as possible. Most tour books have a section that list attractions and another section that list food and lodging. Think of Waymarking as having many sections, most suggested by the users. A particular location can even be listed in multiple categories. And Waymarking even has a section of Waymarking games. These are location that are there for you to have fun with. It can include categories for places you can go visit and be surprised or "Wow'ed" when they visit. People who want to have a virtual cache can download these waymarks and go looking for them. People who want to hide a virtual cache because they want visitors who aren't just interested in Historic Markers or 9/11 memorials might be able to use one of the Waymarking games categories to attract people who just want the old virtual cache experience (if these people would give Waymarking a try instead of whining about the new virtual ban in Geocaching).

 

It's easy to get worked up over a coment out of context. Here's the comment IN context:

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.

 

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?

 

It kinda brings this comment into sharper focus:

Who the heck would waste their time Waymarking Starbucks and McD's anyway?

Yes, who indeed would waste their time Waymarking a Starbucks or a McD's. I wonder.

 

I have nothing against Waymarking in general. It's just not user friendly enough for me. I'll give it a try again when the kinks are worked out.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Snoogans

[+briansnat]

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

 

I've come across a few Unknown and Multi virtual caches that are not labeled ad virtuals. They simply have an ALR requiring the seeker to send an email with specific information to the hider. Would something like this suit the bill?

 

Those sound like a guideline violation to me. I wouldn't recommend the idea to someone else.

[+JoesBar]

There were many virtual caches that I truly enjoyed. The first place I thought of when I read this topic is Washington, DC. While a person may be able to hide a micro cache there, consider those that try to find it. Cameras must be everywhere. So folks seekers would certainly look suspicious.

 

I think the same applies to many urban environments. While I could hide a container near a fountian or statue that I want others to visit, I must consider those that seek the container. Your GPSr is, at best, accurate to ten feet. So when folks come to find my micro cache, they may be subjected to a visit with the local police.

 

Another person posted that the located could be used in an offset cache. That is not as simple as it sounds. Again, think urban location. There may not be a greenspace nearby.

 

I really don't have a solution, but I have visited some great virtual caches. I wish they were back.

Edited February 8, 2008 by JoesBar

[+MountainMudbug]

Count me among those that were sad to see Virtuals killed. Waymarking is not the same experience and I still don't like the way it is set up. I would have preferred to see Virtuals just given their own find count and section, just like Benchmarks, and with the same gc.com layout they had (still have) based on coordinate location alone, not all the category stuff.

But whatever.

Edited February 8, 2008 by MountainMudbug

[+Team Cotati]

Count me among those that were sad to see Virtuals killed. Waymarking is not the same experience and I still don't like the way it is set up. I would have preferred to see Virtuals just given their own find count and section, just like Benchmarks, and with the same gc.com layout they had (still have) based on coordinate location alone, not all the category stuff.

But whatever.

 

The only thing that I would add to that would be to eliminate and never again allow: manhole covers, fence posts, flagpoles and similar type garbage.

 

No one seems to like rules, but I think that a rule preventing stuff like that would serve well.

 

Do they have such a rule in Waymarking?

Edited February 8, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+briansnat]

Do they have such a rule in Waymarking?

 

No. Unlike geocaching, Waymarking is a democracy. If a majority of waymarkers think a category is worthwhile, it's listed. As far as individual waymarks, it's up the each category's officers to determine

if the waymark complies with the category's requirements.

[+Glenn]

The only thing that I would add to that would be to eliminate and never again allow: manhole covers, fence posts, flagpoles and similar type garbage.

 

No one seems to like rules, but I think that a rule preventing stuff like that would serve well.

 

Do they have such a rule in Waymarking?

 

I don't understand why you would want to ban all manhole covers from being listed as virtual caches. There sure are some cool looking manhole covers that would make awesome virtual caches.

 

 

I'm sure the same thing can be said about fence posts, flagpoles and similar type garbage.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Count me among those that were sad to see Virtuals killed. Waymarking is not the same experience and I still don't like the way it is set up. I would have preferred to see Virtuals just given their own find count and section, just like Benchmarks, and with the same gc.com layout they had (still have) based on coordinate location alone, not all the category stuff.

But whatever.

 

The only thing that I would add to that would be to eliminate and never again allow: manhole covers, fence posts, flagpoles and similar type garbage.

 

No one seems to like rules, but I think that a rule preventing stuff like that would serve well.

 

Do they have such a rule in Waymarking?

Organizationally, Waymarking consists of logical arrangement of a large number of categories. Each category is created and managed by a small number like-minded individuals (Groundspeak Premium Members) known as a 'group' who design the category and the requirements for listing waymarks in that category. The requirements for each category are available for everyone to see. Examples of some categories in which I am a group member are Mountain Summits, Grave of a Famous Person and Battlefields.

 

When someone identifies a location that they believe would be a good fit for a particular category (for example, the scene of a famous battle), they record the coordinates, take pictures, and gather some descriptive details. They submit this information to the managing group for that category, and the category managers are notified. Any one of the category managers then reviews the submitted waymark, and if the waymark meets the requirements, the waymark is approved. Once approved, others can see the listed waymark in that category, and visit the location if they choose.

 

So with respect to your 'rules' question, the answer is: it depends on the category. There isn't a 'manhole cover' category (not yet, anyway - there has been some discussion of creating such a category), nor is there a fence post category. There is a Municipal Flags category, but not a flagpole category.

 

But under the right circumstances, a rather mundane object like a flagpole or a manhole cover might fit into another category. There is a waymark in the Infamous Crime Scenes category that is identifies the location of a utility pole. But this specific utility pole is the location of an interesting criminal event, and may therefore be a desirable destination for those with an interest in crime and history.

[Rostropovich]

Are there any variations in the game?

 

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

 

This is taken from Beginners QAs.

How about this idea.

We can make, "Geocaches" that don't have a container and are actually just a place of interest placed on this site.

Oh, Yeah. By the way We only want traditional caches

[+Team Cotati]

The only thing that I would add to that would be to eliminate and never again allow: manhole covers, fence posts, flagpoles and similar type garbage.

 

No one seems to like rules, but I think that a rule preventing stuff like that would serve well.

 

Do they have such a rule in Waymarking?

 

I don't understand why you would want to ban all manhole covers from being listed as virtual caches. There sure are some cool looking manhole covers that would make awesome virtual caches.

 

 

I'm sure the same thing can be said about fence posts, flagpoles and similar type garbage.

 

That's one of the biggest detriments in this game, everything is ruled by exceptions and self-interest, no matter how ridiculous. No one is responsible enough to make and enforce reasonable and rational rules for the benefit of the larger good.

 

That may happen some day, but my observation is that things will have to get significantly worse first. That is really too bad.

[+paleolith]

I *like* knowing what I'm going to visit before I visit.

I think you hit the nail on the ... point.

 

The head of the nail is that not everyone-all-the-time wants to know. People are looking for a pleasant surprise, something outside the mundane, something where they don't know everthing about the category in advance, and are saying that wm.com doesn't provide this.

 

I've only logged two virtuals. Though they weren't huge surprises, I'm glad they were there. (Both are on NPS property, and making them stages of multis would be nothing but a stupid kludge which would add nothing to the finder's experience.) I had passed by both locations before (one a trail turnoff, one a road turnoff) without visiting. I've also walked past a great virtual without stopping to visit because I'd visited the spot before. Probably I'll eventually revisit it to log it, but in most cases I would not.

 

Perhaps wm.com could set up a category which corresponds to what people want from virtual caches: some element of surprise, not mundane, not otherwise strictly categorized. Perhaps this already exists -- I've spent less than an hour looking at wm.com -- but no one on the forums has cited it.

 

And then link them with gc.com, especially the maps ... frankly, I'm not going to more than one web site for "finding places", and I think a lot of other people are saying the same thing. I spend too much time planning to find caches as it is. (And for those such as toz who say that geocaching is "finding a box", I say that view of geocaching is rather narrow. For many of us, it's far more "finding places", and the box is a control rather than the goal.)

 

1) Set up a WM category which really corresponds to good virtual caches.

 

2) Link it to the gc.com google maps and to gc.com searchs.

 

Then your claim that Waymarking can replace virtuals has a chance of flying.

 

Edward

[+tozainamboku]

 

1) Set up a WM category which really corresponds to good virtual caches.

 

2) Link it to the gc.com google maps and to gc.com searchs.

 

Then your claim that Waymarking can replace virtuals has a chance of flying.

 

Edward

Good idea. The big problem is defining what is a "good" virtual cache. I came up with this definition

Description:

Do you know of some place in your town or neighborhood that is unknown to most of the locals and that you would like to share with the Waymarking community? A place with a great view, an interesting artifact, or the location of some event that is of interest to the general public. We want the visitors to exclaim, "Wow! I didn't know this was here."

 

Expanded Description:

 

A Best Kept Secret is a waymark that shows off a place that most people don't know about but has enough general interest for most people to want to visit and find out more about it. These are the places we think made the very best virtual geocaches. And like virtual geocaches, visitors are expected to provide verification of their visit – usually by finding answers to question that can only be answered by visiting the site.

 

Unlike virtual geocaches, a Best Kept Secret doesn't have to be a location where you can't place a cache. In fact there can already be a physical or virtual cache there. The location can even be listed in another Waymarking category. However, we still want these to be places that have a general interest and, most importantly, they must be relatively unknown to most people in the area.

 

Instructions for Posting a Best Kept Secrets Waymark:

The waymark should be a specific target that the visitor can find using their GPSr. It should not be something large like a park, a beach, or a mountain. For a view you want to have the visitor go to a very specific spot. For a large building you will want to take them to a particular entrance or other spot in or near the building. For locations inside of buildings, you should post coordinates for the entrance and provide letterbox-style hints to take the visitor to the location. In some cases you may want to have the visitor go to several nearby locations or follow a path through the area. Put additional waypoints and instructions in your description, if neccessary. 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 they cannot be answered through library or web research. In rare instances, we may allow a photo of the visitor at the location to be used as verification. You should give your waymark a name and description that will make people want to visit. One way to do this is make it a mystery as to what they will find there. Your name and description will be important factors in deciding whether we accept your waymark. Use the terrain variable to indicate the difficulty of getting to the waymark. A terrain rating of 1 should be wheelchair accessible. Indicate in your description if the secret place is available only certain hours and whether there is an admission fee.

 

Commercial locations will generally not be allowed.

 

Provide additional information, if necessary, in the private note to the Best Kept Secret category managers so that they can determine if the location meets all the requirements for a Best Kept Secret. You do not have to provide the answers to the verification questions. The Best Kept Secrets category managers will review your submission and determine if the location is too well known to be a Best Kept Secret. For example, if there is a Wikipedia.org entry for the location/object it is probably too well known.

 

Some virtual caches would be better represented in one of the many other Waymarking categories. Not every "Wow" waymark is a Best Kept Secret. If you have a really "Wow" place that people would generally know about, consider another Waymarking category. Some suggestions are Guinness World Records, Weird Story Locations, Roadside Attractions, News Article Locations, Wikipedia Entries, and the many Historic Marker categories.

 

The preference is for Best Kept Secret waymarks to be created by locals who have a feeling for how well known a place is. If you discover a location like this while on vacation, we may require additional information to show that it is a well kept secret - we may allow locations known to locals that most visitors would never see.

 

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category: Visitors must answer the verification questions (or post a photo when that alternative is allowed). The answers should be emailed to the waymark owner for verification, not to the category officers. Answers should never be posted in the logs. Visitor are also asked to rank their experience for "Wow". Premium members should use the ranking feature (1 means "wasn't worth the visit" and 5 means "Wow"). Non-premium members can let us know in their logs.

 

I submitted this and it is now a Waymarking category. You might not agree with the the definition I have of a "good" virtual cache. But thats OK. You can start your own Waymarking group and propose another category. I really expected to have three or four categories like this by now.

[+paleolith]

With two separate websites GC can now make sponsors pay to advertise on both of them.

Advertising on the web is either per-impression or per-click, never per-site. And I'm sure that Groundspeak has a single point of sales, so advertisers don't have to sign up twice and sign two contracts. So it makes no difference to the advertisers whether it's one web site or a hundred web sites. They pay either by the number of times the ad is shown or by the number of times it's clicked on.

 

The second web site may help both Groundspeak and the advertisers by bringing more traffic, but that's a different matter.

 

Edward

[+paleolith]

I submitted this and it is now a Waymarking category. You might not agree with the the definition I have of a "good" virtual cache. But thats OK. You can start your own Waymarking group and propose another category. I really expected to have three or four categories like this by now.

I like it. It's a good start. As you say, I would expect it to be expanded to include other variants once there's critical mass.

 

Now there's that issue of "different web site" ...

 

Edward

[+Too Tall John]

I submitted this and it is now a Waymarking category. You might not agree with the the definition I have of a "good" virtual cache. But thats OK. You can start your own Waymarking group and propose another category. I really expected to have three or four categories like this by now.

I like it. It's a good start. As you say, I would expect it to be expanded to include other variants once there's critical mass.

 

Now there's that issue of "different web site" ...

 

Edward

Sounds like a fun category, Toz. I'll have to check it out if I get motivated to try and figure out the WM website.

 

As to the issue of "different web site," look out! Unless I'm mistaken, the next build of GC.com is going to be much more closely tied to WM.com.

[+The Leprechauns]

"Best Kept Secrets" has been a Waymarking category for close to two years now. It has 23 waymark entries.

 

Why is that? Is it because there's really very few places that are complete surprises, of the "I had no idea this was here, and it took a GPS and this listing for me to discover it" variety?

 

Or is it because you can't get smilies for one of the "Best Kept Secrets," but a grandfathered historic marker virtual geocache gets finds logged every week?

[+Glenn]

As to the issue of "different web site," look out! Unless I'm mistaken, the next build of GC.com is going to be much more closely tied to WM.com.

 

I don't understand why Groundspeak would go to all the trouble of tying the two websites together when geocaching would work very well as a Waymarking category with subcategories for each cache type. This would be the best, and possibly only, way to bring back virtual caches. The numbers people can be kept happy because the Waymarking website keeps track of the number of finds and a Geocaching.com Found It smiley can be used as the category icon to keep the smiley hunters happy too.

[+cache_test_dummies]

As to the issue of "different web site," look out! Unless I'm mistaken, the next build of GC.com is going to be much more closely tied to WM.com.

 

I don't understand why Groundspeak would go to all the trouble of tying the two websites together when geocaching would work very well as a Waymarking category with subcategories for each cache type. This would be the best, and possibly only, way to bring back virtual caches. The numbers people can be kept happy because the Waymarking website keeps track of the number of finds and a Geocaching.com Found It smiley can be used as the category icon to keep the smiley hunters happy too.

"Tied to" could mean many different things. We can certainly assume that at least some of the code base used on the GC.com and WM.com sites will be common between the two, as this has been Groundspeak's publicly stated position for some time now. The rest is all speculation.

 

But I can envision a number of ways in which common or overlapping terminology, features, or data could "tie" the two sites together, such as map and pocket query features.

 

A truly interesting area for speculation is the possibility of overlapping statistics. Would the 'bring back Virtuals' discussions go away if there was a 'Waymarks' tab on your Groundspeak profile page, right next to "Geocaches" and "Trackables"?

Edited February 10, 2008 by cache_test_dummies

[+Too Tall John]

A truly interesting area for speculation is the possibility of overlapping statistics. Would the 'bring back Virtuals' discussions go away if there was a 'Waymarks' tab on your Groundspeak profile page, right next to "Geaocaches" and "Trackables"?

I think they'd be silly not to do something that looked like that.

 

Probably one for Wherigo, too...

[+blb9556]

Yes maybe note locationless but virtuals. I personally don't care about Waymarking just geocaching. I have 1 or 2 virtual finds and would like to get more.

[+Team Cotati]

Yes maybe note locationless but virtuals. I personally don't care about Waymarking just geocaching. I have 1 or 2 virtual finds and would like to get more.

 

Yeah, so would a whole lot more. Unfortunately it won't matter. Too many would have to admit error.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Yes maybe note locationless but virtuals. I personally don't care about Waymarking just geocaching. I have 1 or 2 virtual finds and would like to get more.

 

Yeah, so would a whole lot more. Unfortunately it won't matter. Too many would have to admit error.

What is this "error" you are referring to?

[+hukilaulau]

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.

You've made a number of false assumptions in your posts. One of them is that "Groundspeak" does not know what is being discussed in the forums. They do. Another is that "there is no reason" why a minority group in the geocaching community should not "have what we would like." There is. But certainly go ahead and e-mail Groundspeak. Keep this reality about forums in general in mind too: When someone calls for a change (or a return to a former state) proportionately more responses will be in favor of the change than opposed to it, simply because those who favor the status quo don't have to do anything to get what they want. The fact that most of the responses to your OP have been opposed to returning to virts indicates that the overwhelming majority of geocachers either don't want them or just don't care.

Edited February 10, 2008 by hukilaulau

[+Team Cotati]

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.

You've made a number of false assumptions in your posts. One of them is that "Groundspeak" does not know what is being discussed in the forums. They do. Another is that "there is no reason" why a minority group in the geocaching community should not "have what we would like." There is. But certainly go ahead and e-mail Groundspeak. Keep this reality about forums in general in mind too: When someone calls for a change (or a return to a former state) proportionately more responses will be in favor of the change than opposed to it, simply because those who favor the status quo don't have to do anything to get what they want. The fact that most of the responses to your OP have been opposed to returning to virts indicates that the overwhelming majority of geocachers either don't want them or just don't care.

 

"indicates that the overwhelming majority of geocachers either don't want them or just don't care." Indicates that the vocal majority of the significant minority of the world's geocachers who post in here, have been successful in shouting down those who believe that virtual caches were and are worthy of the continued inclusion in this game.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I think this is the only thread I would like to see locked. Virt. are a dead issue.

[+Team Cotati]

I think this is the only thread I would like to see locked. Virt. are a dead issue.

 

While 'new' virtuals are certainly "dead", virtuals as a desired part of geocaching is most certainly not a "dead issue". That of course in no way means that they will ever return. However it also does not mean that the "issue" is dead.