Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
nthacker66

Vote to bring back virtual/earth/cam caches?

Recommended Posts

I know this topic has probably been beaten to the ground but I think the strength of geocaching.com is in its users. I am not sure why they did away with these types of caches, but I think they should be brought back. I am not a big fan of micro caches (even though for larger caches, if I am not into the swag, I still sign the log thanking the owner for the cache) and I am not saying do away with micro's, but micro seem to be like non-alcoholic beer - still tastes like beer a little but little to no payoff. So, with that, I would like to see how many people want virtuals/earth/cam caches back?

 

If the response is large, then I think we should petition Groundspeak to bring them back. Whats your thought?

Share this post


Link to post

Earthcaches are not gone, so I would vote for them to stay.

 

Camera caches - IMHO are not actual caches so I would vote no.

 

Virtual caches - same answer - no

Share this post


Link to post

You are 100% correct.

This topic has been beaten into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post

Earthcaches are not gone, so I would vote for them to stay.

 

Camera caches - IMHO are not actual caches so I would vote no.

 

Virtual caches - same answer - no

 

I feel that geocaching is more than just about the cache and even the hunt. Where virtual cache's work very well are in some parks that want to charge for cache placement. The idea of showing off a place that one normally wouldn't hoke to or know about IMO is better than looking for a bison tube stuck in a hole in a tree ro the typical "lamp post" hides. A lot of micro's have nothing to do with a hike or a hunt but more about adding another smiley face. Like I said, I don't mind micros as long as they take you through places of interest such as nature and significant human value, but if we are to allow micros like the ones mentioned above, why not allow virtuals?

 

I can understand cam caches not being popular. I think they could be put in with a virtual cache, not so much for the log but to know those cams are there and smile for them ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

You are 100% correct.

This topic has been beaten into the ground.

 

The reply explains the avatar.

 

4a364325-dec7-4d5d-ba6e-2c1edd591fea.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Geocaching is all about finding something somewhere.

 

Waymarking is all about just finding the somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Geocaching is all about finding something somewhere.

 

Waymarking is all about just finding the somewhere.

 

I can dig that. Although, can you shed some light on why virtual and cam caches were done away with?

Share this post


Link to post

You are 100% correct.

This topic has been beaten into the ground.

 

The reply explains the avatar.

 

4a364325-dec7-4d5d-ba6e-2c1edd591fea.jpg

 

It's even worse if you know what Gof stands for. :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Geocaching is all about finding something somewhere.

 

Waymarking is all about just finding the somewhere.

 

I can dig that. Although, can you shed some light on why virtual and cam caches were done away with?

 

It was the whole "container and logbook" thing. It may or may not have been just a convenient excuse, but it's the official company line. :anibad:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

Yup! And GOF stands for Grumpy Old Fart.

 

The truth is that the powers that be have much invested in the Waymarking site. Why would they want to bring virtual caches back? It would be counter productive from their point of view.

 

If you want it from my point of view it is more that virtual caches are not geocaches. Part of being a geocache is the container. If there isn't a container it isn't a cache. Just my opinion.

 

This subject comes up almost every week, so yes, it has been beaten into the ground. Just a simple fact.

Share this post


Link to post

You are 100% correct.

This topic has been beaten into the ground.

 

The reply explains the avatar.

 

4a364325-dec7-4d5d-ba6e-2c1edd591fea.jpg

 

It's even worse if you know what Gof stands for. :anibad:

 

I would guess grumpy old fart or f*** ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Virtuals and Waymarking are in no way related.

 

Staying on topic with the OP, other than those grandfathered, virtuals are gone with little to no hope of returning, no matter how many people you may get to agree with you. GC has made this clear. The same for Webcam caches so grab them while you can.

 

Earthcaches are still here and, as long as there is no abuse or something else that may cause reconsideration, I can't see them disappearing anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post

Howdy Urkle.

How's things?

 

Before someone asks, yes I said the container was a part of being a geocache. Earth caches would fit better at Waymarking.

 

So much or my popularity points.

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Virtuals and Waymarking are in no way related.

 

Staying on topic with the OP, other than those grandfathered, virtuals are gone with little to no hope of returning, no matter how many people you may get to agree with you. GC has made this clear. The same for Webcam caches so grab them while you can.

 

Earthcaches are still here and, as long as there is no abuse or something else that may cause reconsideration, I can't see them disappearing anytime soon.

 

Can you explain how they differ?

 

And for the record, I like your avatar better (dancing bear vs. grumpy - both disney characters though which is kind of ironic). :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Virtuals and Waymarking are in no way related.

 

.....

In your humble opinion.

 

Most of us can see they are identical.

Share this post


Link to post

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Virtuals and Waymarking are in no way related.

 

Staying on topic with the OP, other than those grandfathered, virtuals are gone with little to no hope of returning, no matter how many people you may get to agree with you. GC has made this clear. The same for Webcam caches so grab them while you can.

 

Earthcaches are still here and, as long as there is no abuse or something else that may cause reconsideration, I can't see them disappearing anytime soon.

 

How do virts and Waymarking differ, in your own opinion?

Edited by nthacker66

Share this post


Link to post

Here:

http://www.michmarkers.com/default.htm

Now you can log 90% of all the old virtual caches in Michigan.

I am sure that other states have a similar website.

I vote no on virtuals for the above reason.

I am really glad that Earthcaches are back.

 

I have got a possible solution that I suggested in another thread awhile back. It's a technical solutions, but I'm a programmer. Ask a programmer if software should be written to solve a problem and the answer will *always* be yes. But I digress.

 

The rationale is that caches often have extra logging requirements. This practice is often used on virtual caches to prevent virtual logging, but it's also found on traditional, multi, and unknown caches.

 

First, add a check box on the form for submitting a cache listing which reads:

 

[ ] Logging requires owner validation

 

Next, the owner would specify any specific logging requirements such as "include the date on the sign near the cache in your log" or "logs will only be excepted if accompanied by photo of the cacher while wearing the tutu provided in the cache container" (this actually crossed my mind when my sister-n-law asked about creating a ballet themed cache).

 

When someone logs a cache that has had this box checked, rather than have the "Found" log automatically added (and possibly subsequently deleted by the owner if it was determined that the cacher didn't actually find the cache), the log text and any attachments would be sent to the owner as an email message with a clickable link (or one that could be cut-n-pasted) for approving or denying the log. It would go to a page with an Approve and Deny buttons and a textarea for sending a message back to the person that logged the cache. Clicking on "Approve" would cause the original log to get posted. Clicking Deny would just remove it and the owner could send a message back to cacher giving a reason for the denial.

Share this post


Link to post

Those of us who enjoyed Virtuals and Webcams have made our opinions known. (Jey. I enjoyed Locationless caches too!!!) This not a democracy: no one offered us a vote. So, your subject line makes no sense. TPTB have made their decision. That is their prerogative.

I have no interest in waypointing, so I offer no advice there.

In the mean time, I'm still having a great time hunting and hiding the types of caches that are available on geocaching! (Okay. I don't care much for earth caches...) And I hope to continue hunting and hiding the caches here for a long time!

An, yes. This horse has been beaten to death. Many times.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this topic has probably been beaten to the ground but I think the strength of geocaching.com is in its users. I am not sure why they did away with these types of caches, but I think they should be brought back. I am not a big fan of micro caches (even though for larger caches, if I am not into the swag, I still sign the log thanking the owner for the cache) and I am not saying do away with micro's, but micro seem to be like non-alcoholic beer - still tastes like beer a little but little to no payoff. So, with that, I would like to see how many people want virtuals/earth/cam caches back?

 

If the response is large, then I think we should petition Groundspeak to bring them back. Whats your thought?

This topic has been beaten in the ground.

 

Groundspeak had its reasons for stopping the acceptance of new virtual and webcam caches. Earthcaches can still be submitted through www.earthcache.org.

 

If micros are non-alcoholic beer, I wonder what virtuals and webcams are. Water perhaps? :anibad: I should add that even when virtuals could still be submitted there were threads about how micros just didn't seem as good as a regular size cache. Some took to using an ice cream analogy: Everybody likes vanilla ice cream (regular size cache). Some people like raspberry ice cream (micros) and some people don't like it ;) In one thread I pointed out that some people like frozen yogurt (virtual caches). I like beer better than ice cream but I hope you see the point.

 

Groundspeak does not run geocaching.com as a democracy. Users can certainly ask for changes and even petition for changes. Since geocaching does rely on people to continue to participate, Groundspeak has listened to its users in the past. However this topic has been beaten into the ground. There is no ground swell demanding that virtuals be brought back. Some people never felt they deserved to be caches in the first place, others are satisfied with the alternative of Waymarking.com. Some even feel that Waymarking.com is a better fit for virtual caches.

 

Virtual caches aren't really gone either. They just morphed from here to somewhere else. Waymarking.

 

Virtuals and Waymarking are in no way related.

 

Staying on topic with the OP, other than those grandfathered, virtuals are gone with little to no hope of returning, no matter how many people you may get to agree with you. GC has made this clear. The same for Webcam caches so grab them while you can.

 

Earthcaches are still here and, as long as there is no abuse or something else that may cause reconsideration, I can't see them disappearing anytime soon.

 

How do virts and Waymarking differ, in your own opinion?

The main difference is that you don't get a smiley for visiting a waymark B)

 

I suspect that baloo&bd may mean there is a more fundamental difference. In searching for a virtual you were usually expected to find something in order to answer a verification question or to take a picture. Sometimes you didn't know what you would find till you got there, other times the description would tell you exactly what you were going to see but often you would still go "wow" when you saw it in person. This was because of the dreaded "Wow" requirement that virtuals had to pass to be approved. Waymarking requires that you put waymarks in an existing Waymarking category. That means that you often have an idea of what you are going to find before you get there. Also there is no "Wow" requirement for categories. Some Waymarking categories would make good virtuals while others are mundane. You need to do a little work if you want to get a "wow" from visiting a waymark. You have to look for the categories you are interested in. This seems to eliminate the surprise kind of virtuals where you didn't know what you would find before you got there. But in reality there can be Waymarking categories for this as well. The Best Kept Secrets category is for listing waymarks that are not well know even to local but still are interesting places to visit. While not a requirement for the category, it does allow some waymarks to have descriptions that don't give away what the secret is till you visit. I believe that people can start other Waymarking categories that allow for waymarks that have whatever it is that makes you go "wow" for a virtual. Just come up with a good definition and suggest it as a new category in the Waymarking forums.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

I know this topic has probably been beaten to the ground but I think the strength of geocaching.com is in its users. I am not sure why they did away with these types of caches, but I think they should be brought back. I am not a big fan of micro caches (even though for larger caches, if I am not into the swag, I still sign the log thanking the owner for the cache) and I am not saying do away with micro's, but micro seem to be like non-alcoholic beer - still tastes like beer a little but little to no payoff. So, with that, I would like to see how many people want virtuals/earth/cam caches back?

 

If the response is large, then I think we should petition Groundspeak to bring them back. Whats your thought?

You are correct in stating that the topic has been beaten into the ground, and all you are doing is rehashing what has been said in more than a dozen threads on the same topic, one of them very recent. BTW, I am personally very glad that new virtuals are no longer published, and it does not matter to me at all that container-free/logbook-free webcam caches are gone, because there are a number of great and fun alternatives that still employ webcams.

 

And, for clarification, here are a couple of points about your post:

  • Earth caches are not gone; that was a mistaken assumption on your part.
  • A reminder: webcam caches are not gone, but rather just changed slightly. You are still free to place an additional logging requirement (ALR) cache which includes a physical cache container and a logbook which must be signed, and to make a sighting/photo from a nearby webcam an additional logging requirement (ALR).
  • A reminder: if you do not know why the admins "did away" with virtuals and log-less webcams, you are free to search the earlier threads on the forums which explain the reasons. It does not need to remain a mystery for you; a few minutes of research will yield the answers you want.

Share this post


Link to post

Here:

http://www.michmarkers.com/default.htm

Now you can log 90% of all the old virtual caches in Michigan.

I am sure that other states have a similar website.

I vote no on virtuals for the above reason.

I am really glad that Earthcaches are back.

 

I have got a possible solution that I suggested in another thread awhile back. It's a technical solutions, but I'm a programmer. Ask a programmer if software should be written to solve a problem and the answer will *always* be yes. But I digress.

 

The rationale is that caches often have extra logging requirements. This practice is often used on virtual caches to prevent virtual logging, but it's also found on traditional, multi, and unknown caches.

 

First, add a check box on the form for submitting a cache listing which reads:

 

[ ] Logging requires owner validation

 

Next, the owner would specify any specific logging requirements such as "include the date on the sign near the cache in your log" or "logs will only be excepted if accompanied by photo of the cacher while wearing the tutu provided in the cache container" (this actually crossed my mind when my sister-n-law asked about creating a ballet themed cache).

 

When someone logs a cache that has had this box checked, rather than have the "Found" log automatically added (and possibly subsequently deleted by the owner if it was determined that the cacher didn't actually find the cache), the log text and any attachments would be sent to the owner as an email message with a clickable link (or one that could be cut-n-pasted) for approving or denying the log. It would go to a page with an Approve and Deny buttons and a textarea for sending a message back to the person that logged the cache. Clicking on "Approve" would cause the original log to get posted. Clicking Deny would just remove it and the owner could send a message back to cacher giving a reason for the denial.

 

Or the owner can simply delete the logs where the finder didn't meet the ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

No more virtuals, The OP has only been geocaching for a short time and has not found many caches and no vurtual caches.

The big problem I remember from virtual caches, is finding the cache and sending the cache owner the required information to log the cache, and then in most cases the owner of the cache would not reply to the email with permission to log the find. :anibad:

If the OP wants to find some, the old ones are still around

Share this post


Link to post

No more virtuals, The OP has only been geocaching for a short time and has not found many caches and no vurtual caches.

The big problem I remember from virtual caches, is finding the cache and sending the cache owner the required information to log the cache, and then in most cases the owner of the cache would not reply to the email with permission to log the find. :anibad:

If the OP wants to find some, the old ones are still around

 

You are so correct!!! I am so sorry for posting. Let me go out and build up my stats before I go asking questions in these forums.

 

My apologies to all who I so deeply offended. I am just a n00b who should learn to keep his big mouth shut.

Share this post


Link to post

No more virtuals, The OP has only been geocaching for a short time and has not found many caches and no vurtual caches.

The big problem I remember from virtual caches, is finding the cache and sending the cache owner the required information to log the cache, and then in most cases the owner of the cache would not reply to the email with permission to log the find. :anibad:

If the OP wants to find some, the old ones are still around

 

You are so correct!!! I am so sorry for posting. Let me go out and build up my stats before I go asking questions in these forums.

 

My apologies to all who I so deeply offended. I am just a n00b who should learn to keep his big mouth shut.

who said to stop posting, no I.

I was just pointing out the problems retaleted to virtuals that you are not aware of.

Share this post


Link to post

No more virtuals, The OP has only been geocaching for a short time and has not found many caches and no vurtual caches.

The big problem I remember from virtual caches, is finding the cache and sending the cache owner the required information to log the cache, and then in most cases the owner of the cache would not reply to the email with permission to log the find. :anibad:

If the OP wants to find some, the old ones are still around

 

You are so correct!!! I am so sorry for posting. Let me go out and build up my stats before I go asking questions in these forums.

 

My apologies to all who I so deeply offended. I am just a n00b who should learn to keep his big mouth shut.

who said to stop posting, no I.

I was just pointing out the problems retaleted to virtuals that you are not aware of.

 

I am not going to get into a p@ssing contest about this. If you were just pointing out that I was unaware of exiisting virtuals, than why not just say that. Instead, you pointed out specifically that I "have not found many caches and no virtual caches." I will leave it at that, as I have already sent you a PM so we aren't using up space on this thread to argue.

 

Moderator, please archive this thread ad forget I ever brought up the subject.

Edited by nthacker66

Share this post


Link to post

Please don't take that attitude. No one was slamming on you.

The truth is that the subject comes up often, very often. The end result is always the same. A hand full of people want 'em back. A hand full of people don't. Someone gets upset when the basic facts are pointed out. Same same new thread title.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...