Virtual Caches

[+peajay84]

A recent post suggests bringing back virtual caches in response to another post.

 

I'm new here so please forgive me if this has been asked and answered already.....

 

why were virtual caches disallowed?

 

It would be nice to see more in places where physical caches aren't allowed like National Parks.

 

Just wondering.

[+Miragee]

Welcome to the Forums!

 

If you do a Search, you will see many, many threads on this subject. Some of us are disappointed the Virtuals were discontinued here in favor of Waymarking.com, other people are glad there are no more Virtual caches.

 

I think the main problem was what the Reviewers had to go through . . .

People were submitting Virtuals that were not worthy, but no one knew how to determine the "WOW" factor . . .

 

It is too bad the Site won't make exceptions for places like National Parks and other Parks like a 600,000 acre State Park here that just disallowed physical caches, after seven years of allowing them . . .

[+sbell111]

A recent post suggests bringing back virtual caches in response to another post.

 

I'm new here so please forgive me if this has been asked and answered already.....

 

why were virtual caches disallowed?

 

It would be nice to see more in places where physical caches aren't allowed like National Parks.

 

Just wondering.

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

[+StarBrand]

It was decided that a Geocache is an object hidden at a location.

 

A virtual is just a location.

 

Also was some abuse as people were submitting things like an old sneaker in the woods as a virtual. Was hard to determine if area was better than that.

[+Renegade Knight]

...why were virtual caches disallowed?...

 

Two reasons.

 

1) This site doesn't like them.

2) Park managers can be tempted to "encourage" virtual caches over regular caches thereby sucking a lot of the fun out of this activity.

[+Isonzo Karst]

2) Park managers can be tempted to "encourage" virtual caches over regular caches thereby sucking a lot of the fun out of this activity.

 

Yes to that. I've been asked to comment on developing geocaching guidelines for two of Florida's state agencies. Once they know about virtual caches, that's all she wrote. "Oh, we'll let them do virtuals!" no physical placement. Eliminating them (here) was a big help to keeping physical cache placements as an option.

 

3) When anyone could post anything as a virt, these forums were full of angsty threads about all the lame virts.

So the guidelines changed to include a "Wow" factor. Then these forums were full of angsty threads about virtuals that hadn't been published because a reviewer didn't consider them "wow" enough.

[+cache_test_dummies]

...why were virtual caches disallowed?...

 

Two reasons.

 

1) This site doesn't like them.

2) Park managers can be tempted to "encourage" virtual caches over regular caches thereby sucking a lot of the fun out of this activity.

I disagree with "this site doesn't like them". There are many active virtuals still listed on this site, including one at Frog Central. If they didn't like virtuals, why not just archive them all?

[CoyoteRed]

why were virtual caches disallowed?

For many of the reasons already outlined above.

 

I'm glad they are gone. Back in the day a virt was far too easy to place. Many viable spots where a physical could easily be placed a virt was listed instead. No container to buy, no trinkets, no logbook to maintain. Nothing. It got pretty bad some of the things folks would make into a virt.

 

A lot of the ones you see left over are the decent ones, many of which came into being during the "wow factor" phase. This placed the reviewers in the role of quality control. Thus the typical virt that did get published was of high value. Problem is "value" is subjective.

 

Personally, I think it was a mistake to leave the virts here. I said it then that folks would see the virts and wonder why they are no longer allowed and there would be a movement to bring them back. I see I wasn't wrong. If there had been a clean break this would be almost non-existent. One site for physical hunts and the other for virtual hunts.

 

Oh, well.

[+briansnat]

why were virtual caches disallowed?

 

Simple answer, they are not geocaches,

[+WRASTRO]

...why were virtual caches disallowed?...

 

Two reasons.

 

1) This site doesn't like them.

2) Park managers can be tempted to "encourage" virtual caches over regular caches thereby sucking a lot of the fun out of this activity.

I disagree with "this site doesn't like them". There are many active virtuals still listed on this site, including one at Frog Central. If they didn't like virtuals, why not just archive them all?

 

There is a virtual cache at Frog Central? I have been there and logged the archived cache but have never heard anything about a virtual cache. Must do better research...

[+cache_test_dummies]

...why were virtual caches disallowed?...

 

Two reasons.

 

1) This site doesn't like them.

2) Park managers can be tempted to "encourage" virtual caches over regular caches thereby sucking a lot of the fun out of this activity.

I disagree with "this site doesn't like them". There are many active virtuals still listed on this site, including one at Frog Central. If they didn't like virtuals, why not just archive them all?

 

There is a virtual cache at Frog Central? I have been there and logged the archived cache but have never heard anything about a virtual cache. Must do better research...

My mistake. That cache is listed as a Mystery, not a virtual.

[+BlueDeuce]

...why were virtual caches disallowed?...

 

Two reasons.

 

1) This site doesn't like them.

2) Park managers can be tempted to "encourage" virtual caches over regular caches thereby sucking a lot of the fun out of this activity.

I disagree with "this site doesn't like them". There are many active virtuals still listed on this site, including one at Frog Central. If they didn't like virtuals, why not just archive them all?

 

There is a virtual cache at Frog Central? I have been there and logged the archived cache but have never heard anything about a virtual cache. Must do better research...

My mistake. That cache is listed as a Mystery, not a virtual.

 

Still, I agree. Seems more of a decision than a preference.

Edited April 25, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+Miragee]

It was decided that a Geocache is an object hidden at a location.

 

A virtual is just a location.

 

<snip>

Yes, it was decided that a Geocache is an object containing a logbook to be signed that is hidden at a location, unless it is an Earthcache.

 

Earthcaches were moved to Waymarking, then mysteriously moved back to GC.com, even though they are "Virtual" caches, albeit with educational information about the Geology of the area included on the cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

...why were virtual caches disallowed?...

 

Two reasons.

 

1) This site doesn't like them.

2) Park managers can be tempted to "encourage" virtual caches over regular caches thereby sucking a lot of the fun out of this activity.

I disagree with "this site doesn't like them"...

Fair enough.

This site diesn't think they are real caches. This site doesn't like how they implemented on geocaching.com. This site vies them more as POI's than caches.

 

All of these let the way to Waymarking. This sites solution for virtual and yet not virtual at all.

[+TeamGumbo]

As a newcomer to geocaching, I just want to say I am soooooooo glad I missed *that* battle.

[+DavidMac]

....people were submitting things like an old sneaker in the woods as a virtual.

 

Yeah, you know, nobody would ever do that with a traditional cache.

[+peajay84]

Thank you for the replies. I didn't mean to bring up bad blood.

 

I can understand why they were disallowed. I guess one way to look at it is that National Parks and the like offer enough to see and do without having to look for caches.

 

[+tozainamboku]

I guess one way to look at it is that National Parks and the like offer enough to see and do without having to look for caches.

 

That's the way I look at it. Not every place has to have a geocache.

 

Some people believe that geocaches should be used to bring people to neat places, and there are certainly many of those in the National Parks. But in reality a cache is just something for you to find as part of the activity we call geocaching.

 

Groundspeak realized that many people want to share interesting places. But what is interesting to one person may not be interesting to others. Some people like places of natural beauty, some like visiting historic markers, still others wish to share buildings designed a master architect or where you can see a giant balls of string. They developed the Waymarking site as a place to share places that interest you and categorize these many ways so others can find what interests them. After they built that site they probably felt there wasn't a need for virtual caches anymore. The old ones were grandfathered because there wasn't an easy way to migrate these to Waymarking.

[+TrailGators]

I guess one way to look at it is that National Parks and the like offer enough to see and do without having to look for caches.

 

That's the way I look at it. Not every place has to have a geocache.

 

Some people believe that geocaches should be used to bring people to neat places, and there are certainly many of those in the National Parks. But in reality a cache is just something for you to find as part of the activity we call geocaching.

 

Groundspeak realized that many people want to share interesting places. But what is interesting to one person may not be interesting to others. Some people like places of natural beauty, some like visiting historic markers, still others wish to share buildings designed a master architect or where you can see a giant balls of string. They developed the Waymarking site as a place to share places that interest you and categorize these many ways so others can find what interests them. After they built that site they probably felt there wasn't a need for virtual caches anymore. The old ones were grandfathered because there wasn't an easy way to migrate these to Waymarking.

From what I understand V2 of the site will let you add waymarks to your PQs.

[+TrailGators]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

 

I agree that the "wow" thing was a royal pain for the reviewers. Anything that causes the reviewers to get rude flack is going to die a quick death. I agree with this. There is no reason for volunteers to get rude flack.

Edited April 25, 2008 by TrailGators

[+DonB]

Welcome to the Forums!

 

If you do a Search, you will see many, many threads on this subject. Some of us are disappointed the Virtuals were discontinued here in favor of Waymarking.com, other people are glad there are no more Virtual caches.

 

I think the main problem was what the Reviewers had to go through . . .

People were submitting Virtuals that were not worthy, but no one knew how to determine the "WOW" factor . . .

 

It is too bad the Site won't make exceptions for places like National Parks and other Parks like a 600,000 acre State Park here that just disallowed physical caches, after seven years of allowing them . . .

Virtuals are a no no but we can have thousands of micros in lamp posts, now that's a real WOW factor.

[+joranda]

I'd love to see virtual caches come back. There is countless places that I have been that would of made a great virtual cache. But I don't see that happening.

[CoyoteRed]

Earthcaches were moved to Waymarking, then mysteriously moved back to GC.com, even though they are "Virtual" caches, albeit with educational information about the Geology of the area included on the cache page.

Yeah, that didn't make a lot of sense.

[CoyoteRed]

Virtuals are a no no but we can have thousands of micros in lamp posts, now that's a real WOW factor.

When virts started getting clamped down in respect to getting them published folks went with the path of least resistance: micros. LPCs and the like are a symptom of virtual cache restrictions. IMHO, and to echo briansnat's sentiment on virts, most micros aren't caches either.

[+sbell111]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Do you really have to twist every thread to be your own personal axe grinder?

 

Whether or not you happen to like all of the current caches being listed, I think that you will find that they all have logs and they don't give land managers an alternative to a traditional cache.

[+sbell111]

Virtuals are a no no but we can have thousands of micros in lamp posts, now that's a real WOW factor.

Those micros have logs. As does every lame non-micro cache currently being listed (earthcaches being an obvious exception).

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'd love to see virtual caches come back. There is countless places that I have been that would of made a great virtual cache. But I don't see that happening.

Do us a favour and create some waymarks then, rather than sitting at home grumbling!

[+TrailGators]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Do you really have to twist every thread to be your own personal axe grinder?

 

Whether or not you happen to like all of the current caches being listed, I think that you will find that they all have logs and they don't give land managers an alternative to a traditional cache.

 

You clearly listed that as one of your reasons:

 

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

I quoted exactly what you said. Then I stated my opinion that I don't think this was a reason based on what exists now. This is how a discussion works: Point and counterpoint.

[+sbell111]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Do you really have to twist every thread to be your own personal axe grinder?

 

Whether or not you happen to like all of the current caches being listed, I think that you will find that they all have logs and they don't give land managers an alternative to a traditional cache.

You clearly listed that as one of your reasons:

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

I quoted exactly what you said. Then I stated my opinion that I don't think this was a reason based on what exists now. This is how a discussion works: Point and counterpoint.

I see. You thought that each reason was in a vacuum.

 

I believe that the combination of the multiple reasons led to the extinction of virts.

Edited April 25, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Do you really have to twist every thread to be your own personal axe grinder?

 

Whether or not you happen to like all of the current caches being listed, I think that you will find that they all have logs and they don't give land managers an alternative to a traditional cache.

You clearly listed that as one of your reasons:

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

I quoted exactly what you said. Then I stated my opinion that I don't think this was a reason based on what exists now. This is how a discussion works: Point and counterpoint.

I see. You thought that each reason was in a vacuum. I rather believe that the combination of the multiple reasons led to the extinction of virts.

And you clearly stated that in your first quote...

 

The accepted existence of Earthcaches seems to refute your first reason.

 

There are many existing traditionals that seem to refute your third reason.

 

The only reason that is not easy to counterpoint is the second reason. Places that can support a legit Earthcache are rare, so they were not a threat to supplant traditionals in parks. So this reason has the strongest basis and therefore makes the most sense of your three reasons.

 

I think another big reason was that they wanted Waymarking to house virtuals and locationless caches. So I bet that there was a long-term plan that needed to give position Waymarking for future success by stopping the spread of virtuals and locationless caches on its sister website. Why have two websites with the same thing?

Edited April 25, 2008 by TrailGators

[+mtn-man]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Actually, it wasn't an overall thing. It was more about the new submissions coming in. Most, not all of course, but most of the good stuff was already done. That's probably all I am going to say on the subject. It's one of the biggest dead horses out there.

[+sbell111]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Do you really have to twist every thread to be your own personal axe grinder?

 

Whether or not you happen to like all of the current caches being listed, I think that you will find that they all have logs and they don't give land managers an alternative to a traditional cache.

You clearly listed that as one of your reasons:

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

I quoted exactly what you said. Then I stated my opinion that I don't think this was a reason based on what exists now. This is how a discussion works: Point and counterpoint.

I see. You thought that each reason was in a vacuum. I rather believe that the combination of the multiple reasons led to the extinction of virts.

And you clearly stated that in your first quote...

 

The accepted existence of Earthcaches seems to refute your first reason.

 

There are many existing traditionals that seem to refute your third reason. ...

Did you read the post that you quoted?

[+TrailGators]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Do you really have to twist every thread to be your own personal axe grinder?

 

Whether or not you happen to like all of the current caches being listed, I think that you will find that they all have logs and they don't give land managers an alternative to a traditional cache.

You clearly listed that as one of your reasons:

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

I quoted exactly what you said. Then I stated my opinion that I don't think this was a reason based on what exists now. This is how a discussion works: Point and counterpoint.

I see. You thought that each reason was in a vacuum. I rather believe that the combination of the multiple reasons led to the extinction of virts.

And you clearly stated that in your first quote...

 

The accepted existence of Earthcaches seems to refute your first reason.

 

There are many existing traditionals that seem to refute your third reason. ...

Did you read the post that you quoted?

If you want to discuss something I'm game. If you just want to nitpick and bicker I'm not going to do that. Edited April 25, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Actually, it wasn't an overall thing. It was more about the new submissions coming in. Most, not all of course, but most of the good stuff was already done. That's probably all I am going to say on the subject. It's one of the biggest dead horses out there.

The horse is dead and buried but it keeps coming up because so many people enjoy virts. These people need to understand that Waymarking is the only game left in town for virts. The grandfathered virts on GC are now just a taste sample that will lead them to Waymarking if they want more. Once Waymarking is enhanced (with V2), I bet these discussions will finally die along side the skeletal remains of the horse. Edited April 25, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

A recent post suggests bringing back virtual caches in response to another post.

 

I'm new here so please forgive me if this has been asked and answered already.....

 

why were virtual caches disallowed?

 

It would be nice to see more in places where physical caches aren't allowed like National Parks.

 

Just wondering.

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Do you really have to twist every thread to be your own personal axe grinder?

 

Whether or not you happen to like all of the current caches being listed, I think that you will find that they all have logs and they don't give land managers an alternative to a traditional cache.

You clearly listed that as one of your reasons:

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

I quoted exactly what you said. Then I stated my opinion that I don't think this was a reason based on what exists now. This is how a discussion works: Point and counterpoint.

I see. You thought that each reason was in a vacuum. I rather believe that the combination of the multiple reasons led to the extinction of virts.

And you clearly stated that in your first quote...

 

The accepted existence of Earthcaches seems to refute your first reason.

 

There are many existing traditionals that seem to refute your third reason. ...

Did you read the post that you quoted?

If you want to discuss something I'm game. If you just want to nitpick and bicker I'm not going to do that.

Huh?

 

I posted to the thread. You nitpicked the post. I qualified my post so you could better understand my position. You replied with a post the basically ignored the qualification. I pointed you back to the missed qualification. You now claim that you want to discuss the issue and that I'm nitpicking.

 

I'll try one more time to bring you back to track:

 

Each of the reasons I gave in post three were not meant to stand on it's own. The commulative effect of these issues resulted in the bannination of future virts, in my opinion.

 

Therefore, it makes no difference that earthcaches don't have log books or that you aren't wowwed by easy peasey micros.

Edited April 25, 2008 by sbell111

[+Zolgar]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Actually, it wasn't an overall thing. It was more about the new submissions coming in. Most, not all of course, but most of the good stuff was already done. That's probably all I am going to say on the subject. It's one of the biggest dead horses out there.

The horse is dead and buried but it keeps coming up because so many people enjoy virts. These people need to understand that Waymarking is the only game left in town for virts. The grandfathered virts on GC are now just a taste sample that will lead them to Waymarking if they want more. Once Waymarking is enhanced (with V2), I bet these discussions will finally die along side the skeletal remains of the horse.

 

No it won't. Because this is the internet.

 

discussions like this NEVER die. Maybe with an updated Waymarking sight they'll slow down, but they'll still pop up.

[+sbell111]

Any time you take away something that others believe has utility, people get upset and it goes on and on and on.

 

That's the very reason that I am against new features when people post that it 'won't hurt anything to give it a chance' and that they can always be removed if they don't work.

[+Team Cotati]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Actually, it wasn't an overall thing. It was more about the new submissions coming in. Most, not all of course, but most of the good stuff was already done. That's probably all I am going to say on the subject. It's one of the biggest dead horses out there.

The horse is dead and buried but it keeps coming up because so many people enjoy virts. These people need to understand that Waymarking is the only game left in town for virts. The grandfathered virts on GC are now just a taste sample that will lead them to Waymarking if they want more. Once Waymarking is enhanced (with V2), I bet these discussions will finally die along side the skeletal remains of the horse.

 

Is there somewhere on the site, outside of these forums, where the V2 enhacments to Waymarking can be read about?

[+TrailGators]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Actually, it wasn't an overall thing. It was more about the new submissions coming in. Most, not all of course, but most of the good stuff was already done. That's probably all I am going to say on the subject. It's one of the biggest dead horses out there.

The horse is dead and buried but it keeps coming up because so many people enjoy virts. These people need to understand that Waymarking is the only game left in town for virts. The grandfathered virts on GC are now just a taste sample that will lead them to Waymarking if they want more. Once Waymarking is enhanced (with V2), I bet these discussions will finally die along side the skeletal remains of the horse.

 

Is there somewhere on the site, outside of these forums, where the V2 enhacments to Waymarking can be read about?

Not to my knowledge.

[+JacobBarlow]

As I understand it, the decision was made to stop listing virts for a few reasons:

• The core belief is that a geocache must have an actual log.
  
• The existance of virts gives land managers an 'easy out' when asked for permission to place a cache.
  
• The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.
  

 

----------

 

So why are Earthcaches allowed? they have all the same "Problems."

[+mtn-man]

The mandatory educational upside.

[+Team Cotati]

The quality of some virts was very, very poor. Implementing a 'Wow!' rule was a failure.

Was this really a reason? Were they really poorer than some of the traditionals that exist now?

Actually, it wasn't an overall thing. It was more about the new submissions coming in. Most, not all of course, but most of the good stuff was already done. That's probably all I am going to say on the subject. It's one of the biggest dead horses out there.

The horse is dead and buried but it keeps coming up because so many people enjoy virts. These people need to understand that Waymarking is the only game left in town for virts. The grandfathered virts on GC are now just a taste sample that will lead them to Waymarking if they want more. Once Waymarking is enhanced (with V2), I bet these discussions will finally die along side the skeletal remains of the horse.

 

Is there somewhere on the site, outside of these forums, where the V2 enhacments to Waymarking can be read about?

Not to my knowledge.

 

Until I see it with my own two beadie little eyes, what may or may not be included in this V2 version of Waymarking is nothing more than speculation.