Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Whitelaw's

BRING VIRTUAL CACHES BACK

Recommended Posts

hi

i think they should let us place virtual caches again

they are still great fun when you are board outside a terminal or when your board on holiday.

they say that Waymarking.com has replaced it but it is still not as good

 

agree with me? :D:):D

 

disagree ;):D:D

Share this post


Link to post

Oh no! Not again. :D

 

:)

 

I say they allow locationless caches back for one day, so that I can log 1 :D

 

(joking... joking... ;) )

Share this post


Link to post

Oh no! Not again. :D

 

:)

 

I say they allow locationless caches back for one day, so that I can log 1 :D

 

(joking... joking... ;) )

 

They did!! Yesterday!!! <chuckle><chuckle>

Share this post


Link to post

hi

i think they should let us place virtual caches again

they are still great fun when you are board outside a terminal or when your board on holiday.

they say that Waymarking.com has replaced it but it is still not as good

 

agree with me? :D:):D

 

disagree ;):D:D

It doesn't appear that you've brought anything new to this discussion, that hasn't already been beaten to death in the last two dozen times this has been brought up.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh no! Not again. :D

 

:D

 

I say they allow locationless caches back for one day, so that I can log 1 ;)

 

(joking... joking... :) )

 

They did!! Yesterday!!! <chuckle><chuckle>

 

:D

 

There's a sundial one that I saw the other day, and I wish that I could have logged Colonel By's sundial on Parliament Hill - Oh well, I'm not too torn up about it though - This is the price of only hearing about caching in 2007

Share this post


Link to post

Why did you not post this to the 6 or 7 recent threads about this?

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see these come back also. Waymarking.com is a bit clunky and sometimes hard to search. Maybe a setup like how earthcaches are approved could be a way to go.

Share this post


Link to post

Good news!! They aren't gone - there is a whole website devoted to them. Just slightly different from here but you can still locate them and log them and add pictures.

 

www.Waymarking.com

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion, Virtuals are not Geocaches. But you could Move to Iceland. They must have a different set of guidelines. Defacing property? no problem! Brand new virt muggled, no problem. Found the tape!!! Armchair loggers alert, here's your cache.

Share this post


Link to post

As soon as you can store a logbook in a virtual, I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post

As soon as you can store a logbook in a virtual, I'm all for it.

 

I guess you could always chisel your name into the Virt :D

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion, Virtuals are not Geocaches. But you could Move to Iceland. They must have a different set of guidelines. Defacing property? no problem! Brand new virt muggled, no problem. Found the tape!!! Armchair loggers alert, here's your cache.

I'm wondering if this one maybe got edited after approval.

 

On topic - Virts are interesting (I love 'em), but the whole idea behind geocaching is to take them someplace interesting, and sign the log. If you need to take them to some place of historical significance, make it a multi or a puzzle. They go to the 'cool spot' you want to show them, have them get some information (off a plaque, count pine trees, a small sticker/magnet/etc on the back of a sign, then take them to the actual cache.

 

I agree, though. Waymarking is a bit clunky.

Share this post


Link to post

While we're at it, let's bring back cash caches. I loved them! I used to find at least $50 in each one. I was netting $400/day! I was actually able to make a living geocaching.

 

Too bad -- cash caches were so great that gc.com not only stopped publishing them, they deleted them entirely from the database, deleted all find logs on them, and deleted all forum postings about them. This posting will probably be deleted shortly, so make a copy if you want to know about this history! If you really look carefully, you can see the gaps in the GC numbers where cash caches used to be.

 

They even garnished my bank account, but luckily they were not able to touch what I had hidden in my mattress. I didn't make quite enough to retire on, so I'm not geocaching full time. Yet.

 

Funny, I wonder who's ringing the doorbell. Gotta go. Bring back cash caches!

 

Edward

Share this post


Link to post

You can hide dozens of them as long as they lead to a final cache with a container.

True enough. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

While we're at it, let's bring back cash caches. I loved them! I used to find at least $50 in each one. I was netting $400/day! I was actually able to make a living geocaching.

 

Too bad -- cash caches were so great that gc.com not only stopped publishing them, they deleted them entirely from the database, deleted all find logs on them, and deleted all forum postings about them. This posting will probably be deleted shortly, so make a copy if you want to know about this history! If you really look carefully, you can see the gaps in the GC numbers where cash caches used to be.

 

They even garnished my bank account, but luckily they were not able to touch what I had hidden in my mattress. I didn't make quite enough to retire on, so I'm not geocaching full time. Yet.

 

Funny, I wonder who's ringing the doorbell. Gotta go. Bring back cash caches!

 

Edward

You don't know how close this is to being true

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion, Virtuals are not Geocaches. But you could Move to Iceland. They must have a different set of guidelines. Defacing property? no problem! Brand new virt muggled, no problem. Found the tape!!! Armchair loggers alert, here's your cache.

 

That's crazy man! How'd you find that? The former cache owner (who is actually American) seems to be into hiding his artwork in parks, according to his profile. I guess he needs to start his own website hidemyartwork.com or something. :lol: Perhaps there was a language barrier with a cache submitted in English to the Nordic reviewer, and it slipped by him that it was a blatent virtual.

 

Taoiseach, someone actually did suggest bringing back locationless for one day in this forum, and it went over like a lead balloon. Unless it was you, I can't remember. :blink:

 

I'd better say something somewhat on-topic. :ph34r: No, it has been made pretty clear by TPTB that virtuals aren't coming back.

Share this post


Link to post

Taoiseach, someone actually did suggest bringing back locationless for one day in this forum, and it went over like a lead balloon. Unless it was you, I can't remember. :blink:

 

Well, I said that right at the start of the thread... Did somebody suggest that seriously??? :ph34r:

 

I would love to be able to log that sundial of Colonel By's though :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Taoiseach, someone actually did suggest bringing back locationless for one day in this forum, and it went over like a lead balloon. Unless it was you, I can't remember. B)

 

Well, I said that right at the start of the thread... Did somebody suggest that seriously??? :blink:

 

I would love to be able to log that sundial of Colonel By's though :ph34r:

 

No, someone who was involved in deep customer service emails with the Groundspeak lackey's had the idea, and was told to propose it here in this geocaching.com website forum. After the responses they got, they probably quit geocaching and never came back. :lol:

 

There is an alternative geocaching website that still accepts locationless, and has more than double the number that were ever available here. Send me a PM if interested, I've plugged them too many times.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll add my vote for virtuals, but it ain't gonna change anything. I spoke to Miss Jenn on the phone about a week ago appealing my recent suspension (which, of course, didn't change anything), and was told pointblank they have no intention of bringing them back. They're gonna do what they want to - it's their website (even if it's not their game), and we just have to live with it if we want to use their listing service.

Share this post


Link to post

I realize there's a certain futility in asking a serious question here, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

Exactly why were virtuals discontinued? They were already gone before I started, so I don't know the full story.

 

I do know that I've enjoyed all the grandfathered virtuals I've logged.

Share this post


Link to post

I realize there's a certain futility in asking a serious question here, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

Exactly why were virtuals discontinued? They were already gone before I started, so I don't know the full story.

 

I do know that I've enjoyed all the grandfathered virtuals I've logged.

 

I'll give the extremely short version, and others may be able to elaborate, provide links, etc.. . The "wow factor" started in the summer of 2003. Virtuals were still technically allowed, but were rarely approved. I believe virtuals went bye-bye forever on the same day the locationless and webcam caches did, if I'm not mistaken. This was Jan. 3rd, 2006.

 

Exactly why were they discontinued? I'd have to say to keep them from taking over the game, and some of them were becoming quite lame in some people's eyes. Ultimately, virts, webcams and locationless went away because TPTB determined that a geocache consists of a container and a logbook. I still have never figured out if that was just a convenient excuse though. :laughing:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

hi

i think they should let us place virtual caches again

they are still great fun when you are board outside a terminal or when your board on holiday.

they say that Waymarking.com has replaced it but it is still not as good

 

agree with me? ;);)B)

 

disagree B):lol::laughing:

 

I agree. It would be nice if virtuals came back. I also agree that Waymarking isn't a replacment for virtuals. It's it's own thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I still have never figured out if that was just a convenient excuse though. :laughing:

 

I have the same feeling.

Share this post


Link to post

I realize there's a certain futility in asking a serious question here, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

Exactly why were virtuals discontinued? They were already gone before I started, so I don't know the full story.

 

I do know that I've enjoyed all the grandfathered virtuals I've logged.

 

 

I'll give the extremely short version, and others may be able to elaborate, provide links, etc.. . The "wow factor" started in the summer of 2003. Virtuals were still technically allowed, but were rarely approved. I believe virtuals went bye-bye forever on the same day the locationless and webcam caches did, if I'm not mistaken. This was Jan. 3rd, 2006.

 

Exactly why were they discontinued? I'd have to say to keep them from taking over the game, and some of them were becoming quite lame in some people's eyes. Ultimately, virts, webcams and locationless went away because TPTB determined that a geocache consists of a container and a logbook. I still have never figured out if that was just a convenient excuse though. :laughing:

 

It would be nice if virtuals came back. I also agree that Waymarking isn't a replacment for virtuals. It's it's own thing.

 

I still have never figured out if that was just a convenient excuse though. :lol:

 

I have the same feeling.

 

The simple reason why virtuals were discontinued is that Groundspeak moved these to Waymarking. Some people think Waymarking is not a good replacement for virtual caches, but that is either because they have taken a narrow view of what can be done with Waymarking or because you don't get a find added to your Geocaching.com find count when you visit a waymark.

 

For a more complete reason you would need to understand why virtuals were created in the first place, the issues virtuals caused when listed on geocaching.com, and the real intent of Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

...The simple reason why virtuals were discontinued is that Groundspeak moved these to Waymarking. Some people think Waymarking is not a good replacement for virtual caches, but that is either because they have taken a narrow view of what can be done with Waymarking or because you don't get a find added to your Geocaching.com find count when you visit a waymark.

 

For a more complete reason you would need to understand why virtuals were created in the first place, the issues virtuals caused when listed on geocaching.com, and the real intent of Waymarking.

 

The simple reason virtuals were discontinued in favor of Waymarking is that it fits this sites vision of how these things should be separated. The people who don't thing Waymarking replaces virtuals are the same people who didn't think waypoint.org were a great substitute for virtuals either when that was pointed out as a viable alterante before Waymarking.

 

It can also be said that those who take a broader view of Waymarking have taken a narrow view of what caching is and can be. Some like to argue it's all about the smilie but the truth of that is that it doens't matter if it is. One stop shopping has advantages and it's why a lot of folks stay here when other sites do offer virtuals.

 

Waymarking is it's own thing. For proof you only need to know that not all people who liked virtual caches like Waymarking and vice versa. Waymarking is a location based activity, it does have that in common with other location based activities.

Share this post


Link to post

For a more complete reason you would need to understand why virtuals were created in the first place, the issues virtuals caused when listed on geocaching.com, and the real intent of Waymarking.

Here's a somewhat long post that expands on this.

 

Why were virtuals created in the first place?

 

In the early days, Geocaching.com was far more open to new variation in the game. Everyone was still exploring what geocaching was about. Some people wanted to have caches at location where they couldn’t hide a physical cache. Perhaps there were too many muggles, or perhaps you couldn’t get permission for leaving a physical container. Many people wanted to leave caches while on vacation somewhere but knew they wouldn’t be able to maintain it. The idea of a virtual was born. The virtual was supposed to be specific target that you could find using the GPS coordinates, just like you found a physical cache. You would provide proof of your find by answering a question base on what you found or posting a picture of the object.

 

What were the issues with virtuals?

 

Most people hid virtuals because they found a place that they felt really needed a cache (i.e. they wanted to share the location with other geocachers). But sometimes a virtual had nothing special to see, it was just an easy way to hide a cache. Sometimes if a cache went missing, instead of replacing it, the owner would change it to a virtual. In order to limit the number of unimpressive virtuals and to encourage the hiding of more physical caches, the guidelines were changed to require virtuals to “be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.” This guideline was referred to as the “Wow!” requirement. It required the volunteer cache reviewers to make judgments about whether a location deserved a virtual cache or not.

 

The existence of virtual caches also provided an easy way out for park managers who didn’t want to allow physical caches. They were able to say that virtual caches could be placed in the park and not physical caches and still say they were allowing geocaching.

 

Aside from the “Wow!” requirement, many virtual caches lost sight of the original intent of being an object to find using the GPSr. Virtual caches were place to show off a building, a park, a mountain top, or a view. Many did not even require proof of a visit to claim a find. The requirements were tightened, but not before many geocachers began to think of virtuals as a way to share interesting places to visit. Despite the change to the guidelines, the reviewers found that people kept submitting these kinds of locations. Most people were using virtuals not a substitute for where you couldn’t hide a physical container, but as a substitute for the yet to be invented waymark.

 

Some virtuals used a confirmation question that could be answered by research on the Internet. Some people allowed a find on these if you could answer the question even without visiting the site. Again the guidelines were changed to emphasize that the intent was to actually visit the cache site, but by the time this happened some people had discovered the joy of armchair logging of virtuals.

 

Once virtual caches were allowed, the next step was the locationless or reverse cache. The first locationless caches were listed as virtuals that you could find anywhere. A locationless cache asked you to find a location that fit the cache description and post the coordinates to claim a find. Once someone had found a particular location, most locationless caches would not allow another find using that site. Locationless caches didn’t really fit the model of the Geocaching.com database. For one, you had to look through all the locationless caches to find ones you could do and once you found a locationless to do you needed to check if anyone had already used your location. By the time I started geocaching, in 2003, there was a moratorium on new locationless caches while TPTB were coming up with a solution for locationless.

 

The vision of Waymarking

 

The solution that TPTB came up with for locationless caches was to have a separate website where users could suggest categories of places whose coordinates could be listed. The categories would be organized in a hierarchy so you could find the categories which were interesting to you. When you entered a new location it would check to see if there was already one close by. If this was the same site you couldn’t create a new waymark, but you could log your visit to existing one.

 

TPTB came to realize that most virtuals were really just locations that people wanted to share. There wasn’t anything to find (or if there was it was just in order to have a verification question). How much better to have a site dedicate to sharing interesting locations with other people. The overwhelming majority of what got submitted as virtual caches could be submitted to one or more Waymarking categories. A method to ask for verification of visits was provided for those who still wanted proof when someone visited their waymark. With that, TPTB decided that all the existing locationless caches could be migrated to Waymarking and no new locationless or virtual caches would be accepted on Geocaching.com. Not all locationless got migrated, as Waymarking requires a group of users to manage each category (instead of volunteer geocache reviewers) and some locationless owners were not interested in doing this.

 

Waymarking has it detractors. In addition to challenging or fun categories of some locationless, Waymarking has categories that are pretty mundane – like McDonald’s Restaurants and Starbucks Coffee. But because of the hierarchical organization of categories it is easy to ignore categories you think are too mundane and concentrate on the categories you are interested in.

 

What about the element of surprise that some virtual caches provided? Waymarking has a Waymarking games category. This is a pretty wide open area. Some of the more creative locationless cache wound up here. It is also home the Best Kept Secrets category. This category allows (but does not require) the waymark owner to provide a description that doesn’t reveal everything about the location so you can still be surprised when you visit. Other categories can still be proposed to emphasize what ever aspects of virtuals you enjoyed and are not being met by other Waymarking categories.

 

Waymarking is also lacking in ways to download waymarks and load them into your GPSr. You can get a LOC file with the coordinates of waymarks you have selected but there are still no pocket queries or GPX format that contains the waymark descriptions. Many people also enjoy visting waymarks/virtuals while out looking for physical geocaches. Perhaps a future version of both sites will allow PQs that can return geocaches along with the waymarks in your favorite categories.

Share this post


Link to post

...Here's a somewhat long post that expands on this....

 

Good summary of both some of the real problems as well as this sites philosophy on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree - it was a well-researched and constructed explanation.

 

I disagree that virtual caches don't have a place here.

Share this post


Link to post

Please allow new virtual caches.

 

...I spoke to Miss Jenn on the phone about a week ago ... and was told pointblank they have no intention of bringing them back.

 

Don't see much more point of adding another "me too" :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

The geoyokozuna did a good summary above, which is similar to how I see it.

 

To the BBV group; rather than just keep on saying "bring back virtuals", which clearly isn't going to happen in the way you want, how about adding an explanation of what you mean? Otherwise this is just the same as numerous other boring and pointleess BBV threads.

 

You need to be able to demonstrate how having a hundred thousand extra virtual caches mixed in with geocaches is better than having them separated on Waymarking.com (with all the extra bells and whistles that you get on that site). And I'm assuming that GPX files are going to be available for waymarks in the near future, so if that's the only reason then it doesn't amount to much of a case. :)

Edited by Happy Humphrey

Share this post


Link to post

The geoyokozuna did a good summary above, which is similar to how I see it.

 

To the BBV group; rather than just keep on saying "bring back virtuals", which clearly isn't going to happen in the way you want, how about adding an explanation of what you mean? Otherwise this is just the same as numerous other boring and pointleess BBV threads.

 

You need to be able to demonstrate how having a hundred thousand extra virtual caches mixed in with geocaches is better than having them separated on Waymarking.com (with all the extra bells and whistles that you get on that site). And I'm assuming that GPX files are going to be available for waymarks in the near future, so if that's the only reason then it doesn't amount to much of a case. :)

 

There are significantly less bells and whistles, as you put it over there. As for pocket queries being available in the near future, TPTB make a point of not telling us what they are planning to do, being very cryptic in what they reveal, and putting no timeline on anything they do ("Yes, we'll restore archived caches to gs.com google maps..." - still waiting, months later).

 

We don't need to have hundreds of thousands of virtuals... besides, think about it - are there hundreds of thousands of waymarks? Nope... There are already a number of virtuals mixed in, and I don't think there are any problems with them currently (at least not that I'm aware of). The big problem, as stated in the lengthy post earlier, is the "wow" factor, combined with the lack of a container. I got suspended before for pointing out why the "wow" factor was an excuse, so I'll leave that one alone. The lack of a container seems to be a current issue, but there is no container for events, so maybe we should scrap those.

 

Inconsistency is where the problems come from.

Share this post


Link to post

You need to be able to demonstrate how having a hundred thousand extra virtual caches mixed in with geocaches is better than having them separated on Waymarking.com (with all the extra bells and whistles that you get on that site). And I'm assuming that GPX files are going to be available for waymarks in the near future, so if that's the only reason then it doesn't amount to much of a case. :)

 

This is probably one reason this thread keeps coming up, someone asks about virtuals and themn there are the two or three that jump in and try to promote wayarking.

 

Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals. Virtuals and locationless caches are gone, other than those grandfathered in. People need to deal with that. Waymarking is a separate and unrelated activity. Stop muddying the issue.

 

("Yes, we'll restore archived caches to gs.com google maps..." - still waiting, months later).

 

Not to get too off topic, but why put something on the map that isn't there. :)

 

We don't need to have hundreds of thousands of virtuals... besides, think about it - are there hundreds of thousands of waymarks? Nope... There are already a number of virtuals mixed in, and I don't think there are any problems with them currently (at least not that I'm aware of). The big problem, as stated in the lengthy post earlier, is the "wow" factor, combined with the lack of a container. I got suspended before for pointing out why the "wow" factor was an excuse, so I'll leave that one alone. The lack of a container seems to be a current issue, but there is no container for events, so maybe we should scrap those.

 

Inconsistency is where the problems come from.

 

It is these soapboxes where posters loose credibility. There is no inconsistency when it comes to activities, other than allowing temp caches. I personally see the WOW! factor as a las (failed) attempt to save virtuals. On paper it looked like a good idea, in practice it proved too subjective. I don't know that I have seen GC state anywhere that the lack of container is the driving factor, in fact, I believe I have seen that it was becoming to burdensome for the volunteer reviewers, although again not the main reason.

 

Events are a way to encourage less isolation between cachers and just have some fun. Almost every activity has them.

 

Bottom line, GC has clearly stated there position on this and virtuals (or locationless) are not coming back.

Share this post


Link to post

You need to be able to demonstrate how having a hundred thousand extra virtual caches mixed in with geocaches is better than having them separated on Waymarking.com (with all the extra bells and whistles that you get on that site). And I'm assuming that GPX files are going to be available for waymarks in the near future, so if that's the only reason then it doesn't amount to much of a case. :)

 

This is probably one reason this thread keeps coming up, someone asks about virtuals and themn there are the two or three that jump in and try to promote wayarking.

 

Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals. Virtuals and locationless caches are gone, other than those grandfathered in. People need to deal with that. Waymarking is a separate and unrelated activity. Stop muddying the issue.

I think it is inaccurate to describe Waymarking as having nothing to do with virtuals, or to say that Waymarking has is an activity unrelated to virtuals. On the other hand, I think it's also inaccurate to say that virtuals and locationless caches are now listed on the Waymarking site. The real situation is more complicated than can be described in simplistic terms - I think tozainamboku's expanded post tells the story very well.

 

Bottom line, GC has clearly stated there position on this and virtuals (or locationless) are not coming back.

On this we can agree.

Share this post


Link to post

There are significantly less bells and whistles, as you put it over there.

Uh? Explain - I see lots of features there that we don't yet have in geocaching. How about categories, or saveable searches, or awards, or favourites, or grids, or group management?

We don't need to have hundreds of thousands of virtuals... besides, think about it - are there hundreds of thousands of waymarks? Nope... There are already a number of virtuals mixed in, and I don't think there are any problems with them currently (at least not that I'm aware of).

OK, there are "only" 106643 waymarks at the moment (6000 new ones in the last month). "There are already a number of virtuals mixed in" - explain? What's the difference between a waymark and a virtual? There are plenty of examples of waymarks that are simply copied from the geocaching original, and they don't look any different from the geocaching version.

 

This is probably one reason this thread keeps coming up, someone asks about virtuals and themn there are the two or three that jump in and try to promote wayarking.

 

Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals. Virtuals and locationless caches are gone, other than those grandfathered in. People need to deal with that. Waymarking is a separate and unrelated activity. Stop muddying the issue.

It's not about promoting Waymarking, it's a simple fact that if you want to set up and/or log virtuals and locationless, you can: the idea has merely been developed and re-named "Waymarking". It would be ridiculous to discuss virtuals without mentioning Waymarking. If you plea for a return of virtual caches, you obviously have to explain why you can't contemplate logging the equivalent waymarks.

 

"Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals." - I think that you have to explain the significant difference between climbing a mountain based on a waymark description and coordinates and climbing a mountain based on a virtual cache description and coordinates. See my example above.

 

I've asked for this explanation several times in the past and no-one has ever attempted to answer it. But it doesn't stop them continuing to claim that waymarks and virtuals are totally different! :)

Edited by Happy Humphrey

Share this post


Link to post

It's not about promoting Waymarking, it's a simple fact that if you want to set up and/or log virtuals and locationless, you can: the idea has merely been developed and re-named "Waymarking". It would be ridiculous to discuss virtuals without mentioning Waymarking. If you plea for a return of virtual caches, you obviously have to explain why you can't contemplate logging the equivalent waymarks.

 

"Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals." - I think that you have to explain the significant difference between climbing a mountain based on a waymark description and coordinates and climbing a mountain based on a virtual cache description and coordinates. See my example above.

 

I've asked for this explanation several times in the past and no-one has ever attempted to answer it. But it doesn't stop them continuing to claim that waymarks and virtuals are totally different!

 

:)

 

First, I never pleaded for virtuals to come back. It is unfortunate they were discontinued, however it is a fact that some must deal with. I also never claimed that Waymarking was not like locationless, they are very similar.

 

Numerous other threads have explained why Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals, however those few of you who choose to evangelize Waymarking don't accept the obvious. A couple of the highlights:

 

- Virtuals were relatively popular, Waymarking has to this point not worked. Mostly because it is really nothing more than a "look where I've been site" of POI's similar to many other such sites, with only a very few POI's having repeat visits.

 

- Virtuals need proof of the visit. While the proof of the visit was different, that is the same as caches.

 

- Virtuals had at least some element of surprise as to what is found. True, not all. Yes, there were some lame ones. But they were generally the exception and not the rule. Sometimes you don't know it is a "mountain" you'll be climbing.

 

The fact that Waymarking is struggling and require the vocal few to evangelize it is most likely one of the main reasons for incorporating it into GC in v2.0. So there is the explanation again. Ignore it. Pick it apart. Show me the poor examples of virtuals and the few WM's with visits. It doesn't matter. The facts are what they are.

 

My point was not a call to bring back virtuals. If you look at my other posts here and or other of the multiple threads on this subject, you will realize that. While I may not agree with the decision, I do understand GC's reasoning, respect that it is their site and data to do with as they wish and accept that virtuals (other than grandfathered) are gone.

 

What I take issue with is that instead of explaining that as a simple fact, Waymarking, a different activity all together, is offered as an alternative (incorrectly) which gets "TPTB are against me boo hoo tinfoil hat crowd" all worked up.

 

Those that either agree or accept that virtual caches are gone and I agree on more than you are giving me credit for. Just make it simple with the statement "they're gone, deal with it." WM is more like the old Buxley's or Google Earth's placemarks. Let it stand or fail on those merits.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

As it's clearly something we won't agree on, I'll keep this brief(ish) rather than knocking your points down in detail.

 

But if your points are "highlights", I guess you mean that they're the top reasons that waymarks aren't the same as virtuals. I can only see them as extremely weak points indeed and not at all convincing (plus rather inaccurate). So if that's the best you can come up with, it amounts to nothing significant. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but all you've said is that (in your opinion), you can just about point to some slight differences between waymarks and their elderly relatives. I can point to many examples where the concept of "virtual cache" lives on in Waymarking. Had virtuals remained

 

As for "evangelising"; I repeat that you can hardly expect people to discuss virtuals without mentioning waymarks. That's all I'm doing: I'm not a particular keen waymarker (although I quite like it). I just like to see a fair discussion rather than one where seemingly definitive statements are made without any real substance behind them. But at least you tried to give a direct reply and I appreciate that, and also recognise that you're not one of those who imagines that we'll get all 106652 waymarks suddenly transcribed to geocaching.com!

Share this post


Link to post

But if your points are "highlights", I guess you mean that they're the top reasons that waymarks aren't the same as virtuals. I can only see them as extremely weak points indeed and not at all convincing (plus rather inaccurate). So if that's the best you can come up with, it amounts to nothing significant. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but all you've said is that (in your opinion), you can just about point to some slight differences between waymarks and their elderly relatives. I can point to many examples where the concept of "virtual cache" lives on in Waymarking. Had virtuals remained

 

As for "evangelising"; I repeat that you can hardly expect people to discuss virtuals without mentioning waymarks. That's all I'm doing: I'm not a particular keen waymarker (although I quite like it). I just like to see a fair discussion rather than one where seemingly definitive statements are made without any real substance behind them. But at least you tried to give a direct reply and I appreciate that, and also recognise that you're not one of those who imagines that we'll get all 106652 waymarks suddenly transcribed to geocaching.com!

 

Not arrogant just recognized as intended to be inflammatory. I never said those were the "top reasons" , they are just the obvious that come to mind. You asked for reasons, someone offers them and you simply dismiss as weak. Coupled with the condescending tone, a common practice during a debate where a position has been proven false. Apparently there are quite a few that believe there is a difference.

 

If we can not discuss wether or not virtuals should come back or not without bringing up unrelated sites such as WM, then why do we also not mention Buxleys, Google Earth, Terracaching, GPS Waypoint Registry, Swopnet, Letterboxing, wayhoo or one of the many other waypoint databanks, many of which are more appropriate.

 

I understand that for some WM is almost like a religion, hence the term evangelizing, however just like in religion I don't think that every time someone asks a question about catholicism we should suggest a good alternative would be to become a vegetarian.

 

My whole point is it would just be easier to state "they're gone", or even offer reasons you believe they should not be here, rather than keep trying to say "we just moved them" since many who were told that, went there only to be dissapointed.

Share this post


Link to post

It's not about promoting Waymarking, it's a simple fact that if you want to set up and/or log virtuals and locationless, you can: the idea has merely been developed and re-named "Waymarking". It would be ridiculous to discuss virtuals without mentioning Waymarking. If you plea for a return of virtual caches, you obviously have to explain why you can't contemplate logging the equivalent waymarks.

 

"Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals." - I think that you have to explain the significant difference between climbing a mountain based on a waymark description and coordinates and climbing a mountain based on a virtual cache description and coordinates. See my example above.

 

I've asked for this explanation several times in the past and no-one has ever attempted to answer it. But it doesn't stop them continuing to claim that waymarks and virtuals are totally different!

 

:)

 

First, I never pleaded for virtuals to come back. It is unfortunate they were discontinued, however it is a fact that some must deal with. I also never claimed that Waymarking was not like locationless, they are very similar.

 

Numerous other threads have explained why Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals, however those few of you who choose to evangelize Waymarking don't accept the obvious. A couple of the highlights:

 

- Virtuals were relatively popular, Waymarking has to this point not worked. Mostly because it is really nothing more than a "look where I've been site" of POI's similar to many other such sites, with only a very few POI's having repeat visits.

 

- Virtuals need proof of the visit. While the proof of the visit was different, that is the same as caches.

 

- Virtuals had at least some element of surprise as to what is found. True, not all. Yes, there were some lame ones. But they were generally the exception and not the rule. Sometimes you don't know it is a "mountain" you'll be climbing.

 

The fact that Waymarking is struggling and require the vocal few to evangelize it is most likely one of the main reasons for incorporating it into GC in v2.0. So there is the explanation again. Ignore it. Pick it apart. Show me the poor examples of virtuals and the few WM's with visits. It doesn't matter. The facts are what they are.

 

My point was not a call to bring back virtuals. If you look at my other posts here and or other of the multiple threads on this subject, you will realize that. While I may not agree with the decision, I do understand GC's reasoning, respect that it is their site and data to do with as they wish and accept that virtuals (other than grandfathered) are gone.

 

What I take issue with is that instead of explaining that as a simple fact, Waymarking, a different activity all together, is offered as an alternative (incorrectly) which gets "TPTB are against me boo hoo tinfoil hat crowd" all worked up.

 

Those that either agree or accept that virtual caches are gone and I agree on more than you are giving me credit for. Just make it simple with the statement "they're gone, deal with it." WM is more like the old Buxley's or Google Earth's placemarks. Let it stand or fail on those merits.

 

I must admit that I do admire your zeal and passion in the crusade againist Waymarking.......

 

However, the vast majority of cachers I know and have discussed the issue with, clearly see that Waymarking is very very close in concept to Virtual caching. A place listed on the Internet with coordinates that you can visit and then log your experience complete with pictures. The only argument that most of those will agree on is that they miss getting the smilies on thier Geocaching account.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the last point... with verification, you should get a smiley, since you had to find the place or item, etc... just because it isn't a container doesn't mean it can't be a cache... unless you're TPTB, then that is a hard and fast rule, except for events... nothing like inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post

...However, the vast majority of cachers I know and have discussed the issue with, clearly see that Waymarking is very very close in concept to Virtual caching. A place listed on the Internet with coordinates that you can visit and then log your experience complete with pictures. The only argument that most of those will agree on is that they miss getting the smilies on thier Geocaching account.

 

We must know different cachers.

One stop shopping is different than the smilie.

Waymarking is close to locationless (including the biggest problem that I saw with them), but not really close to a virtual. The 'find' component is missing. Finding a spot is different from finding a spot then the cache..or verification piece. The difference is subtle perhaps but I think important.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the last point... with verification, you should get a smiley, since you had to find the place or item, etc... just because it isn't a container doesn't mean it can't be a cache... unless you're TPTB, then that is a hard and fast rule, except for events... nothing like inconsistency.

Never thought about that. Why are events not waymarks? They break the permanence rule on both sides of the W/G fence. (I do prefer them on this side of the fence).

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

"Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals." - I think that you have to explain the significant difference between climbing a mountain based on a waymark description and coordinates and climbing a mountain based on a virtual cache description and coordinates. See my example above.

 

I've asked for this explanation several times in the past and no-one has ever attempted to answer it. But it doesn't stop them continuing to claim that waymarks and virtuals are totally different! :)

The example you give of climbing a mountain actually illustrates the difference between virtuals and waymarks. It almost makes me want to switch sides :)

 

The guidelines for virtuals specifically mentioned that the top of a mountain was not a virtual cache. There may have been a few mountain top virtuals that predated that guideline change but in general there had to be something of interest to find at the top of the mountain besides the summit that could be the target of the virtual cache.

 

There are many Waymarking categories that would never have made a virtual cache. And that is the problem that people see. Virtuals were places that were "Wow". They had (or a least were supposed to have) a specific target that you could use GPS to find. They usually had a verification requirement to prove you found the target. Waymarks may be "Wow" but many are in mundane categories. Even some interesting categories are only interesting to individuals who share an interest in that category. You might have a category for train stations. How do you tell which are everyday train stations and which are some really interesting historic building that might be interesting to see? And suppose you visit the train station. Did you really use your GPS. The virtual would have taken you to some corner of the station where you might not usually go and there you would be looking for the plaque about the historic event than nobody remembers happened here. You saw a "Wow" station and found out some "Wow" facts about it you didn't expect. And you could answer a question that might not be easily answered by researching on the internet.

 

Waymarking solves the problem with what people submitted as virtuals, not with the virtuals that got approved. People were trying to use virtuals as a substitute for the yet to be invented waymark. They had location they wanted to share with others. They can use Waymarking now to do that.

 

Waymarking fails to satisfy people who searched for virtual caches as type of cache that was meant to provide an alternative for places where a physical cache couldn't be placed. The few virtuals that provided a specific target to find using a GPS and a verification method to prove you found it in lieu of a logbook were in all respects caches. People who searched for these found them to be fun when the location was also "Wow". While wow-ness is subject, the gate keeping by the reviewers generally meant that virtuals would have some degree of wow-ness.

 

Waymarking has proved immensely popular among the waymark placers. Unlike virtual caches it is relatively easy to find a category (and sometimes several categories) for the location you want to share. Each category has its requirements and specific variables that you must provide, but this is relatively easy compared to showing "Wow-ness" and finding a target and verification method to make it into a virtual cache. Some waymarkers are locationless cachers viewing it as a game to find waymarks in many different categories.

 

Except for a few categories that have active communities of interest, few waymarks are visited (or at least have visited logs). On problem may be the lack of pocket queries that allows downloading of waymarks into a GPSr. So there is no simple way to load up a bunch of waymarks and go looking for them.

 

For those that are looking for an experience equivalent to hunting virtual caches, Waymarking may seem to lack something. However there are some categories, like Best Kept Secrets that have attempted to to provided a virtual caching experience. Verification of visit is a requirement here as well as some degree of wow-ness in that these are places where you should say "Wow, I didn't know this was here". This category also allows write-ups that don't give away what it is you are going to find so there can be the element of surprise. Those who say there are no virtual caches on Waymarking are encouraged to look at Best Kept Secrets and see if this doesn't come close. They are also welcomed to suggest other categories where their definition of virtual cache is implemented as a Waymarking category. Waymarking is very flexible and it is up to the community to define categories. If you don't think virtual caches can find a place on Waymarking you haven't tried. I'd like to see a community within the Waymarking community dedicated to creative uses of Waymarking to provide fun experiences like virtual caching.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I must admit that I do admire your zeal and passion in the crusade againist Waymarking.......

 

I was not going to post to this anymore, however do want to make something clear.

 

I have not now, nor ever had anything against Waymarking. I have tried it and will probably use it when I am on vacation if there is something specific I am looking for.

 

My issue is people not staying on topic when virtuals are brought up, which then derails the thread. Waymarking has it's place, virtuals do not have a place in Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Disagree..people were adding mundane stuff just because they could. We had a period of trying to figure out what was 'wow' enough to get published which was very subjective. We have a nice set of 'wows' (in most cases) already.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...