Locationless Caches

[+Puppy Dawg]

A while back locationless caches were discontinued from the Geocaching website. I would like them to be brought back. And also, webcam caches would do good as well. Can this happen?

[+hairball45]

It ain't gonna happen. Locationless, web cams, and virtuals have been replaced by Waymarking. Groundspeak has spoken, and that's the way it's going to be. There has been a lot of investment of capital, time and programming to make it so. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Many of us will NEVER get the icons for Locationless caches. Grab virts and the grandfathered web cams while you can. Like the '59 Cadillac, they ain't comin' back. One day I suppose I'll give Waymarking a shot, but it looks painfully boring. That's just my opinion, but most of the 'marks near me have had maybe one, more often no visits. No challenge to it I guess.

hairball

[+tozainamboku]

... most of the 'marks near me have had maybe one, more often no visits. No challenge to it I guess.

What was the challenge of finding a virtual?

On the other hand many Waymarking categories are as popular as any locationless (except perhaps the yellow Jeep locationless which got locked when it proved too popular).

[Mr.Yuck]

A while back locationless caches were discontinued from the Geocaching website. I would like them to be brought back. And also, webcam caches would do good as well. Can this happen?

 

No, no, locationless are never coming back, according to the "a geocache is a container with a logbook" thing. For one thing, they were incredible bandwidth killers, some of those things had several thousand logs, even back in the "old days". I'd shudder to think what those cache pages would look like now that there are almost 2,000,000 members. Webcams are also gone forever. Not that they get hit too often, mine is 3 1/2 years old, and has a whopping 47 "visits". Someone made a bookmark list, and there are well under 300 webcam caches left in America, so get 'em while you can.

 

There's always Waymarking, and a couple of other geocaching websites who still gleefully accept Locationless and Webcam caches, if you're really interested.

[+baloo&bd]

A while back locationless caches were discontinued from the Geocaching website. I would like them to be brought back. And also, webcam caches would do good as well. Can this happen?

 

Unfortunately some locationless caches were abuses of the system (IMHO).

 

They were discontinued with no replacement or intention of replacing. GC has made this very clear.

[AZcachemeister]

It ain't gonna happen. Locationless, web cams, and virtuals have been replaced by Waymarking. Groundspeak has spoken, and that's the way it's going to be.

 

I think 'moved to Waymarking' would be a better term.

[+Harry Dolphin]

No, no, locationless are never coming back, according to the "a geocache is a container with a logbook" thing. For one thing, they were incredible bandwidth killers, some of those things had several thousand logs, even back in the "old days". I'd shudder to think what those cache pages would look like now that there are almost 2,000,000 members. Webcams are also gone forever. Not that they get hit too often, mine is 3 1/2 years old, and has a whopping 47 "visits". Someone made a bookmark list, and there are well under 300 webcam caches left in America, so get 'em while you can.

 

Yes. The Locationless pages were very slow loading. Some of them were just dumb. But there were a few that were very good, and I was sorry to see them thrown out with the bathwater. Mason-Dixon line markers was one. It actually served an historic purpose. Oh, well.

 

I like webcams! I know they don't have a container or log book, but they are fun! I was working on the planning stage for finding two of them when they were archived. Mine has 91 valid finds in three years. (And 60 or so invalid finds that were changed to notes, or deleted.)

(What do people not understand about 'a photo of you taken by the webcam, and posted here, is required to log this ccache'?)

Oh, well.

[+JDandDD]

Actually Waymarking is a goood place for Locationless. Waymarks is what they were and should have been considered all along. And the Waymarking concept handles them very well. But, I don't agree as heartily that Waymarking works as well for good virtual caches. Virtuals and Locationless were and are different things.

 

JD

[+geodarts]

I know Waymarking has replaced the virtuals and locationless and they are not coming back. But the locationless caches were a fun part of this paticular game. I found some amazing places that required a lot of research or effort to get -- and it encouraged me to be aware of things that were around wherever I was. Because there were only so many to work with (when I came onboard), I could keep track of them. So its too bad that a certain number of them could not have been kept as part of geocaching.

 

The remaining virtuals are still fun -- when traveling with a noncaching family, I generally look for these first and they are often more interesting than stopping for what turns out to be another lamp post hide. It would be great if a history category could be set up similar to earth caches. Or if virtuals were allowed in places where no physical cache can be placed due to land management issues.

 

Waymarking.com has never particularly inspired me. Perhaps because its too broad and it is hard enough to keep track of the caches, let alone the waymarks. Perhaps because I need to focus on one game or the other. Geocaching could not have accomodated the amount of waymarks that are now listed and Waymarking is probably a good solution if you want to keep track of the McDonalds you find or have particular interests that fit into the site. Its just that it would have been great if there had been a limited number of cross-over locationless caches as well.

[+trainlove]

Getting on my high horse here, LOL.

I'd love soda fountains to come back so that I can say that I've had a drink at one of them, and how about steam cars, I'd love to say that I've driven one of them.

They are gone and they are not coming back. That's too bad for geocachers who joined up after that dark day, or geocachers who didn't notice them before they disappeared.

 

P.S. Go get your Project A.P.E. cache icon, only 2 left I think, one in Oregon and one in Brazil.

[+WRASTRO]

Getting on my high horse here, LOL.

I'd love soda fountains to come back so that I can say that I've had a drink at one of them, and how about steam cars, I'd love to say that I've driven one of them.

They are gone and they are not coming back. That's too bad for geocachers who joined up after that dark day, or geocachers who didn't notice them before they disappeared.

 

P.S. Go get your Project A.P.E. cache icon, only 2 left I think, one in Oregon and one in Brazil.

Fixed!

[+trainlove]

 

Due to Government regulations, every time a 'quote' is 'changed' by someone else, they must include their initials and date, and it must be witnessed by a Notary.

LOL.

[+wesleykey]

A while back locationless caches were discontinued from the Geocaching website. I would like them to be brought back. And also, webcam caches would do good as well. Can this happen?

 

They were done away with as a geocache was defined as only a container with a log.

 

Then along came Earthcaches {insert foot in mouth}.

[+trainlove]

Then along came Earthcaches {insert foot in mouth}.

 

And then ©ame Wherigo's which in theory can be created without a logbook since there are no geocaching.com reviewers in the process.

I don't ®emember if the GPS Adventure Maze Exhibit I just went to had a logbook either.

 

Edited out some mi$pellings, LOL.

Edited July 24, 2008 by trainlove

[+Renegade Knight]

...Can this happen?

Yes it can. There are no technical reasons that would prevent this site from bringing them back. It was a judgment call on the part of TPTB.

 

A fairly close approximation to Locationless can be found on Waymarking complete with it's orginal problems. A fairly close approximation to Web Cams is likely their as well.

[+VirginiaGator]

 

Due to Government regulations, every time a 'quote' is 'changed' by someone else, they must include their initials and date, and it must be witnessed by a Notary.

LOL.

Rats! I could have used that little tid bit of information on another board last night!

[+VirginiaGator]

Anyone know how the Waymarking site is going? Are many people actually using it? Personally, I've never been there. However, with the increase in gas prices and most of the caches around here found, I'm not traveling to other cities like I once did. May have to look for other things to find around here.

[+BruceS]

Anyone know how the Waymarking site is going? Are many people actually using it? Personally, I've never been there. However, with the increase in gas prices and most of the caches around here found, I'm not traveling to other cities like I once did. May have to look for other things to find around here.

 

There are over 120,000 Waymarks, so yes it is being used.

[+Ambrosia]

Getting on my high horse here, LOL.

I'd love soda fountains to come back so that I can say that I've had a drink at one of them, and how about steam cars, I'd love to say that I've driven one of them.

They are gone and they are not coming back. That's too bad for geocachers who joined up after that dark day, or geocachers who didn't notice them before they disappeared.

 

P.S. Go get your Project A.P.E. cache icon, only 2 left I think, one in Oregon Washington and one in Brazil.

Fixed!

 

[+baloo&bd]

Anyone know how the Waymarking site is going? Are many people actually using it? Personally, I've never been there. However, with the increase in gas prices and most of the caches around here found, I'm not traveling to other cities like I once did. May have to look for other things to find around here.

 

There are over 120,000 Waymarks, so yes it is being used.

 

With only a small percentage ever being visited. Not sure that defines "working".

[+Happy Humphrey]

Anyone know how the Waymarking site is going? Are many people actually using it? Personally, I've never been there. However, with the increase in gas prices and most of the caches around here found, I'm not traveling to other cities like I once did. May have to look for other things to find around here.

 

There are over 120,000 Waymarks, so yes it is being used.

 

With only a small percentage ever being visited. Not sure that defines "working".

This thread is about Locationless. The 120000 are the equivalent of Locationless logs. Visits are the equivalent of Virtual Cache logs.

[+Renegade Knight]

...This thread is about Locationless. The 120000 are the equivalent of Locationless logs. Visits are the equivalent of Virtual Cache logs.

 

A Catagory is a Locationless.

Creating a Waymark is the rough equivilent of finding locationless. First come first served. That in turn becomes a loose approximation of a virtual.

A Visit is a new thing insofar as a locationless, but it's loosly approximates logging a virtual.

 

The differences open a couple of new doors on what you can do. Visit a locationless for example.

They close a couple of doors on the orginal experience.

 

It's like the remake of a song.

Some like the orginal bette, some like the new version better. Some like both. Yeah same song but clearly different. The Boss vs. Manfredd Man on blinded by the light for example.

[+BruceS]

Anyone know how the Waymarking site is going? Are many people actually using it? Personally, I've never been there. However, with the increase in gas prices and most of the caches around here found, I'm not traveling to other cities like I once did. May have to look for other things to find around here.

 

There are over 120,000 Waymarks, so yes it is being used.

 

With only a small percentage ever being visited. Not sure that defines "working".

 

I was replying to the questions "Any know how Waymarking site is going? & "Are many people actually using it?" If there are 120,000 Waymarks then obviously people are using it and the site is going. Whether Waymarks are visited is not relevant to the questions asked.

 

BTW an actual location which was listed as a locationless was never visited as that was not even allowed in the old format.

[+Miragee]

...This thread is about Locationless. The 120000 are the equivalent of Locationless logs. Visits are the equivalent of Virtual Cache logs.

<snip>

 

It's like the remake of a song.

Some like the orginal better, some like the new version better. Some like both. Yeah same song but clearly different. The Boss vs. Manfredd Man on blinded by the light for example.

Not quite. You can listen to the original song and the remake on the same radio or stereo. You don't have to listen to one on your car radio and the other one in your family room . . .

[+Happy Humphrey]

A Catagory is a Locationless.

Creating a Waymark is the rough equivilent of finding locationless. First come first served. That in turn becomes a loose approximation of a virtual.

A Visit is a new thing insofar as a locationless, but it's loosly approximates logging a virtual.

...

Agreed: so there are about 750 Locationless on the site. I'm not sure how that compares with the old site, but they're certainly easier to deal with now as they have more useful names and searching is better.

 

The "visit" is a feature which I thought that the fans of Locationless would really like. In the previous incarnation you could log a lighthouse (as an example), but then that location was finished with. Frustratingly, if you'd taken photos and waymarked a lighthouse with the intention of bagging the locationless, you'd perhaps discover that someone had already logged that particular one and you'd wasted your time. Things couldn't be logged twice within a category/locationless cache.

 

Now you have the option of logging the waymark with a "visit" (or a "note" if you don't find it). And by setting up your own waymark you provide a virtual cache (more or less, depending on the type) for others to find. Neat!

[Dinoprophet]

...This thread is about Locationless. The 120000 are the equivalent of Locationless logs. Visits are the equivalent of Virtual Cache logs.

<snip>

 

It's like the remake of a song.

Some like the orginal better, some like the new version better. Some like both. Yeah same song but clearly different. The Boss vs. Manfredd Man on blinded by the light for example.

Not quite. You can listen to the original song and the remake on the same radio or stereo. You don't have to listen to one on your car radio and the other one in your family room . . .

I think a better comparison is changing the station. You can view both sites on the same computer.

 

It's true that wm.com doesn't duplicate the virtual experience exactly. But I honestly don't see how Locationless lovers can complain. Locationless had a lot of shortcomings in the gc.com format. wm.com is designed for the activity and is far better suited to it. The first thing I'd point to is the lack of arbitrary coordinates. That alone makes it better and worth being on a different site.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Well, I have finally made one visit to whybothermarking Waymarking. I am not in the slightest bit impressed. It was an area in which a geocaching acquaintance had expressed interest in others logging a very limited series. I found it to be extraordinarily difficult to use. Far more difficult than to submit a regular cache. The descriptive text disappeared during a mandatory edit. I have fulfilled the promise made to the acquaintance, and will never return to that site. Why bother?

[Dinoprophet]

Well, I have finally made one visit to whybothermarking Waymarking. I am not in the slightest bit impressed. It was an area in which a geocaching acquaintance had expressed interest in others logging a very limited series. I found it to be extraordinarily difficult to use. Far more difficult than to submit a regular cache. The descriptive text disappeared during a mandatory edit. I have fulfilled the promise made to the acquaintance, and will never return to that site. Why bother?

Well, alright. I find it much easier to use. I wish caches could be categorized the way waymarks are. What were you trying to do that was difficult? I'm honestly curious. The text disappearing -- haven't seen that yet, but I've had timeout problems here. Not saying it didn't happen -- the forums there certainly have performance issues.

 

Why bother? Because there are no Locationless caches, which is what this thread is about. So if you like that activity, you can use Waymarking, which better for this activity. Let me pull out my advantages list again:

• No arbitrary coordinates - how were you supposed to know when there was a new Locationless available if it was more than 100 miles from you?
  
• No arbitrary name - the categories are what they are
  
• Awesome category search - people complain but I'm amazed by it, especially compared to the keyword search here. Try "historic" for example
  
• Search by category - the best you could do with Locationless was list all logs and search down the page for partial coordinates and see if each hit was close, and do that one type at a time
  
• Ignore by category - I ignored all the chain restaurant categories with one click.
  
• Easily check to see if the location you want to waymark has already been done - Locationless was generally one log per location
  
• Even if it has already been done, you can submit your story and pictures as a visit
  

I'd like to see someone's list of why Locationless caches were better.

 

By the way, I took the liberty of scanning your Locationless finds. At least 2/3 of them are already Waymark categories. Which means the others are available to submit as categories if you like. I have no doubt that Mason-Dixon line markers would be accepted in a heartbeat -- I'll certainly give it my vote. Webcams are already there.

 

As for the lack of visits, that just means there are a lot of FTFs available.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[+BruceS]

Let me pull out my advantages list again:

• No arbitrary coordinates - how were you supposed to know when there was a new Locationless available if it was more than 100 miles from you?
  
• No arbitrary name - the categories are what they are
  
• Awesome category search - people complain but I'm amazed by it, especially compared to the keyword search here. Try "historic" for example
  
• Search by category - the best you could do with Locationless was list all logs and search down the page for partial coordinates and see if each hit was close, and do that one type at a time
  
• Ignore by category - I ignored all the chain restaurant categories with one click.
  
• Easily check to see if the location you want to waymark has already been done - Locationless was generally one log per location
  
• Even if it has already been done, you can submit your story and pictures as a visit
  

I'd like to see someone's list of why Locationless caches were better.

 

By the way, I took the liberty of scanning your Locationless finds. At least 2/3 of them are already Waymark categories. Which means the others are available to submit as categories if you like. I have no doubt that Mason-Dixon line markers would be accepted in a heartbeat -- I'll certainly give it my vote. Webcams are already there.

 

As for the lack of visits, that just means there are a lot of FTFs available.

 

Great list of advantages. Even though there is no specific category for the Mason-Dixon line markers, they could be submitted in the U.S. Historic Survey Stones and Monuments category which does exist. The category has a few Mason-Dixon markers in it already.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'd like to see someone's list of why Locationless caches were better.

 

1. By definition, each locationless log was a FTF - if it had already been found, you couldn't log it

 

2. Corollary of 1. Fierce local competition. How I loved finding a carillon and an observatory in the hometown of one of my local competitors on locationless. I'd logged 'em, and they couldn't. sweeeeeet. Obviously this element of locationless is quite specific and narrow in its appeal, but there's nothing quite like it in Waymarking. Just 'cause you asked.

[+Miragee]

Well, I have finally made one visit to whybothermarking Waymarking. I am not in the slightest bit impressed. It was an area in which a geocaching acquaintance had expressed interest in others logging a very limited series. I found it to be extraordinarily difficult to use. Far more difficult than to submit a regular cache. The descriptive text disappeared during a mandatory edit. I have fulfilled the promise made to the acquaintance, and will never return to that site. Why bother?

<snip>

I'd like to see someone's list of why Locationless caches were better.

 

<snip>

1. By definition, each locationless log was a FTF - if it had already been found, you couldn't log it

 

2. Corollary of 1. Fierce local competition. How I loved finding a carillon and an observatory in the hometown of one of my local competitors on locationless. I'd logged 'em, and they couldn't. sweeeeeet. Obviously this element of locationless is quite specific and narrow in its appeal, but there's nothing quite like it in Waymarking. Just 'cause you asked.

To add to Isonzo Karst's items, I'll add the main one for me. The old "Locationless" and "Virtual" caches were on this site.

 

Also, the old "Locationless" and "Virtual" caches were included in your PQs.

 

Additionally, to find one of those, you didn't have to have an idea ahead of time of what you were interested in, which is what you have to do on Waymarking.

 

When Waymarking first started, I got excited about it, but having to create Categories for things I was interested in was a hassle.

 

Adding Waymarks was okay, until I found out I was talking to a wall. No one was visiting them . . .

 

The last time I tried to post a new Waymark, I had problems with the site functioning correctly. I posted in the Waymarking Forums about that, but couldn't see that anything was being done.

 

Now, I don't care about Whybothermarking anymore . . .

[Dinoprophet]

I'd like to see someone's list of why Locationless caches were better.

 

1. By definition, each locationless log was a FTF - if it had already been found, you couldn't log it

 

2. Corollary of 1. Fierce local competition. How I loved finding a carillon and an observatory in the hometown of one of my local competitors on locationless. I'd logged 'em, and they couldn't. sweeeeeet. Obviously this element of locationless is quite specific and narrow in its appeal, but there's nothing quite like it in Waymarking. Just 'cause you asked.

You can log a visit, but you can't re-create the waymark. So I'm not sure how you see that element is missing from Waymarking.

 

To add to Isonzo Karst's items, I'll add the main one for me. The old "Locationless" and "Virtual" caches were on this site.

But as I explained above, this site isn't designed for the activity. Waymarking is. This site doesn't have local weather and camping reservations, either.

 

Also, the old "Locationless" and "Virtual" caches were included in your PQs.

I may be misremembering. Locationless had coordinates assigned to them, so unless your PQ covered the arbitrary coordinates, for a given locationless, it wouldn't be in your PQ. And since those corods could be anywhere in the world... PQs, as they exist now, would be useless for Locationless.

 

Virtuals are a different topic. This thread is about Locationless.

 

Additionally, to find one of those, you didn't have to have an idea ahead of time of what you were interested in, which is what you have to do on Waymarking.

With Locationless, yes you did. You had to set out to specifically find the subject of a locationless.

 

When Waymarking first started, I got excited about it, but having to create Categories for things I was interested in was a hassle.

 

Adding Waymarks was okay, until I found out I was talking to a wall. No one was visiting them . . .

That's a Virtual issue. No one visited Locationless caches once they were listed. Or if they did, there was no reason to log them. There are differences for Virtuals, yes, but I'm only arguing Locationless here, since that's the thread title.

 

The last time I tried to post a new Waymark, I had problems with the site functioning correctly. I posted in the Waymarking Forums about that, but couldn't see that anything was being done.

When was that? I've submitted 13 or 14 since starting three weeks ago and haven't had trouble.

Edit: Never mind, I found your Opera threads there.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[+tozainamboku]

To add to Isonzo Karst's items, I'll add the main one for me. The old "Locationless" and "Virtual" caches were on this site.

But as I explained above, this site isn't designed for the activity. Waymarking is. This site doesn't have local weather and camping reservations, either.

Why not? It has driving directions. Surely local weather and camping reservation can't be that far behind.

 

Seriously, I suspect the "big" change to geocaching.com (v2, project phoenix - not the recent release) will provide the capability to get PQs the have both geocaches and waymarks. Geocaches will be a category of waymark - locations where containers with a minimum of a log book have been hidden. Unlike other Waymarking categories, geocaches will have its own website customized to make it easy for geocachers to ignore other waymark categories. But either here or on the Waymarking site there will be ways to combine these activities.

[+BooBooBee]

One day I suppose I'll give Waymarking a shot, but it looks painfully boring.

Hear hear! I tried Waymarking, too. Not at all interesting in my area. Too bad. I think it's because the virtuals I did take part in were, for the most part, interesting in some way or another - historically, geologically, or just plain comedy!

 

BooBooBee

jenpb.blogspot.com

[Dinoprophet]

One day I suppose I'll give Waymarking a shot, but it looks painfully boring.

Hear hear! I tried Waymarking, too. Not at all interesting in my area. Too bad. I think it's because the virtuals I did take part in were, for the most part, interesting in some way or another - historically, geologically, or just plain comedy!

Again, this is about Locationless, not Virtuals. If there's nothing to waymark in an area, then there'd be nothing to use as a Locationless either, so this whole thread would be moot to someone in that area.

 

Comedic:

Funny Mailboxes, Humorous Combination Businesses, Unintentionally Funny Signs, Unusual Signs, Interesting Intersection Names

 

Geological:

Places of Geological Significance, Impact Craters, Glaciers, Geographic High Points

 

Historical:

I don't know where to start, so here is the History/Culture super-category.

 

ETA: I found the thread where Jeremy first asked us to vote on a moratorium on new locationless caches so they could more quickly be moved to a better site for them. Interesting read. It's hard to remember a time when there weren't photo galleries and zoomable maps on the cache pages.

 

I guess I'd forgotten how much people disliked locationless. I guess that explains why so many don't like Waymarking.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Dinoprophet