Virtual Caches no longer accepted.

[Captain Kenton]

So I finally decided to post my own geocache. It was intended to be a thank you for the people of Cordova TN who have placed caches that I have found while I am away on business.

 

I modeled it after a cache that I had a lot of fun finding. After spending a couple of hours preparing it I found out that this website no longer accepts virtual caches. This is very dissapointing.

 

I was directed to Waymarking.com and gave it a shot but the website is fairly lame in my opinion.

 

Bring back the VC.

[+TrailGators]

So I finally decided to post my own geocache. It was intended to be a thank you for the people of Cordova TN who have placed caches that I have found while I am away on business.

 

I modeled it after a cache that I had a lot of fun finding. After spending a couple of hours preparing it I found out that this website no longer accepts virtual caches. This is very dissapointing.

 

I was directed to Waymarking.com and gave it a shot but the website is fairly lame in my opinion.

 

Bring back the VC.

I heard that they are going to merge the two sites in the future. So maybe they will be back depending on how that change happens.

[+CYBret]

When you submitted the cache there should have been a box at the bottom that said, "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache." and required you to check it before you could submit the cache. Did that happen?

 

The guidelines are pretty clear on virtual caches no longer being accepted. They also state that caches far outside of your home coordinates might not be published. A little research at the beginning might have saved you a lot of trouble.

[+briansnat]

I modeled it after a cache that I had a lot of fun finding. After spending a couple of hours preparing it I found out that this website no longer accepts virtual caches.

 

That's why it pays to read the guidelines before trying to list a cache. Had you done so you would have knownthis before you put in hours of work.

 

Anyway, you make it sound like this is news. Starting in early 2003 it became nearly impossible to get one published and they were officially canned 2 years ago.

 

If you take the time to explore it you'll see that Waymarking.com is the perfect repository for what we called virtual caches. For those who enjoy virtuals, there are nearly 125,000 of them now.

 

When you think about it, what is the difference between this and this , or this and this, or this and this

or this and this.

 

Waymarking is actually better in some respects because places like this, this and this would never have been allowed as virtuals.

Edited August 13, 2008 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

When you think about it, what is the difference between this and this , or this and this, or this and this or this and this.

I know the difference! You don't get a smiley! Right?!

 

There are a lot of cool waymarks. I just can't wait until I can load them in my GPS using a PQ.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Anyway, you make it sound like this is news. Starting in early 2003 it became nearly impossible to get one published and they were officially canned 2 years ago.

Nearly 3 years ago, actually. It was November of 2005.

[+KBI]

Virtual caches are actually never approved.

 

Actual caches are virtually always approved.

[+The Leprechauns]

I was intrigued by the OP's forum signature line; apparently this cache's archival will be a lasting protest notwithstanding the fact that nobody can see the cache page.

 

So tell us about this virtual tour of the mall. What is it that we're missing out on?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Virtual caches are actually never approved.

 

Actual caches are virtually always approved.

Well duh...this is geocaching, not Waymarking

[+KBI]

Virtual caches are actually never approved.

 

Actual caches are virtually always approved.

Well duh...this is geocaching, not Waymarking

Well duh ... I was EXplaining, not COMplaining.

[+chuckwagon101]

Virtual caches are actually never approved.

 

Actual caches are virtually always approved.

 

Catchy play on words!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

When you think about it, what is the difference between this and this , or this and this, or this and this or this and this.

I know the difference! You don't get a smiley! Right?!

 

There are a lot of cool waymarks. I just can't wait until I can load them in my GPS using a PQ.

 

I don't care so much for the smiley but not being able to bulk download waymarks in GPX format using a PQ (or equivalent) is a bigger issue. I'm going to be taking a week long vacation to Maine in a week and a half and it would be real nice if I could easily download all the scenic view waypoints to augment the geocaches that I've already got in my GSAK database which cover three areas where I will be staying as well as the route to/from my destinations.

 

As I understand it the primary problems with virtual caches were A) people were publishing virtual caches at locations that were not interesting to anyone, and armchair logging of virtual caches by some that never even visited the area.

 

Awhile back I suggested a solution which I think could address both issues. It's essentially automated log validation. Basically, when someone logs a *found it* log on a virtual cache (there's no reason why this couldn't be used for any cache with a ALR) rather than have the log immediately posted the system would construct a dynamic URL for a dynamically generated log validation page and send it (with some boilerplate text) to the cache owner. The cache owner would click on the link and see the contents of the log (complete with links to photos which might be required for the ALR) and then click on a "approve" or "deny" and possibly add a brief message that would go back to the cache finder explaining why the log was denied. If the log was accepted it would just flip a switch which cause the log to appear on the cache listing and bump the found count for the finder.

 

Because of the additional work required to accept/reject logs it would lessen the likelihood that someone would publish a virtual just because they can. It would be easy to track caches that are not being "maintained" just by looking at logs that are "pending approval".

 

Automating a ALR approval process would make it easier for the cache owner to approve valid finds and the default behavior would not be to post the log (as it is now). Currently, if a CO finds that a log was posted and the finder didn't actually find or follow the ALR, the CO has to manually remove the log entry, then produce a separate email message to inform the "finder".

 

Comments?

[Mushtang]

Comments?

I have a few.

 

A) I think that a log approval process already exists for ALR caches, just like it does for every cache. When the cache is logged the owner gets an email and he can read the log, if he doesn't like it for whatever reason he can deny it by going in and deleting the log.

 

2) Having an approve/deny page that every owner had to go to every time one of their caches was logged would slow down the logging process on those caches. Look at how many people complain now whenever a reviewer takes a few days away from their duties, and your average cache owner wouldn't even be that prompt. The forums would be full of threads of people complaining that their log hasn't been approved after months of waiting.

 

Finally, the site has made it clear it's not bringing back virtual caches

[Mr.Yuck]

Anyway, you make it sound like this is news. Starting in early 2003 it became nearly impossible to get one published and they were officially canned 2 years ago.

Nearly 3 years ago, actually. It was November of 2005.

 

I'll admit to foolishly submitting one in late 2003. Yup, nearly impossible. I'll bet the guidelines were about as clear as mud at the time though. Hey, I thought it was "Wow". Show of hands, who submitted a virtual during the Wow factor period?

 

I really find it hard to believe someone would try to submit one three years after they were axed forever. There is obviously no selection for virtual in the drop-down box. There's always alternative geocaching websites who still accept them, seeing as the OP thinks Waymarking is fairly lame.

Edited August 13, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Kit Fox]

So I finally decided to post my own geocache. It was intended to be a thank you for the people of Cordova TN who have placed caches that I have found while I am away on business.

 

I modeled it after a cache that I had a lot of fun finding. After spending a couple of hours preparing it I found out that this website no longer accepts virtual caches. This is very dissapointing.

 

I was directed to Waymarking.com and gave it a shot but the website is fairly lame in my opinion.

 

Bring back the VC.

 

This is kinda of like assembling a new bike without reading the directions, then being mad when the sprocket won't stay attached to the handlebars. I studied the guidelines for days, before I hid my first cache. I doubt many people will feel sorry for you.

 

Even if you were geocaching in 2005, I hardly think "a tribute to geocachers at the mall" would pass the wow test. A good cacher can meet the wow factor, and incorporate an actual container.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+ArcherDragoon]

Virtual caches are actually never approved.

 

Actual caches are virtually always approved.

Just a fix...since the new "Language"..

.

.

.

Actual caches are virtually always published.

 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic...

[+wimseyguy]

Umm, good luck with the crusade??

The Virtual Windmill is a very elusive target.

 

Oh, and since your cache wasn't published, no one can see it. I wonder if your sig line has enough space for the whole page text?

[+OzzieSan]

When you think about it, what is the difference between this and this , or this and this, or this and this

or this and this.

 

I Know, I Know!!!!!

 

Waymark and Grandfathered Virtual

 

Grandfathered Virtual and Waymark

 

Waymark and Grandfathered Virtual

 

Grandfathered Virtual and Waymark

 

[+OzzieSan]

I modeled it after a cache that I had a lot of fun finding. After spending a couple of hours preparing it I found out that this website no longer accepts virtual caches. This is very dissapointing.

Wow a couple hours?

 

I was directed to Waymarking.com and gave it a shot but the website is fairly lame in my opinion.

As were 80% of the virtuals posted.

 

It looks like you joined after virtuals were done away with, so how did you miss reading the guidlines for publishing a cache?

 

Member Since: Saturday, September 29, 2007

 

You did read them right? They are easy to find.

 

[+tozainamboku]

So tell us about this virtual tour of the mall. What is it that we're missing out on?

This mall is WOW!!! It is the most WOW mall in Cordova, TN. It is novel, of interest to other players, and has a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Every reviewer can see why this WOW location deserves to have a cache, and since the OP lives in Iowa he can't maintain a physical cache so that's why it needs to b a virtual.

 

Bring back virtuals so that we can fill the forums with complaints from people who couldn't get their virtuals approve because of reviewers enforcing the unreasonable guidelines

 

For the OP - see here for an explanation of why new virtuals are no longer accepted.

[+9Key]

So tell us about this virtual tour of the mall. What is it that we're missing out on?

This mall is WOW!!! It is the most WOW mall in Cordova, TN. It is novel, of interest to other players, and has a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Every reviewer can see why this WOW location deserves to have a cache, and since the OP lives in Iowa he can't maintain a physical cache so that's why it needs to b a virtual.

 

Bring back virtuals so that we can fill the forums with complaints from people who couldn't get their virtuals approve because of reviewers enforcing the unreasonable guidelines

 

For the OP - see here for an explanation of why new virtuals are no longer accepted.

WOW toz, you're really worked up today!

[Captain Kenton]

To put a few things straight, I had no idea what a "virtual cache" was until mine was denied. All I knew is that I recently found one like it at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota and had a lot of fun in the process.

 

What I have noticed is that there are a lot of control freaks that geocache. Secondly, there seem to be a lot of "yes men", "I told you so types", who are more than happy to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not impressed.

 

I am a nice guy. Meet me in person and you will find out. I have edited this several times so that nobody's feelings get hurt. What I want to say can still be conveyed without becoming "seemingly abusive" toward any particular member.

 

This is a game that is supposed to be fun. Forgive me if I don't spend all of my free time reading every little detail about the game. I am new to this game and don't yet know the entire lingo.

 

Lastly, I am equally able to maintain a cache in either location. I live here and work there. I maintain two residences. I probably spend more time there than I do at my home in Iowa. Look at my found cache list. Then ask yourself where I would most likely be able to spend my time looking after a box with a note in it. Should I create another screen name so that I can list Cordova as home?

[jholly]

To put a few things straight, I had no idea what a "virtual cache" was until mine was denied. All I knew is that I recently found one like it at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota and had a lot of fun in the process.

 

Well if you looked here you would have known what a virtual cache was. Didn't you ever wonder about the little icons next to a cache?

 

What I have noticed is that there are a lot of control freaks that geocache. Secondly, there seem to be a lot of "yes men", "I told you so types", who are more than happy to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not impressed.

 

Control freaks because the review enforces the guidelines? Yes men because the reviewers follow the party line that comes from the lily pad? "I told you so types" because folks pointed out the lack of your reading?

 

I am a nice guy. Meet me in person and you will find out. I have edited this several times so that nobody's feelings get hurt. What I want to say can still be conveyed without becoming "seemingly abusive" toward any particular member.

 

Being a nice guy has nothing with getting a cache published. If you came here for sympathy, I've found that internet forums are a poor choice. This one is pretty civil and nice, unix notes groups can be down right brutal.

 

This is a game that is supposed to be fun. Forgive me if I don't spend all of my free time reading every little detail about the game. I am new to this game and don't yet know the entire lingo.

 

If your going to make hides there are a few details you need to know

 

Lastly, I am equally able to maintain a cache in either location. I live here and work there. I maintain two residences. I probably spend more time there than I do at my home in Iowa. Look at my found cache list. Then ask yourself where I would most likely be able to spend my time looking after a box with a note in it. Should I create another screen name so that I can list Cordova as home?

 

Ah, you got flagged by the reviewer because of the distance from home. Well if you just replied to him that you live there and work here and you will be here to maintain the cache I'm sure there will be no problem. You see, that is another one of those details ... no vacation caches.

 

Happy hiding,

 

Jim

[4wheelin_fool]

To put a few things straight, I had no idea what a "virtual cache" was until mine was denied. All I knew is that I recently found one like it at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota and had a lot of fun in the process.

 

 

They are lying to you.

 

You can still hide caches with virtual locations, as long as the final has a logbook.

 

The first two stages of this cache that I hid last year is a virtual tour of the mall.

 

Stage 1 is indoors, under the glass skylights. I was able to get 20 feet accuracy, but the numbers jumped around quite a bit.

Edited August 14, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Geovius]

Not again...

[+briansnat]

What I have noticed is that there are a lot of control freaks that geocache. Secondly, there seem to be a lot of "yes men", "I told you so types", who are more than happy to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not impressed.

 

I've been in this sport for some time and I've encountered relatively few control freaks. A sport that is based on leaving a container in public to the whims of others and nature is not one that draws control freaks. There are a few but they tend not to last too long in the sport.

 

It appears that your definition of "yes men" is anybody who disagrees with you. The fact of the matter is that new virtuals have essentially not been allowed since 2003 and officially moved to Waymarking as of nearly 3 years ago. Some of us were happy to see them go, others not so.

 

Forgive me if I don't spend all of my free time reading every little detail about the game.

 

Nobody is saying you have to go read every detail about the sport, but before you place a cache you need to read the guidelines. In fact when you submitted the cache you checked box that said you had read and understood them.

 

If you want check that box when you actually didn't read and/or understand them, that is your prerogative, but then to come here and complain and make demands after getting bitten by it strikes many of us as presumptuous. I think this, combined with the bitter and demanding tone of your OP caused you to lose

a lot of people who might have been sympathetic to your cause. To add name calling in your follow up post

certainly isn't making situation better.

 

Virtuals are gone from this site and are not coming back. That isn't going to change no matter how many people complain (and they do, you are far from the first.). So you basically have two choices, complaining and name calling, or trying to work within the system to get your cache published. You already tried the former and I think you realized it isn't going to get you far. Try the latter. Discuss with your reviewer ways you can change your cache so that it conforms to the guidelines.

[+ArcherDragoon]

The Virtual Cache he speaks of is actually a Mystery/Puzzle Cache set in 2002. It is of the Keyword/Phrase variety that are now against the guidelines-now a Grandfathered Cache type (GC3995)...with that being said, there are ways of turning a cache like that into an actual/physical cache with a container at the end of the hunt (without it being a commercial cache). So, in this case, I think there were several things that just went against this cache...

 

-Possible Commercial Cache

-Cache without on Container & Log (for at least the final location)

-Password Cache

 

Work with some folks and you may be able to tweek this one enough to get it published as a cache. Just because it was turned down, doesn't mean it cannot be done...it just needs to change in order to get it done. Find a couple more Puzzle/Mystery Caches and Multi/Offset Caches and you may get a better idea for this situation...and, as someone else mentioned, talk with the local reveiwer and explain your situation and how you feel you can maintain a cache there.

[Captain Kenton]

Sorry everyone.

[+OzzieSan]

 

They are lying to you.

 

You can still hide caches with virtual locations, as long as the final has a logbook.

 

The first two stages of this cache that I hid last year is a virtual tour of the mall.

 

Stage 1 is indoors, under the glass skylights. I was able to get 20 feet accuracy, but the numbers jumped around quite a bit.

 

While they may well be "virtual locations" they are NOT virtual caches.

Edited August 14, 2008 by OzzieSan

[+DanOCan]

Nobody is saying you have to go read every detail about the sport, but before you place a cache you need to read the guidelines. In fact when you submitted the cache you checked box that said you had read and understood them.

 

I wish I knew what the solution to this was. People are so used to clicking on checkboxes that very few people actually stop and read what they are agreeing to by doing so. I'll admit it, I never read the End User License Agreement when I install software -- "Yeah, yeah, I read it, let me get on with the install."

 

I think the same thing happens here. People want to place a cache, they are excited they fill out the form see the checkboxes and think "Bah, it's a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo that I won't understand anyway." and then submit the cache only to get upset when it is denied.

 

Never mind that the very top of the "Hide a Cache" clearly spells out:

 

To hide a new geocache in your area...

 

It is imperative that you read and understand the Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines prior to placing each and every geocache.

 

People don't seem to "get" that this is the one place where you really should "read AND understand" the guidelines before you click that box. Heck, I review them every time I hide a cache because the guidelines change and/or I need a refresher on the rules.

 

There almost needs to be a test before you can submit a cache, similar to how you must pass a written test before you are allowed to get a learner's permit for driving.

 

1) Which of the following cache types are no longer permitted on geoaching.com? Select all that apply.

(a) Virtual

( Traditional

© Micro

(d) Webcam

(e) Earthcache

 

2) Do the bogus coordinates for a puzzle cache need to meet the rules for cache saturation?

(a) yes

( no

 

3) What is the minimum distance between caches?

 

4) Does a "Question to Answer" waypoint of a Multi cache need to meet proximity rules:

(a) Yes

( No

 

5) etc, etc

 

I don't know how else you get people to actually read and understand the guidelines before hiding caches. Maybe I shouldn't care since I am not a reviewer so I don't need to deal with these sorts of requests/submissions. However, I like caching and I don't like the idea that some people are left with a bitter taste in their mouth regarding the hobby because of these sorts of issues, regardless of who's fault it is.

[+briansnat]

I wish I knew what the solution to this was. People are so used to clicking on checkboxes that very few people actually stop and read what they are agreeing to by doing so. I'll admit it, I never read the End User License Agreement when I install software -- "Yeah, yeah, I read it, let me get on with the install."

 

Yeah, one of these days somebody is going to write one of those license agreements and stick "you agree to surrender home and your first born child to us" in it.

[+TexasGringo]

***I wish I knew what the solution to this was. People are so used to clicking on checkboxes that very few people actually stop and read what they are agreeing to by doing so. I'll admit it, I never read the End User License Agreement when I install software -- "Yeah, yeah, I read it, let me get on with the install."***

 

A multiple-choice quiz after you check those boxes. Questions will be drawn from a question pool...and you have to score 80% or beter to get your cache in the reviewers que. If you fail, then you keep taking the quiz until you pass.

 

LOL

[+flask]

Show of hands, who submitted a virtual during the Wow factor period?

 

 

me. i submitted one. it was denied. not "wow" enough.

 

it was a life-sized marble statue of willard scott inside a grain silo.

[+Prime Suspect]

Show of hands, who submitted a virtual during the Wow factor period?

 

 

me. i submitted one. it was denied. not "wow" enough.

 

it was a life-sized marble statue of willard scott inside a grain silo.

Only life size?

[+TrailGators]

Show of hands, who submitted a virtual during the Wow factor period?

I did. It was a lamp post in a parking lot. Silly me.

 

But seriously, I submitted two during that time period. One was slam dunk on the top of the second tallest mountain in SoCal. The other one was borderline wow. However, the borderline one got approved only because caching got banned in that park. When caching was unbanned in the park a year later, virtuals were banned, so I left it as a virtual for the novelty.

[+Lil Devil]

Only life size?

Oh my hell! You know how when you see someone else yawn, it has a tendency to make you yawn, too. Well just now watching a dang ICON yawn made me yawn! I'm so impressionable

[Mr.Yuck]

Show of hands, who submitted a virtual during the Wow factor period?

I did. It was a lamp post in a parking lot. Silly me.

 

But seriously, I submitted two during that time period. One was slam dunk on the top of the second tallest mountain in SoCal. The other one was borderline wow. However, the borderline one got approved only because caching got banned in that park. When caching was unbanned in the park a year later, virtuals were banned, so I left it as a virtual for the novelty.

 

I should re-phrase that question. Who submitted a virtual during the "wow" period, that didn't know the "wow factor" was in effect? I mean you could select virtual as the cache type, submit it, after reading the guidelines, and still not know you had no chance. I know a couple people, including one who spent probably 10 hours setting up and writing up the virt. And believe me, our particular reviewer wasn't going to approve any of them. Some reviewers were much more lenient. I'll never tell, but there's a mid-2004 approved virt I've seen which is horrifically lame beyond comprehension.

[+TrailGators]

Show of hands, who submitted a virtual during the Wow factor period?

I did. It was a lamp post in a parking lot. Silly me.

 

But seriously, I submitted two during that time period. One was slam dunk on the top of the second tallest mountain in SoCal. The other one was borderline wow. However, the borderline one got approved only because caching got banned in that park. When caching was unbanned in the park a year later, virtuals were banned, so I left it as a virtual for the novelty.

 

I should re-phrase that question. Who submitted a virtual during the "wow" period, that didn't know the "wow factor" was in effect? I mean you could select virtual as the cache type, submit it, after reading the guidelines, and still not know you had no chance. I know a couple people, including one who spent probably 10 hours setting up and writing up the virt. And believe me, our particular reviewer wasn't going to approve any of them. Some reviewers were much more lenient. I'll never tell, but there's a mid-2004 approved virt I've seen which is horrifically lame beyond comprehension.

The reviewers out here were pretty good with their wow assessments. I seldom run into a lame virtual.

[+Clarkbowman]

I modeled it after a cache that I had a lot of fun finding. After spending a couple of hours preparing it I found out that this website no longer accepts virtual caches. This is very dissapointing.

Wow a couple hours?

 

I was directed to Waymarking.com and gave it a shot but the website is fairly lame in my opinion.

As were 80% of the virtuals posted.

 

It looks like you joined after virtuals were done away with, so how did you miss reading the guidlines for publishing a cache?

 

Member Since: Saturday, September 29, 2007

 

You did read them right? They are easy to find.

 

 

I think 80% of the caches out there can be classed as lame. But it's all opinion. Not allowing virtuals in my opinion is lame. No one make you go look for any thing out there. It all is the choice of each and every one of us. For groundspeek to use the excuses it does is lame. You can’t require some one to do anything special to log a cache. Yet you can if it fits their idea of what is right. They tend to forget that with out each and every one of us they would be nothing. It's simple, if you want to hunt a virtual, go get it. If you like micros, go for it. The choice is yours. You’re not being forced to do a darn thing here.

If some one makes it a requirement to post a picture, Is it a unfair requirement? Yes if you don’t have a camera. But yet this is ok. And it is a choice. So why not allow a virtual? They have no good reason, other then what they think is best for you. Again they forget that each of us has a brain and can choose what and where we want to go and do.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

You know, McDonald's might be able to make a few bucks by selling pizzas, but they've decided to limit their menu offerings to burgers and chicken. If you prefer pizza, go somewhere else.

 

This is Groundspeak's site, so they can offer what they want. If you don't like it, you're free to go elsewhere.

[+KBI]

I think 80% of the caches out there can be classed as lame. But it's all opinion. Not allowing virtuals in my opinion is lame. No one make you go look for any thing out there. It all is the choice of each and every one of us. For groundspeek to use the excuses it does is lame. You can’t require some one to do anything special to log a cache. Yet you can if it fits their idea of what is right. They tend to forget that with out each and every one of us they would be nothing. It's simple, if you want to hunt a virtual, go get it. If you like micros, go for it. The choice is yours. You’re not being forced to do a darn thing here.

If some one makes it a requirement to post a picture, Is it a unfair requirement? Yes if you don’t have a camera. But yet this is ok. And it is a choice. So why not allow a virtual? They have no good reason, other then what they think is best for you. Again they forget that each of us has a brain and can choose what and where we want to go and do.

Normally I tend to agree with your leave-people-alone-to-choose-the-way-they-want-to-play philosophy, but in this case I must disagree.

 

I happen to agree with Groundspeak’s decision to remove virtual caches from the website, and I agree with their reason. As I understand, they stopped listing them because virtual caches are not caches. There is no object to find and no paper log to write your name on. I’m all for innovation and creativity, but a virtual cache, by definition, is not a real cache.

 

Sometimes while expanding creative innovation it is possible to lose sight of the underlying, essential concept. Suppose someone wanted a new cache type where you go to a library, read a book, post a review, and call that finding the geocache? Suppose watching a certain TV show counted as a geocache? Suppose “hygiene caches” were to become the new rage, where one logs a find online every time one takes a shower? Suppose merely having a dream about using ones GPS qualified one to log a certain new cache type?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere. You’ll never find three people who agree exactly where that line should be drawn – but the general consensus seems to agree on the general area of the line.

 

Also – and this is really all that matters: It’s their company. They can do whatever they want. On their website, they ultimately get to define “Geocache.” When it comes to drawing the line, it’s their pencil.

 

If you feel strongly that virtuals should be included among real cache listings, then you are always welcome to start your own independent caching website, and run it as you see fit. I don’t mean that in a mean-spirited way either; I wish you every success if you decide to do so.

[+TrailGators]

I happen to agree with Groundspeak's decision to remove virtual caches from the website, and I agree with their reason. As I understand, they stopped listing them because virtual caches are not caches. There is no object to find and no paper log to write your name on. I'm all for innovation and creativity, but a virtual cache, by definition, is not a real cache.

Then why do they still allow Earthcaches?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I happen to agree with Groundspeak's decision to remove virtual caches from the website, and I agree with their reason. As I understand, they stopped listing them because virtual caches are not caches. There is no object to find and no paper log to write your name on. I'm all for innovation and creativity, but a virtual cache, by definition, is not a real cache.

Then why do they still allow Earthcaches?

Why does the aforementioned fast food establishment sell the McRib from time to time?

[+TrailGators]

I happen to agree with Groundspeak's decision to remove virtual caches from the website, and I agree with their reason. As I understand, they stopped listing them because virtual caches are not caches. There is no object to find and no paper log to write your name on. I'm all for innovation and creativity, but a virtual cache, by definition, is not a real cache.

Then why do they still allow Earthcaches?

Why does the aforementioned fast food establishment sell the McRib from time to time?

I don't think that the argument that a cache has to have a container holds water for that reason. I still think it has more to do with Groundspeak wanting virts to be on Waymarking.com. Edited August 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I happen to agree with Groundspeak's decision to remove virtual caches from the website, and I agree with their reason. As I understand, they stopped listing them because virtual caches are not caches. There is no object to find and no paper log to write your name on. I'm all for innovation and creativity, but a virtual cache, by definition, is not a real cache.

Then why do they still allow Earthcaches?

Why does the aforementioned fast food establishment sell the McRib from time to time?

I don't think that the argument that a cache has to have a container holds water for that reason. I still think it has more to do with Groundspeak wanting virts to be on Waymarking.com.

 

Also – and this is really all that matters: It’s their company. They can do whatever they want. On their website, they ultimately get to define “Geocache.” When it comes to drawing the line, it’s their pencil.

[+TrailGators]

I happen to agree with Groundspeak's decision to remove virtual caches from the website, and I agree with their reason. As I understand, they stopped listing them because virtual caches are not caches. There is no object to find and no paper log to write your name on. I'm all for innovation and creativity, but a virtual cache, by definition, is not a real cache.

Then why do they still allow Earthcaches?

Why does the aforementioned fast food establishment sell the McRib from time to time?

I don't think that the argument that a cache has to have a container holds water for that reason. I still think it has more to do with Groundspeak wanting virts to be on Waymarking.com.

 

Also – and this is really all that matters: It's their company. They can do whatever they want. On their website, they ultimately get to define "Geocache." When it comes to drawing the line, it's their pencil.

True, but we were speculating as to their actual reason.

 

Edit: typo

Edited August 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[4wheelin_fool]

 

They are lying to you.

 

You can still hide caches with virtual locations, as long as the final has a logbook.

 

The first two stages of this cache that I hid last year is a virtual tour of the mall.

 

Stage 1 is indoors, under the glass skylights. I was able to get 20 feet accuracy, but the numbers jumped around quite a bit.

 

While they may well be "virtual locations" they are NOT virtual caches.

 

It is a virtual and a traditional combined as a multi. The only difference is that it does not have the virtual icon, and has a container at the final location. I do not see any reason why the OP cannot list their cache in a similar way.

[+briansnat]

So why not allow a virtual? They have no good reason, other then what they think is best for you.

 

Wrong, it's what they think is best for them and the sport. There were several reasons virts were banned. First off they weren't caches and the management of this site wanted to get back to the basics of the sport which is finding a geocache.

 

Second, there were some incredibly lame virts being submitted. Fence posts, flagpoles, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods, a tennis ball and in one case, a rotting animal carcass. In response to that they implemented the "wow factor' which put reviewers in the uncomfortable position of judging cache quality. Something that TPTB have always wanted to avoid.

 

Finally, and probably most important, when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching, more and more land managers were pointing to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered traditional geocaching in many areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could focus on allowing real geocaches.

And you know what, in many places it has worked.

[Mr.Yuck]

I happen to agree with Groundspeak's decision to remove virtual caches from the website, and I agree with their reason. As I understand, they stopped listing them because virtual caches are not caches. There is no object to find and no paper log to write your name on. I'm all for innovation and creativity, but a virtual cache, by definition, is not a real cache.

Then why do they still allow Earthcaches?

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Oh, and to answer GPS Saxophone, Canadian McDonald's once offered McPizza (seriously, in the 90s).

It was actually quite tasty.

[+Harry Dolphin]

So why not allow a virtual? They have no good reason, other then what they think is best for you.

 

Wrong, it's what they think is best for them and the sport. There were several reasons virts were banned. First off they weren't caches and the management of this site wanted to get back to the basics of the sport which is finding a geocache.

 

Second, there were some incredibly lame virts being submitted. Fence posts, flagpoles, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods, a tennis ball and in one case, a rotting animal carcass. In response to that they implemented the "wow factor' which put reviewers in the uncomfortable position of judging cache quality. Something that TPTB have always wanted to avoid.

 

Finally, and probably most important, when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching, more and more land managers were pointing to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This endangered traditional geocaching in many areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could focus on allowing real geocaches.

And you know what, in many places it has worked.

 

Hmm... I've found 64 virtual caches. 16 were in NPS areas (10 on the Capitol Mall). I'm not putting out much hope that NPS will ever allow regular caches at the Capitol Mall, Sandy Hook, or Acadia. And NPS seems to be pulling regular caches along the AT.

Wow factor was always tricky. I think that only 2 on the Capitol Mall qualified, IMHO. But, as to lame, I can only think of three where I thought "Hunh? Why did you bother bringing me here?" I will admit that I have found a number of them to be rather boring. Oh, well. But many have also brought me to great spots, and shown me something interesting. (Which could also have been accomplished with a regular cache.)

I accept "Wrong, it's what they think is best for them and the sport." 'Nuff said.