Virtual Caches no longer accepted.

[+TrailGators]

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.

This is a good reason. The largest state park in the lower 48, ABDSP, banned caching but will allow virts and earthcaches. Now people can either create multis that have you drive into this huge park and then drive out and hit a cache outside the border of the park or start placing waymarks since caching is pretty much dead there.

[+Guinness70]

Virtual caches are actually never approved.

 

Actual caches are virtually always approved.

 

Catchy play on words!

you noticed that to hu :-) ...

 

sorry,

carry on...

[+tozainamboku]

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

I think my summary of the reasons that virtuals are grandfathered is pretty accurate. Especially after Michael PM'd to ask permissions to use it.

 

It doesn't address the Eartchcache issue. Initially Earthcaches were moved to Waymarking.com. As has been stated for various reasons, Waymarks get fewer visitors than geocaches. My suspicion is that Earthcachers were disapppointed in the lack of visits to Earthcaches which were supposed to encourage people to learn geology. What good would it be to have Earthcaches if nobody visited them to learn something? Waymaring.org likely pulled out their original agreement with Jeremy an showed him where he agreed to list Earthcaches on Geocaching.com. It said nothing about moving them to another site. Jeremy was bound by an earlier agreement to move the Earthcaches back to Geocaching.com. Of course Jeremy was able to point out that the original argreement emphasized the educational aspect of Earthcaches (and probably a few other things). Earthcache.org had to honor their part of the agreement and the approval process for Earthcaches got a little stricter. Now most Earthcaches require you to "pass an exam" to get credit. This has resulted if fewer visits to the Earthcaches that are listed on Geocaching.com

Edited August 16, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+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

I think my summary of the reasons that virtuals are grandfathered is pretty accurate. Especially after Michael PM'd to ask permissions to use it.

 

It doesn't address the Eartchcache issue. Initially Earthcaches were moved to Waymarking.com. As has been stated for various reasons, Waymarks get fewer visitors than geocaches. My suspicion is that Earthcachers were disapppointed in the lack of visits to Earthcaches which were supposed to encourage people to learn geology. What good would it be to have Earthcaches if nobody visited them to learn something? Waymaring.org likely pulled out their original agreement with Jeremy an showed him where he agreed to list Earthcaches on Geocaching.com. It said nothing about moving them to another site. Jeremy was bound by an earlier agreement to move the Earthcaches back to Geocaching.com. Of course Jeremy was able to point out that the original argreement emphasized the educational aspect of Earthcaches (and probably a few other things). Earthcache.org had to honor their part of the agreement and the approval process for Earthcaches got a little stricter. Now most Earthcaches require you to "pass an exam" to get credit. This has resulted if fewer visits to the Earthcaches that are listed on Geocaching.com

 

Very good summary Toz. I agree that Earthcaches require you to pass an exam. I'm not sure why they didn't just let you check a box on the earthcache page that says: "I have read and understand the guidelines the geology behind this earthcache."

[+KBI]

My suspicion is that Earthcachers were disapppointed in the lack of visits to Earthcaches which were supposed to encourage people to learn geology. What good would it be to have Earthcaches if nobody visited them to learn something?

 

Jeremy was bound by an earlier agreement to move the Earthcaches back to Geocaching.com.

The things that make Earthcaches different from the old virtuals are the stricter requirement for academic interactivity and the tougher approval process.

 

This is slightly off the topic, but I have sometimes wondered: Why is geology the only area of interest to receive this special treatment from Groundspeak?

 

Specifically, I wouldn’t be at all opposed to Historycaches, for example, as a new specific cache type, and for them to be handled exactly the same way as Earthcaches are now.

 

(I wouldn’t even be opposed to Groundspeak improving their consistency of policy by adding a container-with-logbook requirement to such caches.)

 

Some of the caches I have enjoyed the most are caches that have taken me to historically significant locations. Why not have a category that encourages the cache owner to step up the experience by presenting the finder with a fun interactive requirement beyond signing the log, such as short and interesting quiz about the location?

 

Geology and history aren’t the only areas of interest which might deserve such special treatment, of course.

 

One of the most common complaints I hear when people gripe about so-called “lame” caches is that they don’t bring people to adequately interesting locations. Earthcaches, by their nature, tend to take care of this complaint nicely. One would therefore assume a thing like Historycaches would meet with immediate popularity. Want Geocaching to be your tour guide? Then simply set your PQ to point you exclusively to the Earthcaches, Historycaches, Geographycaches, Biocaches, Politicaches, Marinecaches, Astronomocaches, and, if you’re feeling wacky enough, the Ripley’sBelieveItOrNotcaches.

 

Seriously. I’d do ‘em.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Don't I remember reading once that one of the lackeys or moderators said that Groundspeak would be open to a discussion like having another special category if there was a group willing to manage it the way that the GSA manages the Earthcaches?

[+TrailGators]

Don't I remember reading once that one of the lackeys or moderators said that Groundspeak would be open to a discussion like having another special category if there was a group willing to manage it the way that the GSA manages the Earthcaches?

If you could add waymarks to your PQs and they gave you a it would be a done deal.

[+tozainamboku]

One of the most common complaints I hear when people gripe about so-called “lame” caches is that they don’t bring people to adequately interesting locations. Earthcaches, by their nature, tend to take care of this complaint nicely. One would therefore assume a thing like Historycaches would meet with immediate popularity. Want Geocaching to be your tour guide? Then simply set your PQ to point you exclusively to the Earthcaches, Historycaches, Geographycaches, Biocaches, Politicaches, Marinecaches, Astronomocaches, and, if you’re feeling wacky enough, the Ripley’sBelieveItOrNotcaches.

 

Seriously. I’d do ‘em.

If by lame you mean lacking "wowness", I don't agree that making something an earthcache addresses the lameness. Any beach is an example of wave erosion, any river valley is an example of water erosion, any mountain summit is an example of either volcanic activity or uplift or both. Earthcaches seldom take to you a unique or novel place. They take you to some place where you can see an example of some generally common geologic phenomenon so that you might learn enough so you'd recognize it if you saw it elsewhere.

 

Your list of other areas that could be treated like Earthcaches sounds like a list of Waymarking categories. There is nothing stoping you from starting Waymarking groups to promote listing locations where you can educate visitors about history, geography, biology, politics, marine science, astronomy or Ripley's Believe It or Not. Ideally if you are interested in one or more of these areas you could get a PQ along with geocaches if you are so inclined. Unfortunately we have to wait for Grounspeak to roll out the release of Geocaching/Waymarking that allows this.

[+wigglesworth]

The earth caches we have visited have been a real WOW and we thank the cachers who have taken the time and trouble to research the information and provide an interesting location.

 

To state that earth caches 'seldom' take you to aninteresting place is disrespectful to the cachers who have done their homework and worked hard to provide cachers withan interesting cache.

 

I am grateful for the earthcaches I have had the privilege to visit.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The earth caches we have visited have been a real WOW and we thank the cachers who have taken the time and trouble to research the information and provide an interesting location.

 

To state that earth caches 'seldom' take you to aninteresting place is disrespectful to the cachers who have done their homework and worked hard to provide cachers withan interesting cache.

 

I've only visited sixteen Earthcaches. They are meant more to be educational than WOW. Some are spectacular locations, but the geology is lost on me. Some are interesting geologically, I guess. To combine both, into the WOW factor has not been too common in my experience. A few were downright boring. The 'Why did you bring me here?' category. 'Disrespectful' is far too strong a word. I guess I find road cuts not to be terribly interesting. And 'this glacial erratic was moved here, and turned upside down' lacks geological interest, in my book. Oh, well.

[+svladcjelli]

Waymarking.com is unused, I would not bother posting something there. No one else seems to log finds there either. The community at large does not use it, so it is useless to the community.

 

Earthcaches ARE virtual caches, no logbook to sign. The 'exam' part, I have yet to see one that requires actual knowledge or research, basically a pic of you there is all that is needed.

 

There is no reason to have moved virtuals off. They were put in boring spots? Kinda like most of the caches we now go find?

 

If gc.com were only consistent and could explain why they do what they do, these issues would not bother me at all.

 

It p|ss3s me off that people think it is perfectly fine for gc.com to do whatever they want, dadgum the users. This sport is nothing without the users, it is a social network, one that depends on users for ALL content. gc.com does very little, they maintain a website and database, the critical thing is the amount of users they snagged. I think they have done a reasonable job of the technical side, but ignoring user wishes and just doing whatever you want when you depend on your users so entirely is just not good for the sport, for the users, or for the company doing it.

 

We are all volunteers making this site what it is (and many of us even pay for that privilege). Treat your volunteers with respect, and listen to them.

[+Renegade Knight]

One of the most common complaints I hear when people gripe about so-called “lame” caches is that they don’t bring people to adequately interesting locations. Earthcaches, by their nature, tend to take care of this complaint nicely. One would therefore assume a thing like Historycaches would meet with immediate popularity. Want Geocaching to be your tour guide? Then simply set your PQ to point you exclusively to the Earthcaches, Historycaches, Geographycaches, Biocaches, Politicaches, Marinecaches, Astronomocaches, and, if you’re feeling wacky enough, the Ripley’sBelieveItOrNotcaches.

 

Seriously. I’d do ‘em.

If by lame you mean lacking "wowness", I don't agree that making something an earthcache addresses the lameness. Any beach is an example of wave erosion, any river valley is an example of water erosion, any mountain summit is an example of either volcanic activity or uplift or both....

 

Any garbage pit is an example of the human element of deposition. WOW is not automaticly there because there is an educational component to earth science. If that were the case there would be less eyes glazed over in earth science classes.

[+wigglesworth]

It seems that we are violently agreeing. Labelling it as an earthcache does not make it good.

What makes it good and a WOW is the cacher taking the time and effort to make it a WOW cache. The success of the cache depends on the design and the skill of the cache originator.

[+flask]

 

One of the most common complaints I hear when people gripe about so-called “lame” caches is that they don’t bring people to adequately interesting locations. Earthcaches, by their nature, tend to take care of this complaint nicely. One would therefore assume a thing like Historycaches would meet with immediate popularity. Want Geocaching to be your tour guide? Then simply set your PQ to point you exclusively to the Earthcaches, Historycaches, Geographycaches, Biocaches, Politicaches, Marinecaches, Astronomocaches, and, if you’re feeling wacky enough, the Ripley’sBelieveItOrNotcaches.

 

Seriously. I’d do ‘em.

 

i would, too. very often when i go to an earthcache it has as part of its description where finding it fulfills some parts of the state education curricula. i'm not sure about ripley, but there would be a LOT of good stuff out there for other sorts of edu-caches.

 

cool stuff that you need your GPSr to find just tickles me, especially after finding a bajillion guardrail caches. some of them might could involve containers, but some sites won't support it. i think (and this is only speculation) that the stricter approval process that earthcaches go through would really help keep these things on track.

 

maybe some retired schoolteachers might become the volunteer edu-cache approval team? it would be very cool to be able to put out a collection of edu-caches indexed by state and topic, cross-referenced to state education standards. it wouldn't be all that hard if your reviewers knew how to wade through edu-speak drivel and had access to relevant portions of state and local standards.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Waymarking.com is unused, I would not bother posting something there. No one else seems to log finds there either. The community at large does not use it, so it is useless to the community.

Obviously virtuals are lame then if no one wants to create virtuals or log them on the website.

[+wigglesworth]

I fail to follow the logic that 'obviously virtuals are lame'. This discussion has clearly demonstrated that people do want virtuals on the website but it is the geocaching website - you are possibly getting confused between the websites!!

 

Let's not go off topic and start debating Waymarking again.

 

Keep it on track - please.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Honestly...How many times do we really need to go through this???

.

.

.

Geocaching.com is a listing service owned by a private company...if we (the end users) want to use the site for the service in which it provides; we need to abide by their setup. If one does not like what has been done/changed, you are more than welcome to try another site. People seem to think because they pay a little bit extra for a service they deserve some level of entitlement (recall, one is not paying extra for the service…they are paying for the bonus features…I for one am happy to pay the fee for the services I use)...I only have one thing to say…

.

.

.

Get Over It!!!

.

.

.

The powers that be moved the virtual category over to Waymarking.com…big deal. Again, it is their site and they can run it how they feel is best for them…if one wants something different from a listing service…by all means, start a new site. I have tried the others…and am very happy with using geocaching.com as my (obviously) preferred site. Honestly, do we really think that Groundspeak has no idea what is said here in these forums…but they made their decision, just live with it and go out and find some Tupperware hidden in the woods!!!

.

.

.

For the OP, it is understandable that this thread was started because he didn’t realize virtuals were no longer accepted…(folks; give him a break…so he missed the guidelines…we all make mistakes). Every time one of these threads is opened…a group always uses it as a way to point at Groundspeak and say “See…people still want virtuals, bring them back” and proceed to say “If they (Groundspeak) doesn’t bring them back…it just proves they don’t listen to their users”…Yes, it happened; virtuals were moved to Waymarking.com…big deal, get over.

 

Now, thank-you for listen to another ArcherDragoon rant…I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread…sorry for the hijack…

[Keystone]

Waymarking discussions are always on topic in a thread about virtual caches. Waymarking.com is the replacement site for the former locationless cache and virtual cache categories.

[+wigglesworth]

Earthcaches were under discussion.

 

Virtuals are still supported

 

Waymarking was not under discussion but I am happy to support your right to bring it into the discusson if you feel it relevant.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Waymarking discussions are always on topic in a thread about virtual caches. Waymarking.com is the replacement site for the former locationless cache and virtual cache categories.

Sorry, I never meant to say that discussion about Waymarking within a virtual thread was off-topic...what I was trying to point out that some people say Waymarking is lame and try to use that as a reason to convince the powers that be to move virtuals back to geocaching.com...

.

.

.

I happen to think Waymarking.com is the appropriate place for virtuals. Don't get me wrong, I still find a virtual on geocaching.com when I can...but only because it is still there. Once they are all gone and done with on geocaching.com...it will be no different then locationless caches (which I missed out on...oh, well)...

.

.

.

Let's just call it "The Circle of Life"...

[CoyoteRed]

Virts aren't caches, yet land managers saw them as an easy out.

 

Remember the part about getting permission when you place your cache? Try standing in front of a reluctant manager who is saying "these here virtuals caches are just as good as these others, why not just place those?"

 

If anyone thinks micros in general are lame because so many placements are lame, try virts from before the "wow" era with even less of placement efforts. Thankfully most are gone, but you didn't need any container, even a free one, or a slip of paper. Just grab a set of coordinates and figure out some sort of question to ask. "What color is the power transformer near here?" (Not that I couldn't guess that. "Um, green?")

 

I knew it was a mistake to have grandfathered virts. I knew these very discussions would be brought up. Remember how popular locationlesses were, yet they were (re)moved. How many discussions of those? Yep, zip. Should have been the same with virts.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Virts aren't caches, yet land managers saw them as an easy out.

 

Remember the part about getting permission when you place your cache? Try standing in front of a reluctant manager who is saying "these here virtuals caches are just as good as these others, why not just place those?"

 

If anyone thinks micros in general are lame because so many placements are lame, try virts from before the "wow" era with even less of placement efforts. Thankfully most are gone, but you didn't need any container, even a free one, or a slip of paper. Just grab a set of coordinates and figure out some sort of question to ask. "What color is the power transformer near here?" (Not that I couldn't guess that. "Um, green?")

 

I knew it was a mistake to have grandfathered virts. I knew these very discussions would be brought up. Remember how popular locationlesses were, yet they were (re)moved. How many discussions of those? Yep, zip. Should have been the same with virts.

Like I said...I never got the chance to experience locationless caches (missed it by about 6 months)...but I agree with CoyoteRed...it would have been better to just move them right over to waypmarking instead a leaving some grandfathered ones in place...same with webcams...(though...that doesn't seem to come up as much)

.

.

.

I have visited a couple WOW virtuals and have found a couple of the pre-WOW virtuals...learning curve just like anything else...

[+Renegade Knight]

....

I have visited a couple WOW virtuals and have found a couple of the pre-WOW virtuals...learning curve just like anything else...

I'm not sure I ever saw any difference. One mans wow is another mans ho-hum.

[Dinoprophet]

Waymarking.com is unused, I would not bother posting something there. No one else seems to log finds there either. The community at large does not use it, so it is useless to the community.

 

Earthcaches ARE virtual caches, no logbook to sign. The 'exam' part, I have yet to see one that requires actual knowledge or research, basically a pic of you there is all that is needed.

 

There is no reason to have moved virtuals off. They were put in boring spots? Kinda like most of the caches we now go find?

 

If gc.com were only consistent and could explain why they do what they do, these issues would not bother me at all.

 

It p|ss3s me off that people think it is perfectly fine for gc.com to do whatever they want, dadgum the users. This sport is nothing without the users, it is a social network, one that depends on users for ALL content. gc.com does very little, they maintain a website and database, the critical thing is the amount of users they snagged. I think they have done a reasonable job of the technical side, but ignoring user wishes and just doing whatever you want when you depend on your users so entirely is just not good for the sport, for the users, or for the company doing it.

 

We are all volunteers making this site what it is (and many of us even pay for that privilege). Treat your volunteers with respect, and listen to them.

Unused? If all waymarks were virtuals, 1 out of every 7 caches would be virts. That's HUGE!

 

I don't know why people don't log visits much there. I do. And other people's lack of visiting doesn't prevent me from having fun visiting and posting new waymarks.

 

To the original point, I don't want virtuals to come back because at one point our state parks wanted to allow only virtuals. Now that there are no virtuals, caches are allowed.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I fail to follow the logic that 'obviously virtuals are lame'. This discussion has clearly demonstrated that people do want virtuals on the website but it is the geocaching website - you are possibly getting confused between the websites!!

 

Let's not go off topic and start debating Waymarking again.

 

Keep it on track - please.

Oh, I've got the right website. Virtuals belong on Waymarking.com, not geocaching.com.

 

You see, virtuals (yet another historical marker, mountaintop, dirty tennis shoe, golf ball in the woods, etc) didn't fit Groundspeak's idea of geocaching so they had to create an entirely new database to handle the amount of them that were submitted. The new database allows the few people that like virtuals to filter out the kinds they don't like. This way, people can still submit virtuals and actually have them "approved"

instead of coming in here to complain about how unfair the reviewers are.

 

If enough people really liked virtuals (now called waymarks), the Waymarking database would be full of neat places to visit and the users of that site would be constantly improving on it. Instead, they come into the geocaching forums to complain that they don't get a smiley for logging waymarks like they do when they find a geocache. That's just silly. When you've found a container with a logbook using your GPSr (or really good map and satellite image skills) you've found a geocache.

When you've found a point of interest (that's probably already published in one of many tourist books) you've found a waymark. Just because you use a GPSr to do both activities doesn't mean they are the same.

[+ArcherDragoon]

....

I have visited a couple WOW virtuals and have found a couple of the pre-WOW virtuals...learning curve just like anything else...

I'm not sure I ever saw any difference. One mans wow is another mans ho-hum.

One of those Highway/DOT Poles sticking out of the ground (like and arrow pointing to the sky...they have a purpose...but heck if I know what it is...and the page really didn't say anythign about it...just to send an email)...the question to answer was what color was the pole...

[+Renegade Knight]

....

I have visited a couple WOW virtuals and have found a couple of the pre-WOW virtuals...learning curve just like anything else...

I'm not sure I ever saw any difference. One mans wow is another mans ho-hum.

One of those Highway/DOT Poles sticking out of the ground (like and arrow pointing to the sky...they have a purpose...but heck if I know what it is...and the page really didn't say anythign about it...just to send an email)...the question to answer was what color was the pole...

Good example.

 

Deliniator: Shows you where the edge of the road is when you can't see it. Handy in torrential rain, snow, and fog. Some states change the color or # of reflectors to tell you when a driveway or side road is there.

Snow Poles. Same thing but for snow plows for when the deleniators are under snow.

Mile Markers. 1, 2, 3, 4 are we there yet?

There are other types of markers.

If they found a goofy one that would be interesting to me. The two mile markers that are hard to keep in stock are 69 and the year for the current graduating class. People like to take those home.

[+wigglesworth]

So are virtuals lame - This seems to be the point of the discussion now

[+Team GPSaxophone]

So are virtuals lame - This seems to be the point of the discussion now

Actually, it has come full circle:

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

[+wigglesworth]

and so it is goodnight from one and all and thanks for the discussion!!

[Mr.Yuck]

Virts aren't caches, yet land managers saw them as an easy out.

 

Remember the part about getting permission when you place your cache? Try standing in front of a reluctant manager who is saying "these here virtuals caches are just as good as these others, why not just place those?"

 

If anyone thinks micros in general are lame because so many placements are lame, try virts from before the "wow" era with even less of placement efforts. Thankfully most are gone, but you didn't need any container, even a free one, or a slip of paper. Just grab a set of coordinates and figure out some sort of question to ask. "What color is the power transformer near here?" (Not that I couldn't guess that. "Um, green?")

 

I knew it was a mistake to have grandfathered virts. I knew these very discussions would be brought up. Remember how popular locationlesses were, yet they were (re)moved. How many discussions of those? Yep, zip. Should have been the same with virts.

 

You will get an occasional query about locationless, and I remember someone even proposing a one day locationless holiday for people who joined after they were archived and locked. But good point, seeing as they're gone forever, everyone seems to know they're gone forever.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Deliniator: Shows you where the edge of the road is when you can't see it. Handy in torrential rain, snow, and fog. Some states change the color or # of reflectors to tell you when a driveway or side road is there.

Snow Poles. Same thing but for snow plows for when the deleniators are under snow.

-Nope...this was about 25ft off of the road and no reflectors on any sort on it...so, if it was used to mark anything it would have been the middle of that particular ditch...

 

Mile Markers. 1, 2, 3, 4 are we there yet?

-Nope...it was a large arrow-shaped pipe...no numbers...no visable markings of any sort...

 

There are other types of markers.

-Yep...some sort of other...I see them all the time along the roads...here...but still have no idea what their purpose is...

 

If they found a goofy one that would be interesting to me.

-Nope...nothing goofy...just a 3 inch pipe with an arrow...bassically "-->" but pointed straight up to the sky...

 

The two mile markers that are hard to keep in stock are 69 and the year for the current graduating class. People like to take those home.

Edited August 19, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+wigglesworth]

So it was a mysterious 3 inch pipe. I think we have gone full circle as the mod stated!

[+ArcherDragoon]

So it was a mysterious 3 inch pipe. I think we have gone full circle as the mod stated!

Not really a mysterious item...they are all over the place here...I just have no idea what for...and for the most part...it probably does not matter what they are used for...

[+Wacka]

 

I'm not sure I ever saw any difference. One mans wow is another mans ho-hum.

 

True. I grew up about 25 miles from Niagara Falls. I have seen it so many times, it is ho-hum to me.

I knew a woman that lived in the city of Niagara Falls. She went about 5 years at one stretch without seeing the falls.

[+wimseyguy]

I grew up 25 miles from NYC. Never visited the Statue of Liberty, but have seen it from a distance many times. The only times I have been to the Empire State Building were when I delivered some packages there during a summer job after HS. I think I went to the 44th floor.

 

I do wish I had eaten dinner at Windows on the World at the World Trade Center before they were attacked on 9/11 though.

 

Some virts are lame, others are not.

Some traditionals are lame others are not.

I enjoyed LC's when they were available.

 

What were we talking about again?

[+Renegade Knight]

So it was a mysterious 3 inch pipe. I think we have gone full circle as the mod stated!

Yup. They have me wondering now.

[+ArcherDragoon]

So it was a mysterious 3 inch pipe. I think we have gone full circle as the mod stated!

Yup. They have me wondering now.

Try driving by a couple of them each day

 

Sometimes near an intersection...others near a highway...some randomly placed in the middle of nowhere...some in the middle of the ditch...some nowhere near the middle...organized chaos!!!

 

Edit: GC6557: Lucifer's Elbow...if anyone has a clue what they are used for...I would like to know as well...

Edited August 20, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+ArcherDragoon]

Mystery may be solved...I went back to the cache and looked at all posts...someone reported years ago that they may be used for venting gas pipes...but it really has not be confirmed by anyone...

[+tozainamboku]

Mystery may be solved...I went back to the cache and looked at all posts...someone reported years ago that they may be used for venting gas pipes...but it really has not be confirmed by anyone...

If that is in fact true, and the source of the gas is natural, this could be made into an Earthcache

 

Edit: Went and read the log and see that by pipes you meant pipelines, so this in not natural and probably not a good object for an Earthcache.

Edited August 20, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I think Waymarking is made of awesome.

 

- Elle

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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

So, what would it take to make the Waymarking website not lame?

 

I suspect the answer is that you'd get a smilie on the geocaching.com website, but I'm asking anyway.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

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

So, what would it take to make the Waymarking website not lame?

 

I suspect the answer is that you'd get a smilie on the geocaching.com website, but I'm asking anyway.

 

They already count them and you get ribbons on your profile for milestones. BruceS got 5000 posted and they made him an avatar (making him an avatar was pretty dang cool). There's rewards in Waymarking if the satisfaction of making something or experiencing something doesn't give ya a whirl.

 

- Elle

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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

So, what would it take to make the Waymarking website not lame?

 

I suspect the answer is that you'd get a smilie on the geocaching.com website, but I'm asking anyway.

 

They already count them and you get ribbons on your profile for milestones. BruceS got 5000 posted and they made him an avatar (making him an avatar was pretty dang cool). There's rewards in Waymarking if the satisfaction of making something or experiencing something doesn't give ya a whirl.

 

- Elle

Yes, but there must be more to it than that or we wouldn't see a new thread each week/month demanding that virtuals be brought back to geocaching.com.

 

Maybe the phone companies should be reconsolidated into MaBell again too.

[+Prime Suspect]

Yes, but there must be more to it than that or we wouldn't see a new thread each week/month demanding that virtuals be brought back to geocaching.com.

I suspect that many of these requests come from the majority of cachers who do not read the forums, and don't put out many caches. They've been happily caching away, probably unaware of the fact that most of the Virtuals they've been logging are from 2003 and earlier. They don't find out that Virtuals are no longer accepted until they decide that the cute little foot bridge in the park down the street would sure be a wonderful Virtual, and try to submit it. Then they finally meet reality - several years too late.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+Packanack]

Someone mentioned that we have come full circle:

 

Not really, read this thread and you will see what full circle is:

 

http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/thread/15478.aspx

[+The Blue Quasar]

 

I knew it was a mistake to have grandfathered virts. I knew these very discussions would be brought up. Remember how popular locationlesses were, yet they were (re)moved. How many discussions of those? Yep, zip. Should have been the same with virts.

 

YUP! Totally agree.

 

Someone mentioned that we have come full circle:

 

Not really, read this thread and you will see what full circle is:

 

http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/thread/15478.aspx

 

YUP! Totally agree on that too... naturally

 

And I never come on here demanding that my Waymarking Visits show up in my Geocaching profile. I like my WM icons much better since they reflect my personal tastes and interests.

 

BQ

 

p.s.

Archive your Virtuals! They have a Ghost as an icon for a reason... they are dead, they just don't know it.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I like my WM icons much better since they reflect my personal tastes and interests.

 

Agreed.

 

p.s.

Archive your Virtuals! They have a Ghost as an icon for a reason... they are dead, they just don't know it.

 

 

- Elle

[+The Lone Cachkateer]

Spend a couple of hours on a VC post only to find out after the fact that they are no longer allowed...yep, been there and done that! Your site could possibly qualify as an Earth Cache, but it's just not the same. I agree, bring back the VCs.

[Mr.Yuck]

Spend a couple of hours on a VC post only to find out after the fact that they are no longer allowed...yep, been there and done that! Your site could possibly qualify as an Earth Cache, but it's just not the same. I agree, bring back the VCs.

 

Well, back in the "WOW factor" days (2003-2005), when the cache submission form had a choice for virtual's but many people had no idea they would probably get rejected, I could see this. I foolishly tried to submit a pretty ordinary virtual in late 2003. At least I didn't spend 10-12 hours setting up a multi virt like someone I know.

 

But since 2006, the choice for virtual has been gone from the form. Although I have seen in this forum where a couple of people still tried submitting one, including the OP of this year old thread.

 

Edit to add, I said pretty much the same thing last year. Oops.

Edited September 11, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel