Why no new virtual caches

[+ScooterChick]

Just wondering why new virtual caches are not allowed anymore (only grandfathered ones)?

 

Thanks -

[+WatchDog2020]

Two schools of thought (or more) All the scenic locations were being turned into virtual caches and thus not allowing room for traditional caches. 2. You could do virtual caches without even leaving your computer.

Edited October 29, 2008 by WatchDog2020

[Dinoprophet]

A few other reasons:

 

Reviewers were getting inundated with "lame" virtuals, which led to a subjective judgment as to what was worthy as a virtual, which was impossible to enforce.

 

Some park services wanted to allow virtual caches but ban physical caches (Michigan DNR was one of these, lest anyone think that argument is apocryphal).

[+briansnat]

1. They were not geocaches

 

2. People were submitting the most mundane items as virts, ranging from flag poles and manhole covers to a sneaker in the woods and even a rotting animal carcass. It eventually put the reviewers in the business of

policing cache quality (using the infamous "wow factor"), which is something that TPTB doesn't think should be part of their job description.

 

3. When negotiating with land managers regarding allowing geocaching, they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. This endangered traditional geocaching in many areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could center on acceptance of real geocaches.

[+trainlove]

The answer is,

Because.

 

No if's, and's or but's.

Live with the rules. Do some <choking>Waymarks</choking>.

[+KJcachers]

Or better yet....Get out there and find some Earthcache's. Those are usually great fun and educational to boot!

[Dinoprophet]

Oh, yes, there are also those who believe Groundspeak thought it would be easier and/or more profitable to start a second website for locations without caches, and that it had nothing to do with the many reasons given above.

[+tozainamboku]

Virtual caches, webcam caches, and another type of cache called a locationless cache were moved from geocaching.com when Groundspeak developed the Waymarking.com site. My take on the history and why this decision was made is summarized here.

[+vw_k]

Another theory was that virtuals and webcam caches that required cachers to upload photos with their logs were going to start taking up too much memory!

 

Earthcaches are great fun and always quality, and Waymarking can be fun too.

[+Renegade Knight]

Just wondering why new virtual caches are not allowed anymore (only grandfathered ones)?

 

Thanks -

This site doesn't like them. Thus they were removed when Waymarks came along. Waymarks are somewhat reminisence of virtuals without actualy being virtuals.

[+9Key]

From the pinned topic in the Getting Started forum >>

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...mp;#entry767387

 

Where's Kit Fox with his list of previous threads on this subject?

[+briansnat]

Another theory was that virtuals and webcam caches that required cachers to upload photos with their logs were going to start taking up too much memory!

 

First, only a small percentage of virts require a photo. Most just ask that you e-mail the answer to a question

to the owner. Also, considering that you can load photos to any cache log (and many people do) , I sincerely doubt this was even remotely a consideration.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Remember the Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rules!

 

We can discuss the virtues of virtuals and lament or celebrate their passing as we see fit until we're blue in the face, but the owner of this site has said that there will be no more virtuals listed on this site. That should pretty much resolve the issue!

 

I think that the resistance to waymarks as the new paradigm for virtuals will be lessened if not eliminated if / when waymarks can be included in Pocket Queries and more folks start to actually hunt them rather than talk about them.

 

Who knows... virts may be just the first step - geocaching.com may be absorbed into Waymarking.com since geocaches are just waymarks with a cache hidden there!

[+trainlove]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

[+StarBrand]

My take on it...

 

A spot with some container to find there is a geocache.

 

A spot that is just there - that is what we used to call a virtual but now we call it a waymark.

[+DonB]

1. They were not geocaches

 

2. People were submitting the most mundane items as virts, ranging from flag poles and manhole covers to a sneaker in the woods and even a rotting animal carcass. It eventually put the reviewers in the business of

policing cache quality (using the infamous "wow factor"), which is something that TPTB doesn't think should be part of their job description.

 

3. When negotiating with land managers regarding allowing geocaching, they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. This endangered traditional geocaching in many areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could center on acceptance of real geocaches.

In what areas did they gain? Physical caches are still not allowed in national parks for example, but there are still virtuals in National Parks. I would think something is better then nothing.

[+Clarkbowman]

Just wondering why new virtual caches are not allowed anymore (only grandfathered ones)?

 

Thanks -

 

The GODS say so.

[+briansnat]

1. They were not geocaches

 

2. People were submitting the most mundane items as virts, ranging from flag poles and manhole covers to a sneaker in the woods and even a rotting animal carcass. It eventually put the reviewers in the business of

policing cache quality (using the infamous "wow factor"), which is something that TPTB doesn't think should be part of their job description.

 

3. When negotiating with land managers regarding allowing geocaching, they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. This endangered traditional geocaching in many areas. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could center on acceptance of real geocaches.

In what areas did they gain? Physical caches are still not allowed in national parks for example, but there are still virtuals in National Parks. I would think something is better then nothing.

 

Actually a good number of state and county park systems now embrace geocaching and in many instances they started off saying OK to virts but no to real caches.

Edited October 29, 2008 by briansnat

[+Walts Hunting]

Because daddy (Jeremy) says so. Now be quiet sit down and eat your broccoli.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

 

In the case of Earthcaches, there is some geological educational organization that sponsors them. Though this was never given as an "official" reason, it is likely that they complained about how visits to earthcaches greatly dropped when they were moved to Waymarking and they were virtually forced to move them to keep this sponsorship.

 

As noted elsewhere, he (she) who has the gold makes the rules!

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

 

From Waymarking.com's home page: Presently there are 141674 waymarks worldwide, listed in 807 user-created categories.

 

That just screams lack of interest. Yeah, why isn't anybody Waymarking and learning that new-fangled category system? There's just nobody Waymarking. I guess opinioNate is doing all that work by his lonesome... with thousands of sock puppets.

 

For the record, Places of Geological Significance could eat Earthcaches for breakfast and still have room for bacon.

 

- Elle

[CoyoteRed]

In what areas did they gain? Physical caches are still not allowed in national parks for example, but there are still virtuals in National Parks. I would think something is better then nothing.

Actually, there are fully authorized physical caches in National parks. The ban is a myth. It's up to the individual park to determine whether to allow geocaches.

[+DonB]

In what areas did they gain? Physical caches are still not allowed in national parks for example, but there are still virtuals in National Parks. I would think something is better then nothing.

Actually, there are fully authorized physical caches in National parks. The ban is a myth. It's up to the individual park to determine whether to allow geocaches.

Point me to a couple

[Mr.Yuck]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

 

From Waymarking.com's home page: Presently there are 141674 waymarks worldwide, listed in 807 user-created categories.

 

That just screams lack of interest. Yeah, why isn't anybody Waymarking and learning that new-fangled category system? There's just nobody Waymarking. I guess opinioNate is doing all that work by his lonesome... with thousands of sock puppets.

 

For the record, Places of Geological Significance could eat Earthcaches for breakfast and still have room for bacon.

 

- Elle

 

The question is not how many Waymarks your small cult following worldwide have created, but why no one visits them. It is a "placers game", and no one was visiting the Earthcaches when they were moved there for a year or so. And I do agree with Trainlove that the lack of interest in Waymarking (on the visiting side) was "completely unexpected" as he says.

[Dinoprophet]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

 

From Waymarking.com's home page: Presently there are 141674 waymarks worldwide, listed in 807 user-created categories.

 

That just screams lack of interest. Yeah, why isn't anybody Waymarking and learning that new-fangled category system? There's just nobody Waymarking. I guess opinioNate is doing all that work by his lonesome... with thousands of sock puppets.

 

For the record, Places of Geological Significance could eat Earthcaches for breakfast and still have room for bacon.

 

- Elle

 

The question is not how many Waymarks your small cult following worldwide have created, but why no one visits them. It is a "placers game", and no one was visiting the Earthcaches when they were moved there for a year or so. And I do agree with Trainlove that the lack of interest in Waymarking (on the visiting side) was "completely unexpected" as he says.

Well, then the question becomes, Why do people like to visit a spot when it's called a Virtual Cache and not when it's called a Waymark?

 

I realize it takes several extra mouse clicks to merge Waymarks with your caches in GSAK. So I'll be very curious to see if visits increase when(?) Waymarks can be added to PQs. But I suspect they won't because the real answer to the question is:

[Mr.Yuck]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

 

From Waymarking.com's home page: Presently there are 141674 waymarks worldwide, listed in 807 user-created categories.

 

That just screams lack of interest. Yeah, why isn't anybody Waymarking and learning that new-fangled category system? There's just nobody Waymarking. I guess opinioNate is doing all that work by his lonesome... with thousands of sock puppets.

 

For the record, Places of Geological Significance could eat Earthcaches for breakfast and still have room for bacon.

 

- Elle

 

The question is not how many Waymarks your small cult following worldwide have created, but why no one visits them. It is a "placers game", and no one was visiting the Earthcaches when they were moved there for a year or so. And I do agree with Trainlove that the lack of interest in Waymarking (on the visiting side) was "completely unexpected" as he says.

Well, then the question becomes, Why do people like to visit a spot when it's called a Virtual Cache and not when it's called a Waymark?

 

I realize it takes several extra mouse clicks to merge Waymarks with your caches in GSAK. So I'll be very curious to see if visits increase when(?) Waymarks can be added to PQs. But I suspect they won't because the real answer to the question is:

 

Yup it's the smileys. No one seems impressed by those two medal icons I have for over 50 Waymark visits. I'm quite certain there will be integration of the sites when v 2.0 comes out.

[+Dryphter]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

 

From Waymarking.com's home page: Presently there are 141674 waymarks worldwide, listed in 807 user-created categories.

 

That just screams lack of interest. Yeah, why isn't anybody Waymarking and learning that new-fangled category system? There's just nobody Waymarking. I guess opinioNate is doing all that work by his lonesome... with thousands of sock puppets.

 

For the record, Places of Geological Significance could eat Earthcaches for breakfast and still have room for bacon.

 

- Elle

 

The question is not how many Waymarks your small cult following worldwide have created, but why no one visits them. It is a "placers game", and no one was visiting the Earthcaches when they were moved there for a year or so. And I do agree with Trainlove that the lack of interest in Waymarking (on the visiting side) was "completely unexpected" as he says.

Well, then the question becomes, Why do people like to visit a spot when it's called a Virtual Cache and not when it's called a Waymark?

 

I realize it takes several extra mouse clicks to merge Waymarks with your caches in GSAK. So I'll be very curious to see if visits increase when(?) Waymarks can be added to PQs. But I suspect they won't because the real answer to the question is:

 

Yup it's the smileys. No one seems impressed by those two medal icons I have for over 50 Waymark visits. I'm quite certain there will be integration of the sites when v 2.0 comes out.

 

No smileys

Additional logging requirements (picture of you holding your gps blah blah blah)

Overload of crap like McDonalds and Starbucks waypoints

Clunky website

No PQ's

 

I tried Waymarking and thought it was really lame (kind of like Wherigo) and have no interest. It really is a placers game. I may try again if/when the websites combine and they are easier to sort, find, download, etc.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

No smileys

Additional logging requirements (picture of you holding your gps blah blah blah)

Overload of crap like McDonalds and Starbucks waypoints

Clunky website

No PQ's

 

I tried Waymarking and thought it was really lame (kind of like Wherigo) and have no interest. It really is a placers game. I may try again if/when the websites combine and they are easier to sort, find, download, etc.

 

You really need a to feel accomplished in your hobby? Really? Or are you referring to the fact that these finds all get added into the same sum on Geocaching.com? If that's the case, then Waymarking.com isn't bad as much as its separation is viewed as an inconvenience. But it is a separate hobby so it only stands to reason that it would be separate.

 

Overload of crap? Why, I'll have you know that there's now a Hooters category!

 

The website is actually very well organised, far beyond what Geocaching.com was capable of providing for Virtuals.

 

It is strongly discouraged to have your handheld GPSr included in the photographs because they interfer with showing the thing you're Waymarking and visiting. That was something that Virtuals required. There are only one or two Waymarking Games that require the GPSr be shown and that is because they are games that are dependent on the GPS showing the exact coordinates. Kinda makes sense. But please don't have your Garmin taking up half the view of a 200 year-old historical building.

 

I visit waymarks. I know a lot of people who do. There are people who love visiting waymarks and they have more visits than posts.

 

Once I have the appropriate GPSr, I'm going to Wherigo. It looks awesome. But I was sold the moment they said "Zork."

 

You have a right to your opinion and nobody's going to make you like something, but I think you should have the right information. A lot of what you're trashing is Virtuals, not Waymarking.

 

- Elle

Edited October 31, 2008 by HauntHunters

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Yup it's the smileys. No one seems impressed by those two medal icons I have for over 50 Waymark visits.

 

Nope, it's not the smileys. No one is impressed by those 2500+ smileys in my profile.

 

Or if they are they shouldn't be.

[+Dryphter]

You have a right to your opinion and nobody's going to make you like something, but I think you should have the right information. A lot of what you're trashing is Virtuals, not Waymarking.

 

I do have the right information and I don't need you to correct me. I was talking about Waymarking. I know what I wrote and I know what my experience with Waymarking was and the impressions I have of it as a result. I am also familiar with virtuals and wasn't trashing virtuals. Most of the virtuals I have been to were pretty cool. Can't say the same for waymarks in my area.

 

I still stand by what I said, the website is clunky and there are no PQ's for waymarks. There is a lot of crap categories.

 

I didn't know about caching when virtuals were taking off so can't comment on that period. But if virtuals were turning into what Waymarking is now, it's no wonder they are no longer allowed.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

You have a right to your opinion and nobody's going to make you like something, but I think you should have the right information. A lot of what you're trashing is Virtuals, not Waymarking.

 

I do have the right information and I don't need you to correct me. I was talking about Waymarking. I know what I wrote and I know what my experience with Waymarking was and the impressions I have of it as a result. I am also familiar with virtuals and wasn't trashing virtuals. Most of the virtuals I have been to were pretty cool. Can't say the same for waymarks in my area.

 

I still stand by what I said, the website is clunky and there are no PQ's for waymarks. There is a lot of crap categories.

 

I didn't know about caching when virtuals were taking off so can't comment on that period. But if virtuals were turning into what Waymarking is now, it's no wonder they are no longer allowed.

 

There are also crap caches... but as we say on this forum: Somebody likes them.

 

I'm correcting your misinformation on what Waymarking is. I understand that you've had an experience that you are basing your opinion on, however your experience is not representative of Waymarking as a whole.

 

A quick search reveals oodles of Historical Markers and NRHP waymarks in Sioux Falls, SD. Not too shabby. Those are two categories that I love. It certainly helps that the first one to pop up was a marker about firefighters. That's a quick sell! There's some artistic neon, some artwork... and a surprising lack of fast food chains and "crap categories." I'm learning a lot about Sioux Falls just reading these waymarks that I wouldn't have otherwise known. This is very interesting! And I love the pictures. I haven't seen a single GPS receiver! It's a shame you aren't contributing at all to it since you're there. The local waymarkers are doing some great work!

 

- Elle

[Dinoprophet]

No smileys

Are you saying "No smileys" is a downside to the site? No, there are no smileys, but there's an icon for every category and medals for certain levels of counts, if you like that sort of thing.

Additional logging requirements (picture of you holding your gps blah blah blah)

That's not true for most categories. Few require more than a picture (most insist you *not* show your GPS) and most don't require that.

 

Anyway, every virtual I've ever done required a specific piece of information. How is that different? At least with Waymarking, you can be reasonably sure that a photo is enough.

Overload of crap like McDonalds and Starbucks waypoints

Luckily you can filter those out. Just like you can filter out parking lot hides here. Oh, wait, no you can't do that here.

Clunky website

That's a matter of opinion. I don't know what you find clunky, I think it's outstanding.

No PQ's

For now.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[Mr.Yuck]

 

No smileys

Additional logging requirements (picture of you holding your gps blah blah blah)

Overload of crap like McDonalds and Starbucks waypoints

Clunky website

No PQ's

 

I tried Waymarking and thought it was really lame (kind of like Wherigo) and have no interest. It really is a placers game. I may try again if/when the websites combine and they are easier to sort, find, download, etc.

 

You really need a to feel accomplished in your hobby? Really? Or are you referring to the fact that these finds all get added into the same sum on Geocaching.com? If that's the case, then Waymarking.com isn't bad as much as its separation is viewed as an inconvenience. But it is a separate hobby so it only stands to reason that it would be separate.

 

Overload of crap? Why, I'll have you know that there's now a Hooters category!

 

The website is actually very well organised, far beyond what Geocaching.com was capable of providing for Virtuals.

 

It is strongly discouraged to have your handheld GPSr included in the photographs because they interfer with showing the thing you're Waymarking and visiting. That was something that Virtuals required. There are only one or two Waymarking Games that require the GPSr be shown and that is because they are games that are dependent on the GPS showing the exact coordinates. Kinda makes sense. But please don't have your Garmin taking up half the view of a 200 year-old historical building.

 

I visit waymarks. I know a lot of people who do. There are people who love visiting waymarks and they have more visits than posts.

 

 

Stop it now. How many of your 292 Waymarks (I think that's what it was) have never been visited once, ever? I'll bet over 90% of them. You think if you posted 292 geocaches (some of them 2 years old) 260 of them would have 0 finds? And the other 30 would have one find, probably half of those "self found"? Maybe if they were posted on Navicache.com It's a nice looking website, and the small cult of Waymarking generally does an excellent job of researching, photographing, and writing the stuff up. But don't try to kid us that anyone is actually visiting them, in anything even approaching significant numbers.

[+Harry Dolphin]

You really need a to feel accomplished in your hobby? Really? Or are you referring to the fact that these finds all get added into the same sum on Geocaching.com? If that's the case, then Waymarking.com isn't bad as much as its separation is viewed as an inconvenience. But it is a separate hobby so it only stands to reason that it would be separate.

 

Overload of crap? Why, I'll have you know that there's now a Hooters category!

 

The website is actually very well organised, far beyond what Geocaching.com was capable of providing for Virtuals.

 

It is strongly discouraged to have your handheld GPSr included in the photographs because they interfer with showing the thing you're Waymarking and visiting. That was something that Virtuals required. There are only one or two Waymarking Games that require the GPSr be shown and that is because they are games that are dependent on the GPS showing the exact coordinates. Kinda makes sense. But please don't have your Garmin taking up half the view of a 200 year-old historical building.

 

I visit waymarks. I know a lot of people who do. There are people who love visiting waymarks and they have more visits than posts.

 

 

Stop it now. How many of your 292 Waymarks (I think that's what it was) have never been visited once, ever? I'll bet over 90% of them. You think if you posted 292 geocaches (some of them 2 years old) 260 of them would have 0 finds? And the other 30 would have one find, probably half of those "self found"? Maybe if they were posted on Navicache.com It's a nice looking website, and the small cult of Waymarking generally does an excellent job of researching, photographing, and writing the stuff up. But don't try to kid us that anyone is actually visiting them, in anything even approaching significant numbers.

 

I think HauntHunters hit the nail on the head! It's a different hobby! It's not Geocaching. It's not even Virtual geocaches. It's a different hobby. More like crane spotting?

I will admit to having logged one Waymark (because my brother talked me into it.). I even set up one Waymark. As far as I know, no one has ever visited it. There seems to be very little interest in it. And it IS a very clunky site! And, it's a very boring site. Two visits was more than enough for me.

I say: Bring back Virtuals with a WOW factor!

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

<Just my thoughts>

A geocache, at a minimalist aspect, is a box or container of some kind that has at least a paper logbook.

All these grandfathered kinds don't. Some might have superflously had one, but wasn't a necessary part of the category.

Why EarthCaches are re-allowed is because of the angst about removing such a great educational opportunity and the completely unexpected lack of interest in Waymarking.

</Just my thoughts.>

 

From Waymarking.com's home page: Presently there are 141674 waymarks worldwide, listed in 807 user-created categories.

 

That just screams lack of interest. Yeah, why isn't anybody Waymarking and learning that new-fangled category system? There's just nobody Waymarking. I guess opinioNate is doing all that work by his lonesome... with thousands of sock puppets.

 

For the record, Places of Geological Significance could eat Earthcaches for breakfast and still have room for bacon.

 

- Elle

 

The question is not how many Waymarks your small cult following worldwide have created, but why no one visits them. It is a "placers game", and no one was visiting the Earthcaches when they were moved there for a year or so. And I do agree with Trainlove that the lack of interest in Waymarking (on the visiting side) was "completely unexpected" as he says.

Well, then the question becomes, Why do people like to visit a spot when it's called a Virtual Cache and not when it's called a Waymark?

 

I realize it takes several extra mouse clicks to merge Waymarks with your caches in GSAK. So I'll be very curious to see if visits increase when(?) Waymarks can be added to PQs. But I suspect they won't because the real answer to the question is:

 

Yup it's the smileys. No one seems impressed by those two medal icons I have for over 50 Waymark visits. I'm quite certain there will be integration of the sites when v 2.0 comes out.

 

No smileys

Additional logging requirements (picture of you holding your gps blah blah blah)

Overload of crap like McDonalds and Starbucks waypoints

Clunky website

No PQ's

 

I tried Waymarking and thought it was really lame (kind of like Wherigo) and have no interest. It really is a placers game. I may try again if/when the websites combine and they are easier to sort, find, download, etc.

 

The shame is that with some things different I could really get into Waymarking. There are times I don't have time for caching but would probably have time for Waymarking.

 

My main problem isn't the smiley, it's that it's a clunkier website. The additional logging requirements are no different than most virtuals and such. There just should be some way to integrate it into geocaching's website without the "smiley factor", much like benchmarks are. I understand (though they won't admit it) that one of the main reason virtuals were taken out was that they were easy, abused smileys where people Googled answers and responded in number that taxed Groundspeak's servers, but making something that virtually no one likes or uses is just waste too. If Waymarking were the equal of virtuals, they would not have brought Earthcaches back (almost certainly pressure from the educational sponsor) nor grandfathered virtuals (which they didn't do with Locationless Caches, which had a lot more of that "free smiley", overload the server factor and are really in my view the only thing that should've been turned into Waymarking, since location should be one key of this game).

 

Also, with virtuals, you don't know what to expect until you're at the coordinates, which makes for a nice little adventure. But with Waymarking, you're told at the start what to find and what you'll see, which makes it very boring.

[+DanOCan]

About a month ago I decided I should give Waymarking a try. What I found was:

 

-- Canadian Post Offices

-- "You Are Here" signs

-- "Welcome" signs

-- McDonald's / Starbucks / fast food

-- walking path foot bridges

 

Frankly, most of the stuff reminded me of the things people were trying to list as Virtuals which helped get them killed off in the first place. I did some further digging and found some interesting categories, but I had to do a lot to get the wheat from the chaff.

 

I'll admit that I set up our local post office as a Waymark. It's housed in a building that's over 100 years old and was originally a schoolhouse. I thought it was a nice change from the standard post office in a mall. Number of times that Waymark was visited in the five weeks since? Zero. Plenty of people have been through doing the caches here, not a single person could be bothered to do the Waymark.

 

People often wonder what caching would be like if no one placed new caches? Well, Waymarking shows you what a game looks like when the only people playing are interested in "hiding" and no one is seeking. Pretty bland.

 

When I can get a Pocket Query with only the categories that interest me, THEN you might have something. Until then, it might be useful when I am visiting a different area and I need some points of interest or something, but as a game it leaves a lot to be desired.

[+paleolith]

Or better yet....Get out there and find some Earthcache's. Those are usually great fun and educational to boot!

You mean like GC1A9G2 Inspiration Point – How the mountains formed! or GC1AA9W Sandstone Peak – The top of the Santa Monica Mtns!?

 

The first is at exactly the same coordinates as an old virtual, completely hiding the virtual on the Google Maps view. The text describes the history of the entire mountain range, nothing to be learned from this particular location, and sounds like it was copied from a textbook. To log the find, you have to answer two questions which have nothing to do with geology and can probably be googled. (Disclosure: I have logged the virtual but haven't bothered with the Earthcache.)

 

The second is somewhat better written and does relate to the specific location, and at least it's a few feet from the old virtual there. The certification quiz asks a couple of geology-related questions, but you barely have to skim the description to answer them.

 

Both Earthcaches were placed by NPS personnel on NPS land. This implies that they are using Earthcaches to "get into geocaching", and possibly to rebuff suggestions that they are opposed -- exactly the issue which reportedly occured with virtuals.

 

There are unquestionably good Earthcaches, and I don't mean to smear the good Earthcache developers by putting down the poorly done ones. But the approval agency, the Geological Society of America, seems to be acting as a rubber stamp rather than vetting submissions. I have in the past suggested that virtuals could perhaps be allowed with an approval agency (separate from the volunteer reviewers) to assure the "wow factor", but the experience with Earthcaches argues that such an approach would also degrade into rubber-stamping. (Oh, and I don't mean to denigrate letterboxing by using "rubber stamp" as a negative term ... well, I better shut up while I'm only chewing on my foot.)

 

Edward

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I think HauntHunters hit the nail on the head! It's a different hobby! It's not Geocaching. It's not even Virtual geocaches. It's a different hobby. More like crane spotting?

I will admit to having logged one Waymark (because my brother talked me into it.). I even set up one Waymark. As far as I know, no one has ever visited it. There seems to be very little interest in it. And it IS a very clunky site! And, it's a very boring site. Two visits was more than enough for me.

I say: Bring back Virtuals with a WOW factor!

 

Oh, I hope she knows that was all typed with a big smile on my face. Hence the two or three smileys in my post. Well, like I said earlier in the thread, I'm quite sure the Waymarking and Geocaching websites will be integrated in v 2.0. The WOW factor and bringing them back will never work, at least with the same "system" they had. During the WOW period, it actually wasn't that difficult to get one approved in the State below me, or the Province next to me. But in my State? You would have had a better chance of being hit by lightning every day for a week straight.

[+markandsandy]

But in my State? You would have had a better chance of being hit by lightning every day for a week straight.

 

That explains a lot.

[+briansnat]

Also, with virtuals, you don't know what to expect until you're at the coordinates, which makes for a nice little adventure. But with Waymarking, you're told at the start what to find and what you'll see, which makes it very boring.

 

A significant number of virtuals also tell you what is at the coordinates ahead of time.

[+Dryphter]

A quick search reveals oodles of Historical Markers and NRHP waymarks in Sioux Falls, SD. Not too shabby. Those are two categories that I love. It certainly helps that the first one to pop up was a marker about firefighters. That's a quick sell! There's some artistic neon, some artwork... and a surprising lack of fast food chains and "crap categories." I'm learning a lot about Sioux Falls just reading these waymarks that I wouldn't have otherwise known. This is very interesting! And I love the pictures. I haven't seen a single GPS receiver! It's a shame you aren't contributing at all to it since you're there. The local waymarkers are doing some great work!

 

Well you are welcome to come here and be the first to log a visit to many of the historical signs. It's really not a shame I am not contributing as I think Waymarking is about as much fun as watching mud dry. We have some really clever cache hiders here which adds an element to caching that Waymarking will never have - a challenge in finding it.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Stop it now. How many of your 292 Waymarks (I think that's what it was) have never been visited once, ever? I'll bet over 90% of them. You think if you posted 292 geocaches (some of them 2 years old) 260 of them would have 0 finds? And the other 30 would have one find, probably half of those "self found"? Maybe if they were posted on Navicache.com It's a nice looking website, and the small cult of Waymarking generally does an excellent job of researching, photographing, and writing the stuff up. But don't try to kid us that anyone is actually visiting them, in anything even approaching significant numbers.

 

More than 10% of my humble waymarks have been visited. I don't even live in a populated area of Florida, like Tampa or Miami. How many of my waymarks have 0 views? None. My waymarks show up in searches for people seeking information. How many times have you become friends with a local historian so you could hide a geocache? Probably none. Yet, doing this for several of my waymarks brings some satisfaction. Geocaching didn't get me into the Mayor's office, nor have him personally introduce me to the county's Historical Society so I could gather as much information as possible. This is all Waymarking. Virtuals would've never provided a platform for such an opportunity.

 

And I value these opportunities and experiences. This is a hobby for me. It's something that I don't have to do, but just doing it and enjoying it has opened a lot doors and gained me a lot of contacts that I wouldn't have otherwise had. I'm just a photographer. I don't have a history degree or a journalism degree. They've welcomed in this lowly photographer based on what I've done and continue to do... in Waymarking.

 

They couldn't care less about the regular-size container behind the old fire tower. Only Geocachers like the tupperware behind the old fire tower. Don't get me wrong, that's awesome. I like making fellow Geocachers happy. But I recognise that my waymarks can interest more than fellow Waymarkers.

 

It works for me and many others. Regardless of whether someone logs a visit on the waymark page, people are visiting the waymarks every day. They're visiting physically and they're visiting virtually. There are better waymarkers than me who have posted much better waymarks than I have. If people are viewing my waymarks and it's creating these opportunities for me, imagine what it's doing for someone with actual talent. There are some people who toss out cheap fast food waymarks to get an icon on their grid and increase their numbers for that silly ribbon... but there are also people who put a lot of work and creativity into their waymarks.

 

Thus concludes my Waymarking Cheerleading for this week. Ra-Ra!

 

- Elle

Edited November 1, 2008 by HauntHunters

[+Forest Guy]

Stop it now. How many of your 292 Waymarks (I think that's what it was) have never been visited once, ever? I'll bet over 90% of them. You think if you posted 292 geocaches (some of them 2 years old) 260 of them would have 0 finds? And the other 30 would have one find, probably half of those "self found"? Maybe if they were posted on Navicache.com It's a nice looking website, and the small cult of Waymarking generally does an excellent job of researching, photographing, and writing the stuff up. But don't try to kid us that anyone is actually visiting them, in anything even approaching significant numbers.

 

More than 10% of my humble waymarks have been visited. I don't even live in a populated area of Florida, like Tampa or Miami. How many of my waymarks have 0 views? None. My waymarks show up in searches for people seeking information. How many times have you become friends with a local historian so you could hide a geocache? Probably none. Yet, doing this for several of my waymarks brings some satisfaction. Geocaching didn't get me into the Mayor's office, nor have him personally introduce me to the county's Historical Society so I could gather as much information as possible. This is all Waymarking. Virtuals would've never provided a platform for such an opportunity.

 

And I value these opportunities and experiences. This is a hobby for me. It's something that I don't have to do, but just doing it and enjoying it has opened a lot doors and gained me a lot of contacts that I wouldn't have otherwise had. I'm just a photographer. I don't have a history degree or a journalism degree. They've welcomed in this lowly photographer based on what I've done and continue to do... in Waymarking.

 

They couldn't care less about the regular-size container behind the old fire tower. Only Geocachers like the tupperware behind the old fire tower. Don't get me wrong, that's awesome. I like making fellow Geocachers happy. But I recognise that my waymarks can interest more than fellow Waymarkers.

 

It works for me and many others. Regardless of whether someone logs a visit on the waymark page, people are visiting the waymarks every day. They're visiting physically and they're visiting virtually. There are better waymarkers than me who have posted much better waymarks than I have. If people are viewing my waymarks and it's creating these opportunities for me, imagine what it's doing for someone with actual talent. There are some people who toss out cheap fast food waymarks to get an icon on their grid and increase their numbers for that silly ribbon... but there are also people who put a lot of work and creativity into their waymarks.

 

Thus concludes my Waymarking Cheerleading for this week. Ra-Ra!

 

- Elle

 

I just checked out the Waymarking website and searched my area code. There's proably about 50-60 waymarks within about 1/10 mile from my house, and I probably already have pictures of about 30 of them in my computer...most of the ones I clicked on have 1 or 2 visits at most. It doesn't seem very popular to me. I like the 'hidden' aspect of geocaching, sightseeing is OK and all, but there's not much payoff IMO.

[Mr.Yuck]

But in my State? You would have had a better chance of being hit by lightning every day for a week straight.

 

That explains a lot.

 

What? You think I'm bitter or something? I have 62 waymark visits, and zero created. It's allright and everything. To each their own. I hang out with two of the biggest Waymarkers in the world. Although they'd probably never admit that, especially if they're reading this.

[Dinoprophet]

Well you are welcome to come here and be the first to log a visit to many of the historical signs. It's really not a shame I am not contributing as I think Waymarking is about as much fun as watching mud dry. We have some really clever cache hiders here which adds an element to caching that Waymarking will never have - a challenge in finding it.

The debate here isn't whether geocaching is more exciting than Waymarking; it's what makes virtual caches better than Waymarking? It's not the clever hiding.

 

Six of my sixteen virtual finds were historical markers. And of the four virtuals that left some mystery as to what was at the site, only one of them was interesting to me (and it wasn't the golf cart in a ditch). So I remain unconvinced that virtual caches provide something that waymarks don't.

[+briansnat]

I just checked out the Waymarking website and searched my area code. There's proably about 50-60 waymarks within about 1/10 mile from my house, and I probably already have pictures of about 30 of them in my computer...most of the ones I clicked on have 1 or 2 visits at most. It doesn't seem very popular to me. I like the 'hidden' aspect of geocaching, sightseeing is OK and all, but there's not much payoff IMO.

 

Well you are welcome to come here and be the first to log a visit to many of the historical signs. It's really not a shame I am not contributing as I think Waymarking is about as much fun as watching mud dry. We have some really clever cache hiders here which adds an element to caching that Waymarking will never have - a challenge in finding it.

 

You're both kind of missing the point here. The debate isn't Waymarking vs. geocaching, it's Waymarking vs. virtual caches. The argument is that fans of virtual geocaches have a viable alternative at the Waymarking site. Waymarks are far closer to virtual geocaches than virtual geocaches are to real geocaches.

 

Waymarking - The website provides you with coordinates of an object or place and you use your GPS to get there. Once there you see what the waymark owner wants you to see, then log your experience online while usually providing some proof of your visit.

 

Virtual geocaches - The website provides you with coordinates of an object or place and you use your GPS to get there. Once there you see what the virtual cache owner wants you to see, then log your experience online while usually providing some proof of your visit.

 

They sound pretty similar to me.

Edited November 1, 2008 by briansnat

[+DonB]

I agree with MorganCoke, there are too many additional requirements, such as taking a picture of yourself with your GPS, and the amount of information most owners want you to supply you would almost have to have a copy of the cache page with you so you could remember the questions and write the answers down because you'll never remember it all by the time you get home.

Edited November 1, 2008 by DWBur

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

We have some really clever cache hiders here which adds an element to caching that Waymarking will never have - a challenge in finding it.

 

Isn't it wonderful, then, that folks can make choices! Don't like micros? Don't hunt them! Love a challenging hunt? Don't do waymarks!

 

I really can't understand all the 'Waymarking sux' genre posts... do you take the time to hunt for a forum to complain about all the other things you don't like, or do you just not do those things and go about your business?

 

OTOH I have seen many posts over the years which indicate that the LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION is as if not more important than the cache... if that's the case those folks will likely enjoy Waymarking.

 

I will be all over waymarks beginning the day they show up in PQs... Hey Groundspeak! You listening? Give us a PQ that combines geocaches and waymarks and see how Waymarking takes off!

[+KJcachers]

I agree with MorganCoke, there are too many additional requirements, such as taking a picture of yourself with your GPS, and the amount of information most owners want you to supply you would almost have to have a copy of the cache page with you so you could remember the questions and write the answers down because you'll never remember it all by the time you get home.

Think...paperless caching...

[Dinoprophet]

I agree with MorganCoke, there are too many additional requirements, such as taking a picture of yourself with your GPS, and the amount of information most owners want you to supply you would almost have to have a copy of the cache page with you so you could remember the questions and write the answers down because you'll never remember it all by the time you get home.

Just like virtuals.

 

So, yet again, what makes virtuals better?