Why no new virtual caches

[+MountainMudbug]

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

 

It is true that some NPs will allow caches. You pay a fee and they tell you where you can hide the cache. I received this info directly from a park ranger/head honcho after being instructed to remove an 'illegal' letterbox. He suggested that I might 'chip in' with other lboxers or geocachers to come up with the $150 yearly fee to hide within the park at an approved location.

(This all happened a couple years ago, so things might have changed in that time. I did not pursue the pay-for-placement plan. I already donate to the park.)

[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.

Point me to a couple

No problem. Ninety Siz is the only NPS area I'm aware of off the top of my head. I've been told of other places. Ask a reviewer, they'll know.

 

Also, if you look at the statues you could be charged with, you will see each has an out that says something to the effect of "without Ranger approval." This means if you get the ranger's approval then you can place a cache.

 

The reason Ninety Six has caches is probably because it is so out of the way they get very few visitors. Geocaches bring visitors. Parks and sites who get more visitors probably don't need the extra visitors and therefor won't want to fool with geocaches.

[+Too Tall John]

Also:

 

GCNP Bright Angel

 

Any Old Skier...

 

Zoom out from either of those map views, you'll find more, squarely in NPS "Green" territory.

[CoyoteRed]

Probably should point out that just because caches are allowed a NPS land does that provide "adequate permission." In these cases "adequate" means "full and explicit" -- unless you want a Federal charge.

[+ChileHead]

The ONLY reason virtuals are "better" than waymarks is that they show up in your find count. I guarantee if Waymarking.com stats got added to your find count on geocaching.com, it would suddenly get extremely popular. Especially if searches combined results between gc.com and wm.com

[Mr.Yuck]

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?

 

The smiley and the increment of the geocaching find count by one. Not that I'm the first to say that.

 

I can agree with the theory many have posted. (And this doesn't apply to me, because I am the owner of two Waymark visit medals ) What I mean is the thing about losing the element of surprise with Waymarking, the way most people do a bang-up job of writing these things up, it's almost like why bother going there. This doesn't apply to all virtuals, but it sure does for the last one I found, which was early September. I had no freaking clue where I was going, or what I was going to see.

[+Mother Wolf]

The ONLY reason virtuals are "better" than waymarks is that they show up in your find count. I guarantee if Waymarking.com stats got added to your find count on geocaching.com, it would suddenly get extremely popular. Especially if searches combined results between gc.com and wm.com

 

Alot of truth here. However if you arent in it for the numbers wm is good. Trust me when I say there are ALOT of lame wm's as well. I mean how many McDonalds do you really want to see or like benchmarking, how many things in the concrete are really going to be exciting.

 

I started caching late & virtuals werent excepted anymore. I got into wm about 6 mos ago. I really enjoy it. I can stop almost anywhere at any time & take a picture. Most wm, not all, but most only require a pic & a tale of your visit. I have also added 30+ wm's. Only a couple have been repeats added in more than 1 cat. I have been to all of the wm's I have listed & I have only added the ones that have a history to them. Yes I have a couple nautical flag poles but they are at war memorials with additional historical sig.

I put as much time into my wm's as I do my cache pages & I have learned al= lot about parts of history I didnt know before.

 

So for me, I do the virtuals on gc.com as wll as wm's. It just rounds out that which I find interesting.

[+briansnat]

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

 

And for every one of those you have:

 

Mountain Summits

 

US National Register of Historic Places

 

Waterfalls

 

Scenic Overlooks

 

Balanced Rocks

 

Ancient Roman Ruins

 

Places Immortalized in Song Lyrics

 

Lighthouses

[+briansnat]

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

No problem. Ninety Siz is the only NPS area I'm aware of off the top of my head. I've been told of other places. Ask a reviewer, they'll know.

 

Also, if you look at the statues you could be charged with, you will see each has an out that says something to the effect of "without Ranger approval." This means if you get the ranger's approval then you can place a cache.

 

The reason Ninety Six has caches is probably because it is so out of the way they get very few visitors. Geocaches bring visitors. Parks and sites who get more visitors probably don't need the extra visitors and therefor won't want to fool with geocaches.

 

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is NPS managed and has geocaches there with permission.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

The ONLY reason virtuals are "better" than waymarks is that they show up in your find count. I guarantee if Waymarking.com stats got added to your find count on geocaching.com, it would suddenly get extremely popular. Especially if searches combined results between gc.com and wm.com

 

On a side note, I think it's hilarious that when I stumbled upon Bill Anger's boat-shaped gravemarker (WM3B3Y) in Englewood, FL, I thought of your Waymark first... days later I remembered it was a Virtual.

 

- Elle

[+bamagirl]

My biggest problem is that I just don't have the spare time to devote to two hobbies. I had to make a choice! Sure, I miss the virtuals which I loved, but now I spend all my spare time geocaching and if I added Waymarking, I would have to take time away from geocaching. With the busy lives we lead, one is all I have time for.

[+Isonzo Karst]

As off topic (why no new..?) as this has drifted, I thought I'd add that lately I've been clicking on the Waymarking links on cache pages. Mostly looking for boat ramps, a useful category when you're considering a boat access cache. One of these days I'll submit some.

[+litngbug]

This got listed in June of this year GC62A6 interesting for something not allowed anymore don't you think?

'bug

 

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?

[Keystone]

This got listed in June of this year GC62A6 interesting for something not allowed anymore don't you think?

'bug

 

Look again. That low GC number told me it was a cache placed in 2002. If you look at the past logs, the finds go back to 2002.

 

What the owner did is to bump the date forward when changing the coordinates to select a new virtual target. The new coords are posted within the cache description, since coords for grandfathered cache types are "locked" and cannot be changed, even by a reviewer.

 

This subjects the cache to being archived, should an Illinois volunteer cache reviewer take notice of the change.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Keystone

[Mr.Yuck]

This got listed in June of this year GC62A6 interesting for something not allowed anymore don't you think?

'bug

 

Look again. That low GC number told me it was a cache placed in 2002. If you look at the past logs, the finds go back to 2002.

 

What the owner did is to bump the date forward when changing the coordinates to select a new virtual target. The new coords are posted within the cache description, since coords for grandfathered cache types are "locked" and cannot be changed, even by a reviewer.

 

This subjects the cache to being archived, should an Illinois volunteer cache reviewer take notice of the change.

 

C'mon Keystone, you know you want to blow the guy in.

 

Seriously though, I'm confused. I own a webcam whose "focal point" has changed a couple of times. There's no way I could ever change the coords? Are you saying that when the guy attempted to change the coords, it automatically bumped the date forward? Or he changed the date himself?