In a perfect world...

[+Simply Paul]

It seems to me that the excess of Forum Angst is the result of frustration with Groundspeak or those who enforce its rules. This in itself isn't a bad thing- If GS are getting things wrong, you'd like to think they'd appreciate some constructive comment. Not wanting to lose any of our mods or reviewers, I think it's time to back off them a bit, but in order to give folks an outlet for their frustrations, I pose the following question:

 

If you were in charge of caching, world-wide, what would you change? Consider the limitations of needing permission, the problem of security when it comes to urban caches, issues of maintenance, the slow death of virtuals, micro-proliferation, etc etc etc. Does GC.com now need a ratings system? If you could allow new webcam caches, would you? Feel free to expand on what you like about caching, and highlight those points you think could be done differently, and better. Who knows, someone might stumble upon an idea that clicks with TPTB.

 

Please stay on topic(!)

[+purple_pineapple]

It seems to me that the excess of Forum Angst is the result of frustration with Groundspeak or those who enforce its rules. This in itself isn't a bad thing- If GS are getting things wrong, you'd like to think they'd appreciate some constructive comment. Not wanting to lose any of our mods or reviewers, I think it's time to back off them a bit, but in order to give folks an outlet for their frustrations, I pose the following question:

 

If you were in charge of caching, world-wide, what would you change? Consider the limitations of needing permission, the problem of security when it comes to urban caches, issues of maintenance, the slow death of virtuals, micro-proliferation, etc etc etc. Does GC.com now need a ratings system? If you could allow new webcam caches, would you? Feel free to expand on what you like about caching, and highlight those points you think could be done differently, and better. Who knows, someone might stumble upon an idea that clicks with TPTB.

 

Please stay on topic(!)

 

an interesting question! I'll have a brief attempt, but will first admit that there are a LOT of international aspects to caching that we in the UK may never have to consider, so our take on the perfect world may be a tad biased!

 

Lots to consider...

 

Firstly, I think in broad terms that GS.com is pitching it correctly. Its free, and generally ungoverened. However, I would like a guideline that basically says, for groundbreaking cache ideas, that the default is to publish it, unless any specific issues can be seen.

 

I would bring back virtuals, which should help with both security and too many micros. (note that I am pro-micro, BTW!)

 

I would instigate a BASIC rating system. Maybe 3 rates - along the lines of "Was this Cache good, bad, or average".

 

I would create an anonymous feedback system (IF you have logged the cache) to allow constructive comments to be sent to the cache owener without fear of reprisal. This comes with the safeguard that abusive comments can be reported to GS, who will know who sent them. (I can see this being MORE useful than a rating system - if the cache owner is prepared to change things)

 

I'm not so bothered about webcams being allowed back (call me indifferent) but I think virtuals serve more of a purpose.

 

I would remove benchmarks, (why are they any different to other national survey marks).

 

I would somehow differentiate 'solve at home' puzzles from 'solve in the field' puzzles. And generally be more amenable to some (but not lots) new cache types. I think the general principal of signing a log is a good one (with exception of virtual) but would be open to other types of 'signing' eg digital logs etc.

 

thats'll do for starters!

 

Dave

[+drdick&vick]

Definately agree with bringing back Virtuals and with introducing a anonymous feedback system.

I would also like to see a set rule on the length of time that a cache can be listed as 'unavailable' before it is archived.

[+the pooks]

Not keen on a points/feedback system. The logs (and bookmark lists) provide enough opportunity for feedback. Most of us play this game for enjoyment - points or anonymous feedback would add extra angst which would detract from the enjoyment. We have some caches in our area that have been placed by very young geocachers (fine caches I must add) - I would not want their caches to be subject to the rigours of the adult world.

[+FuzzyBears]

Would like to see some way of rating multis for distance for the less able walkers . A 1/1 rating just means it's nice and flat with good access but the total cache could be 100 yds or 10 miles it would be nice to know before we start.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'd like to see caches categorised (by the cache placer) so that we know what type of thing to expect. The success of Waymarking is partly down to this concept, where you don't seek categories that you don't like: indeed, you make them disappear altogether (like Croft House's example above, which they doubtless binned as soon as they saw it).

 

Most of the cases where people claim a cache to be poor actually turn out to be perfectly good caches that are being found by people who don't like that type of hide. So someone hides a cache because it's a handy stopping place for the car-borne and it gets criticised for being "not what caching is about", i.e. it's not a particularly interesting spot and there's no nice walk, nor is there space for a large container. Or, it's a micro-in-the-woods situation, but in fact the cache setter was interested in setting a challenge, not in making a great repository for swaps. Or it's a full day test of intelligence and fitness, which gets ignored because it's swamped by easy caches and people get tempted to rack up the numbers.

 

With this system you could just eliminate the caches that aren't likely to suit you (either on that trip, or altogether). It's an alternative to cache rating, but without the inevitable downside of perfectly good caches attracting a low rating.

 

I could go on more, but I think you get the idea...

Edited November 3, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+Icenians]

I'd like to see a site that gives caches a score based on how often it's found, how long it's been there, and taking into account the score of other local caches. A system that allows finders, and non finders, to rate a cache so that caches general not liked BY THE MAJORITY, will give the setters the hint and even allow the to e archived if their rating drops too far.

 

I'd like to see points for the numbers people that are based on the difficulty of the cache rather than all caches the same. Scores that reward cache setters for great caches not poor ones.

 

Virtuals for urban areas, they make sense there.

 

Hmmm, sounds a lot like a site that already exists

[+Team Sieni]

Bookmark Lists

 

I'd revamp bookmark lists:

• All objects: Make BML able to hold links to all kinds of GC.com object: caches; other BMLs; cacher accounts; trackables; visit log entries ...
  
• Opt Out: The owner of an object gets an "invitation" email when it is added to a BML and has the right to opt out.
  
• Opt In: New kind of BML that anyone can add their own objects to (but the BML owner retains has the right to deny entry). Eg for "Motorway Mayhem" the cacher themselves would add a new MM cache to the list when they set it up - no need for central maintenance.
  

Virtuals

 

I think there may be a touch of "be careful what you wish for" in the calls to bring them back. I suspect they would soon become very controversial, with endless wrangles over guidelines, criteria, "they aren't what they used to be", "junk virtuals just for the numbers", "micro virtuals" and so on. The Waymarking.com site ( hear me out!) has all the tools (groups; the three level category/WM/visit hierarchy; review queues; group voting; peer review voting) to be able to build a tailored solution for Virtual Caches. I'm not sure what it would look like mind, but the tools are there. So, I'd hasten the arrival of Project Phoenix, when WM.com and GC.com sit on a common engine, and build a replacement for Virts on that. (I just wouldn't tell cachers that their virtuals were in fact implemened as Waymarks, as it would make them feel dirty).

 

Puzzles

 

I'd have an immediate ban on the "bad kind" of puzzles. (The ones I can't do).

 

This is a bit more of a gc.com website wishlist than a general "if I ruled the world", which may not have been SP's intent but I hope it's not OT.

[+reddeeps]

I would like the listings to say how far a walk they are, especially multis, as sometimes with little ones they can prove to be just too far. Thats doesn't make them a bad cache, and we enjoy the long ones, but sometimes after a days caching, we cant finish a long multi that we would have enjoyed the most as the kids are too tired.

[+funkybro]

Introduce a publicly accessible API so anybody can write connected caching applications for web/mobile etc.

[+vw_k]

Agreed on noting how far the walk is for multis, maybe a simple system such as <100m, <500m <1km and over 1km that would give people the power to choose wether they can/want to do the cache.

 

Bring back virtuals and webcams, but ensure virtuals have an educational aspect like earthcaches, perhaps introducing something like a "heritage cache" for cultural/historical/artistic themed virtual caches in association with national groups like English Heritage, National Trust etc.

 

If Americans can log benchmarks on GC.com then being able to log UK trigpoints would be nice, at least most of them are on highpoints, not just set into your local pavement like some US benchmarks.

 

And perhaps most contoversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates. There seems to be alot of trackables getting mis-logged and other mistakes made by newbies and not so newbies. In most areas there is a big enough caching community to enable a newcomer to be shown the ropes by a more experienced cacher, or perhaps complete a course online. Hopefully this would help cut down on trackables going missing and would also empower newcomers so they feel more confident using the site and have fewer questions.

[+Team Sieni]

And perhaps most contoversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates. There seems to be alot of trackables getting mis-logged and other mistakes made by newbies and not so newbies.

 

Upon compulsion? Ouch!

 

I for one would never have started caching if such a thing were in place. I wouldn't have considered it for a moment. Not for one moment.

 

I imagine that it would deter a significant percentage, maybe a majority, of new starters.

 

But it's your world, and you're the boss (for the purposes of this thread) so good luck

 

If reasons were as plentiful as blackberries, I would give no man a reason upon compulsion. (Falstaff, Henry IV pt I)

[+Lost in Space]

 

And perhaps most controversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a ..

 

.. mini or micro can be placed............

[+Happy Humphrey]

If Americans can log benchmarks on GC.com then being able to log UK trigpoints would be nice, at least most of them are on highpoints, not just set into your local pavement like some US benchmarks.

These are waymarks so we already log them anyway. Perhaps you're arguing for them to be more integrated but that's a minor enhancement, I think.

 

And perhaps most contoversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates. There seems to be alot of trackables getting mis-logged and other mistakes made by newbies and not so newbies. In most areas there is a big enough caching community to enable a newcomer to be shown the ropes by a more experienced cacher, or perhaps complete a course online. Hopefully this would help cut down on trackables going missing and would also empower newcomers so they feel more confident using the site and have fewer questions.

I agree that this would cut down the number of new cachers drastically and send people to other listing sites! I'm afraid that there's no solution to these mistakes without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[+Team Sieni]

Introduce a publicly accessible API so anybody can write connected caching applications for web/mobile etc.

Groundspeak already do this, but in a very controlled manner only to "Trusted Partners". (ie remove the words publicly and accessible )

 

As a result we have Trimble Geocache Navigator (a lovely bit of software).

 

See, this post from the man himself.

 

But it's not publicly accessible. GS guard their data very jealously against possible mass downloading (probably with good reason). See also the obfuscation stuff that they put on the Google Earth streaming KML thingy.

[+The Wombles]

 

Bring back virtuals and webcams, but ensure virtuals have an educational aspect like earthcaches, perhaps introducing something like a "heritage cache" for cultural/historical/artistic themed virtual caches in association with national groups like English Heritage, National Trust etc.

 

 

Cool idea. When I negotiated with the National Trust for GAGB they were very interested in the educational aspects of Earthcaches and are discussing this further. A Heritage cache would be even more appropriate, enabling virtual-like caches to be placed at locations of educational interest. They could be limited by a requirement that the location is at least a certain age.

[lilbrownpony]

Hi I for one am a 'newbie' and trying really hard to grasp alot of different elements of geocaching in a short space of time. I am very grateful for all the help that I have recieved so far and that will hopefully continue with my Essex project in the making. Can I make a request when those of you who are clearly very experienced discuss newcomers/newbies to Geocaching that you dont abreviate or explain terms that we are unlikely to know about.

 

Thank you.

[+uktim]

 

If you were in charge of caching, world-wide, what would you change?

 

 

Am I allowed to say that I wouldn't change anything? It all seems to work fine for me

[+The Maggot Drowner]

 

If you were in charge of caching, world-wide, what would you change?

 

 

Am I allowed to say that I wouldn't change anything? It all seems to work fine for me

 

Of course you can say that but there is another thread going on for those with a big wooden spoons

 

I would like to see an easier way of getting all caches in uk onto GSAK intead of having to to the dates thing

[+Happy Humphrey]

Cool idea. When I negotiated with the National Trust for GAGB they were very interested in the educational aspects of Earthcaches and are discussing this further. A Heritage cache would be even more appropriate, enabling virtual-like caches to be placed at locations of educational interest. They could be limited by a requirement that the location is at least a certain age.

Great idea, but this already exists elsewhere (more or less) so there seems little point in duplicating them and calling them "caches".

[+Team Sieni]

Introduce a publicly accessible API so anybody can write connected caching applications for web/mobile etc.

 

I've been thinking about this (I spend a lot of time staring out of train windows). What I would do would be to publish the specs for the API, and make a test server (with suitably mashed data) available, to encourage application development. But I would keep access via the live API subject to licence agreements.

 

This would encourage the emergence of new apps, while capitalising on the revenue stream from API licencing that would result.

 

Of course this would also require clever load balancing on the servers to ensure that web performance didn't suffer as a result of API load, and also to choke off any API operations that look like an attempt at a mass download.

 

I considered suggesting the introduction of an aggregation layer to the database, with various pre-calculated stats summaries at various levels of detail to enable cachers to get the wierd and wonderful stats that they so love. However, I'd leave this to sites like "it's not about the numbers". Having dedicated sites run by others that are tied to the way the GSP databases not only offloads this work, but probably strengthens the position of the GSP DB as the de-facto central source for such data.

 

I would also, as I noted above, hurry along the convergence of WM.com and GC.com onto a single platform, which is what Phoenix is/was intended to do. Some of the feature requests above (eg virtuals at historic sites) are nothing more or less than what is already supported via WM.com, but users of GC.com ignore them largely because of the degree of ill-will towards the WM brand that was engendered in the GC user base when it was introduced (and also because they don't show up on the GC find count). This is illogical, but one must recognise that the public has a right to behave illogically. Having recognised this I would take some steps towards regaining the goodwill of GC brand users, without alienating WM users, by providing a mix of services badged under the brands to which the various sectors of the user base are loyal.

 

I'd also consider hosting a generic location services platform on which third parties could build (at a cost, natch) their own location-based service/game sites.

 

And lastly, with an eye to the future, I'd scratch my head and think about what benefits I could provide if servers interrogated geotagging info in uploaded photos and automatically stored waypoints. I wouldn't be looking to take on the likes of Flikr and SmugMug (they're too big and well entrenched) but there must be an angle there.

 

There you are, Jeremy: Some unsolicited free consultancy from someone completely unqualified to give it

[+uktim]

 

Of course you can say that but there is another thread going on for those with a big wooden spoons

 

I would like to see an easier way of getting all caches in uk onto GSAK intead of having to to the dates thing

 

I haven't got a wooden spoon, I'm merely highlighting the fact that when considering change it's imporatnt not to miss out on the views of those who are happy with the status quo

 

I used to think it would be great to have all UK caches on GSAK until I tried it and turned a slick piece of software into a sluggish monster. The option would be good but it would need to be used carefully to avoid overloading our own personal databases or Groundpseaks servers.

[+purple_pineapple]

 

Of course you can say that but there is another thread going on for those with a big wooden spoons

 

I would like to see an easier way of getting all caches in uk onto GSAK intead of having to to the dates thing

 

I haven't got a wooden spoon, I'm merely highlighting the fact that when considering change it's imporatnt not to miss out on the views of those who are happy with the status quo

 

I used to think it would be great to have all UK caches on GSAK until I tried it and turned a slick piece of software into a sluggish monster. The option would be good but it would need to be used carefully to avoid overloading our own personal databases or Groundpseaks servers.

 

it does get rather slower doesn't it?!

[+Simply Paul]

If you were in charge of caching, world-wide, what would you change?

Am I allowed to say that I wouldn't change anything? It all seems to work fine for me

The subtitle is 'a thread for anyone with a view' and you're someone with a view, so of course you can say what you like (within forum rules, naturally). I've heard it said that satisfaction is the path to peace, so I'm not going to knock you for being happy with caching as it is. May all your muggles be facing the other way, may all your logbooks be dry, may all your coins be tracked, may all your swaps be up or even and may every cache take you somewhere worth visiting. Cache well, uktim, and give thanks to those who placed boxes for you to find.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Can I make a request when those of you who are clearly very experienced discuss newcomers/newbies to Geocaching that you dont abreviate or explain terms that we are unlikely to know about.

 

Thank you.

I sympathise with your problem, but despite appearances (at times) we're a friendly lot here and it might be better to ask for clarification whenever you don't follow the jargon that we'll inevitably sprinkle into our posts. You'll almost certainly get a courteous reply to an honest query.

[+Bear and Ragged]

The ability to run one PQ of 1,000 caches, limited to once a week (additional to My Finds PQ)

PQ's with straight* edges, or if two -or more- PQ's overlap you don't get caches duplicated in different PQ's.

 

*or movable/defined edges

[Alan White]

And perhaps most contoversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates.

I imagine that it would deter a significant percentage, maybe a majority, of new starters.

Well, it puts me off using TerraCaching so I think your point is well made .

[+vw_k]

And perhaps most contoversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates.

I imagine that it would deter a significant percentage, maybe a majority, of new starters.

Well, it puts me off using TerraCaching so I think your point is well made .

 

Seeing as alot of people are introduced to geocaching by other cachers and it's a generally friendly community I see no problem in newcomers completing a quick online course of some kind just to show they understand the basics (with help from local cachers if necessary). I'm not saying send people to university, more helping people understand what they will be doing as part of the account creation process.

 

If everyone understood how to log trackables, cache etiquuette and cache listing guidelines from the start surely that would be better than them making mistakes then being pointed to "How to" or FAQ pages that they hadn't discovered beforehand.

[+purple_pineapple]

And perhaps most contoversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates.

I imagine that it would deter a significant percentage, maybe a majority, of new starters.

Well, it puts me off using TerraCaching so I think your point is well made .

 

Seeing as alot of people are introduced to geocaching by other cachers and it's a generally friendly community I see no problem in newcomers completing a quick online course of some kind just to show they understand the basics (with help from local cachers if necessary). I'm not saying send people to university, more helping people understand what they will be doing as part of the account creation process.

 

If everyone understood how to log trackables, cache etiquuette and cache listing guidelines from the start surely that would be better than them making mistakes then being pointed to "How to" or FAQ pages that they hadn't discovered beforehand.

 

I can see the benefits (who can't?!) but I'm not sure what proportion of people are introduced by other cachers... I suspect the forum users have a higher bias towards this, as they may be introduced to the forums at the same time. However, I rather suspect that that most of the silent majority (ie non-forum users) have discovered caching through other routes - media, web searches, the GPS they bought for some other reason, etc! This is, of course, IMHO though!

[+Team Sieni]

... big snip ....helping people understand what they will be doing as part of the account creation process.

That would be nice - more online help and information would be welcome.

 

But not compulsorily

 

There is also a the (mainly US) Geocaching Tour Guides where willing volunteers offer to help willing pupils, on an entirely voluntary basis.

 

As to insisting that people locate mentors ... forget it. I can't imagine anything that would put me off entering a site more.

[+PopUpPirate]

Historical caches (in addition to earth caches).

Puzzle caches (solve-at-home)

Mystery caches (a surprise on the trail!)

Trigs as benchmarks (both or neither! preferably both!)

[+Icenians]

And perhaps most contoversially, a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates.

I imagine that it would deter a significant percentage, maybe a majority, of new starters.

Well, it puts me off using TerraCaching so I think your point is well made .

 

Hmm. The sponsors on TC are nothing to do with mentoring or training. It's simply a way to get your cache approvers. Nothing more than that.

[+Team Sieni]

I find it interesting that quite a few of the things on people's wishlists (historic caches, trigs etc) are supplied, or could be supplied, via Waymarking.com as it stands. This just underlines to me that Groundspeak messed up in their communications and branding when spinning off another site. The hard techy stuff is excellent, but the soft fluffy stuff about the way it was launched and delivered didn't seem to have been given so much thought and seemed to be almost deliberately divisive.

 

It would seem to me that what people want are not simply the (for want of a better term) "logbookless caches", but delivery via a familiar route - evolution not revolution and all that.

 

I'm not banging the drum for Waymarking here, if people aren't interested in it that's not my business. I'm just pointing out what I think was a strategic error by Groundspeak. Looking forward it will be interesting to see if they recognise this, and deliver some of the WM services via the GC.com domain. That would involve a fair amount of awareness of how the consumer ticks which is not, imo, GSP's forte.

 

If and when the next big release comes it will be interesting.

[Alan White]

Hmm. The sponsors on TC are nothing to do with mentoring or training. It's simply a way to get your cache approvers. Nothing more than that.

Nothing to do with mentoring certainly, but it's a lot more than getting approvers. vw_keychain's original suggestion was:

a sponsorship/mentoring sceme or "compulsory basic training" before a new account can access co-ordinates.

That is exactly what the TC sponsoring scheme does. It prevents potential new users from seeing the cache coords and therefore prevents them from seeking a TC.

 

Of course, Groundspeak no longer permits non-members to see coords, either. The difference is that Groundspeak allows anyone to set up an account for themselves without needing approval from existing members. Perhaps this is why Groundspeak has grown and TC hasn't?

 

But here is not the place for a discussion on TC, and we had one recently on GAGB anyway .

[+Happy Humphrey]

I find it interesting that quite a few of the things on people's wishlists (historic caches, trigs etc) are supplied, or could be supplied, via Waymarking.com as it stands. This just underlines to me that Groundspeak messed up in their communications and branding when spinning off another site.

Almost inevitably, I agree.

Whilst the traditional geocaching.com has stayed more or less the same, this more sophisticated spinoff has many features which we'd love on here. Not to mention the trigs, virtuals, locationless etc.

 

But it was never marketed to the captive audience, perhaps on the mistaken assumption that it didn't need to be. Although it doesn't require any more contributors now it has plenty of aficionados, it is a pity that so many have ended up missing out due to the way it was presented. Even now, I get the feeling that many have a quick look, but because the different interface has never been "sold" to us they aren't expecting to have to learn it and get put off before they start.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+Team Sieni]

But it was never marketed to the captive audience, perhaps on the mistaken assumption that it didn't need to be.

It's not just a case of selling, more a case of figuring out what people want before delivering it. It turned out that a key aspect that they missed was "it must be called a something-CACHE and it must turn up on my find count".

 

I think what GSP thought was: If we set up a new site we will no longer be a one-site company. We'll provide great tools for cachers to go out hunting non-physical "caches". Cachers will automatically flock to it and will shower us with rose petals, there's no logical reason why they shouldn't. It didn't quite happen like that.

 

I still think there's a need for a Geocaching-flavour version of some of the Waymarking services. WM now has its own "culture" and is distinct from caching.

 

So to return to SP's original question, I would allow certain pre-defined categories to be delivered via GC.com and to show up on the find GC find count. You could actually have a category for "surprise virtual cache" that PUP suggested where you don't know what you're going to find until you get there (a bit like GC3660 ) something that wouldn't sit well with the WM category criteria, but for which, technically, there is no obstacle in WM.com, although organisating the reviewing would be a challenge.

 

Unfortunately I imagine the barrier to convergence is technical resource and cost. I don't know but I imagine that the GC database and the web code base is a huge mouldy edifice that has been patched and re-patched a zillion times. Migrating the underlying GC data over to a new code base, or just the data to a new database structure, and releasing it so that the features all work in a familiar manner on GC.com would not be a walk in the park. And cachers aren't know for their liking of change. One unusual font style will cause despair and outrage.

[+Happy Humphrey]

You could actually have a category for "surprise virtual cache" that PUP suggested where you don't know what you're going to find until you get there

"Best Kept Secrets" is the category for these: it was meant to be a direct replacement for the old virtuals. Interestingly, I've never managed to post one yet, as I haven't found a site with enough "wow" factor to be worth the effort. I do have one very similar to GC3660, however.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+DonB]

Bring back virtuals, some of my most enjoyable caches have been virtuals when we are traveling.

[Alan White]

It turned out that a key aspect that they missed was "it must be called a something-CACHE and it must turn up on my find count".

I suggest that the key aspect that was missed is that cachers don't actually want to go looking for, inter alia, McDonalds "restaurants". I don't need a GPS to find them; they're in the phone book and on the web.

 

Yes, I know that's the oft-quoted comment about WM, but that doesn't make it not true. Look at it another way: if virtuals were still around and every McDonalds could be listed as a virtual how many cachers would log them?

 

Caching and Waymarking are different products with different markets and, as it turns out, it looks like Groundspeak got it right in marketing them separately.

 

Oh, and all those who suggest "bringing back" virtuals, they've never gone away. You can use almost any noticeboard, point of interest, historic plaque or whatever as a virtual stage of a Multi or Mystery. You even still get a smiley at the end of it. The only thing you don't get (unless you joined before virts went) is a pretty image of a ghost on your profile.

[+vw_k]

Oh, and all those who suggest "bringing back" virtuals, they've never gone away. You can use almost any noticeboard, point of interest, historic plaque or whatever as a virtual stage of a Multi or Mystery. You even still get a smiley at the end of it. The only thing you don't get (unless you joined before virts went) is a pretty image of a ghost on your profile.

 

The one thing that Viruals provided was the oppurtunity to log a cache without having to search around for a container, retrieve it, sign the log and put it back. I like the fact that you can take a photo at a monument or point of interest, and maybe jot an answer down on a piece of paper without having to find a physical cache.

 

If you're visiting a city with family, on business etc you may not have the chance to find physical containers (or don't want to "come out" as a geocacher to the people you are with) but will still get the chance to log a cache in a different area you've visited. I've done this several times when visiting different towns in the UK, I even did a virtual without my girlfriend knowing, before I introduced her to the hobby!

 

Virtuals like this are the ultimate stealth cache!!

[+Team Sieni]

Caching and Waymarking are different products with different markets and, as it turns out, it looks like Groundspeak got it right in marketing them separately.

 

If GS got it right, how come so many people are calling for the return of virtuals, or the ability to log trigs? What GSP are doing are offering exactly the services that their consumers want (Trigs, virtuals, etc) but under a brand that for which thier consumers feel no affinity.

 

This lack of affinity was engenered (imo) back in '05 or whenever it was when the non-physical caches were moved and WM was launched. "Here, play with this, you'll love it" said Groundspeak. "Don't want to. Not playing. Your new Website smells" Replied the caching comunity.

 

That's why if I were king, (back on topic) I'd find a way to offer those some of services with the word "Waymarking" crossed out and "geocaching" written on it in crayon. They'd be pretty muych the same but cachers would hail me as a hero because they could get their ghosty icons and virtual finds, as I still think there's a space for a small subset of what Waymarking offers in Geocaching.

 

The fact that old saws like your "McDonalds" point are still floating around illustrates my point about GSP's presentation. That argument doesn't hold water, but as this is a caching thread in a caching forum I won't drag it off topic to discuss. Email me separately if you want.

[+Icenians]

That is exactly what the TC sponsoring scheme does. It prevents potential new users from seeing the cache coords and therefore prevents them from seeking a TC.

 

Of course, Groundspeak no longer permits non-members to see coords, either. The difference is that Groundspeak allows anyone to set up an account for themselves without needing approval from existing members. Perhaps this is why Groundspeak has grown and TC hasn't?

 

But here is not the place for a discussion on TC, and we had one recently on GAGB anyway .

 

Sorry but this is quite simply incorrect. The only role I provide as a sponsor is cache review to the cachers I am a sponsor for.

 

The cache owner can choose to display the coords to non members at the time they create the cache. There is nothing stopping non members seeing where the caches are in general terms on a map and view the cache page.

 

The sponsors are TC's way of sharing the reviewer role allowing ANYONE to be a review if they choose.

 

I realise that this isn't about TC but I couldn't et you post incorrect information and then ask for no reply.

 

Kev

[+Lost in Space]

.... I even did a virtual without my girlfriend knowing....

 

Sound like the wife's and my sex life..............

[+Lost in Space]

And before some "retentive" takes umbrage, I apologise unreservedly..........

 

[+Simply Paul]

And before some "retentive" takes umbrage, I apologise unreservedly..........

 

Don't apologise to us, make it up to your wife

[+Happy Humphrey]

This lack of affinity was engenered (imo) back in '05 or whenever it was when the non-physical caches were moved and WM was launched. "Here, play with this, you'll love it" said Groundspeak. "Don't want to. Not playing. Your new Website smells" Replied the caching comunity.

Only the UK community: elsewhere, people didn't seem to have a big problem. We were just a bit slow.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Due to a couple of enquiries, this is an example of what I meant by "Best Kept Secrets". Sorry to go on about this, I didn't really want to get drawn in again.

[+vw_k]

Ok, a change to my idea about "compulsory basic training" due to the fact that I've just recieved the Groundspeak Weelky Notification.

 

There is now a DVD explaining everything you need to know about this wonderful sport, with tips for experienced cachers as well as newcomers apparently. Off the top of my head I seem to remember it cost around $16.

 

Could a "geocaching basics" video not be posted on geocaching.com with an obvious link on the home page? I know there are youtube tutorials but unless you search for them you wouldn't know they are there.

 

Or could the DVD not be available in a cardboard sleeve for much cheaper? I have a feeling it's more about making money than educating cachers.

[+The Blorenges]

<snip>There is now a DVD explaining everything you need to know about this wonderful sport, with tips for experienced cachers as well as newcomers apparently. Off the top of my head I seem to remember it cost around $16...

Or could the DVD not be available in a cardboard sleeve for much cheaper? I have a feeling it's more about making money than educating cachers.

 

It could even be posted out in a plain brown envelope, for those who don't want to "come out" as geocachers just yet ...

 

<snip>...I even did a virtual without my girlfriend knowing, before I introduced her to the hobby!

 

In the perfect world, every newbie would have a well-seasoned geocaching friend to mentor them for the first few months, or at least someone who could advise them where to find the info they need on the forums

 

(MrsB wanders off to bump the "Adopt-a-newbie" topic...)

Edited November 7, 2008 by The Blorenges

[Alan White]

I realise that this isn't about TC but I couldn't et you post incorrect information and then ask for no reply.

I didn't ask for no reply; I merely said that this forum isn't an appropriate place to discuss the features available on a competitor's website.

 

I thank you for the information. I've discussed TC with quite a few TC members and they've all said that only members can see the coords. I've also looked at all the Terracaches in SE England and they all say "Precise Coordinates Available to Sponsored Members". So while the facility for non-members to view coords may be available it's clearly not one that is used. Thus my statement that non-members cannot view coords is, for all practical purposes, correct. Also, non-members cannot log caches so even if it's possible to find the cache without coords there's not much point in doing so.

 

None of this is any different from Groundspeak's approach, of course. The difference is that Groundspeak doesn't require a potential member to find two existing members before being able to join. This must be - and judging by the relative numbers clearly is - a barrier to entry. I think that's a shame, because I'd really like there to be a competitor to Groundspeak and an existing site is better placed to be that than a new starter.