No More Virtual Caches?

[+MrD]

I tried to register a Virtual Cache and discovered geocaching.com is no longer accepting or posting those kinds of caches. Has anyone else discovered or was anyone else aware of this policy change?

 

My opinion is this is a very bad decision for people that travel extensively such as myself. While working to discover a "regular" cache is my preference, sometimes it is just not practical to place a "regular" cache in not just a location but in certain countries! Walking around with a GPSr in some countries is a sure fire way to attact the attention of authorities in those countries and then looking around, however subtly, for a hidden cache is a good way to suddenly find yourself arrested!

 

Virtual caches solve a multitude of problems since they allow you to "discover" something new or see something you wouldn't otherwise notice.

 

I vote we reinstate Virtual Caches immediately, or at least be told the reason WHY geocaching.com has decided to no longer list them.

[+flask]

ooh, so i get to be first?

 

first, almost everyone is aware of this policy change. this is a very, very old debate. it gets revived about every six weeks. for years.

 

second, why do you need to place a cache when you travel? if you can't maintain it, don't place it.

 

the search tool is your friend. virtuals have been discontinued for a long time. the discussion about it has gone on a long time. Groundspeak has explained why they've done this.

 

try Waymarking.

[+FireRef]

...and although not everyone agrees, because people ask for them to be brought back constantly, we get the same response from Groundspeak. They don't want them, so they don't get to be part of the game, regardless of what the players want. Well, what some of us want. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would like to see them come back, because the topic keeps coming back up, but apparently its not our game... it's Groundspeak's, and we just have to do whatever they say.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Wow, that's one of the best OPs I've read in a long time.

 

Yikes!

 

+1 to everything that flask said.

 

Asked and answered numerous times. (On many levels.) Not something new that has occurred.

[+flask]

...and although not everyone agrees, because people ask for them to be brought back constantly, we get the same response from Groundspeak. They don't want them, so they don't get to be part of the game, regardless of what the players want. Well, what some of us want. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would like to see them come back, because the topic keeps coming back up, but apparently its not our game... it's Groundspeak's, and we just have to do whatever they say.

 

you could play the game according to some other company's rules. you are under no obligation to do what Groundspeak says.

 

take up knitting.

 

...better not follow a pattern, though. you might have to knit the way some company tells you to.

[+FireRef]

...and although not everyone agrees, because people ask for them to be brought back constantly, we get the same response from Groundspeak. They don't want them, so they don't get to be part of the game, regardless of what the players want. Well, what some of us want. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would like to see them come back, because the topic keeps coming back up, but apparently its not our game... it's Groundspeak's, and we just have to do whatever they say.

 

you could play the game according to some other company's rules. you are under no obligation to do what Groundspeak says.

 

take up knitting.

 

...better not follow a pattern, though. you might have to knit the way some company tells you to.

 

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

 

I just think that the person in charge should listen more to the people that play the game, rather than just doing whatever he wants. He wouldn't have a website if people didn't use it - seems like a poor business model not to listen to the people who provide your busienss...especially those who provide financial support by being premium members. And this doesn't happen.

 

This request is made constantly (and look at the date on the OP's account - certainly not a sock puppet... or newbie) and consistently, and all we get is "No, too bad - we're not doing it and you have to live with it.", along with some explanation that part of the reason they got rid of them was it was too much work (I won't elaborate because I got suspended for repeating exactly what I was told for that reason), and part was because they didn't want places which, for the most part now won't even allow caches, would only allow virtuals because they wouldn't leave a container behind - supposedly without that possibility, we could put regular caches out... but I believe most of these places don't allow caches anyway, so nothing was gained by that.

 

The other response is "Go to Waymarking.com - they're over there". Maybe when we get a PQ option over there, that might be a possibility, but it is just not the same thing. And they know that. But they still try to push it over there.

[+flask]

 

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

 

 

it isn't Groundspeak's fault that nobody else has created a huge database.

 

if i'm the only one who makes and sells fig-flavored potholders it isn't a monopoly. i'm just the only one doing it.

 

why don't you go set up an alternate listing service to save us from the evils of an unresponsive company with a stranglehold on the game?

 

if you're really concerned about this state of affairs, should you even be supporting the megalith? you should instead give your business to the other companies. come on, time's a-wasting! those other, better companies won't be getting much traffic if you spend all your time playing from over here.

 

be a part of the solution.

[+tozainamboku]

I tried to register a Virtual Cache and discovered geocaching.com is no longer accepting or posting those kinds of caches. Has anyone else discovered or was anyone else aware of this policy change?

The policy is 3 years old. Even prior to that you would have had a difficult time getting a virtual you placed while traveling approved.

 

My opinion is this is a very bad decision for people that travel extensively such as myself. While working to discover a "regular" cache is my preference, sometimes it is just not practical to place a "regular" cache in not just a location but in certain countries! Walking around with a GPSr in some countries is a sure fire way to attact the attention of authorities in those countries and then looking around, however subtly, for a hidden cache is a good way to suddenly find yourself arrested!

So why would you be geocaching in that country in the first place. Geocaching is meant to find things at some location with the option of using your GPS as an integral part of the hunt. Sure some people will use maps and compasses to locate something but the option to use the GPS must be there - even to find a virtual cache. The old virtual caches were decribed as a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. Clearly the intent was to be able to use a GPS to find it.

 

Virtual caches solve a multitude of problems since they allow you to "discover" something new or see something you wouldn't otherwise notice.

The people who run Geocaching.com made a decision to separate locations where you can discover something that is already there from locations where a cache is hidden. Certainly caches can still be hidden in interesting locations or near something you might not have noticed except for there being a cache nearby. I would certainly encourage people to hide caches in these kinds of places. But it should not be a requirement for placing a cache - as it was a requirement for placing virtual caches - the so-called wow requirement that a virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. The problem was that "wow" is subjective and we had lots of people posting in the forums about cache reviewers not approving their virtual cache because the reviewer didn't feel the requirement was met.

 

The people who run Geocaching.com have developed a sister website just for listing locations that are interesting places to discover and point out things you might not otherwise notice while traveling. In Waymarking you find one or more categories you have an interest in. You can submit waymarks in those categories. You can download the coordinates and use your GPS or just find the location on the map and visit these waymarks.

 

I vote we reinstate Virtual Caches immediately, or at least be told the reason WHY geocaching.com has decided to no longer list them.

I don't work for Groundspeak nor am I a volunteer reviewer. I do manage or am an officer of several Waymarking categories. This link is for a response I wrote last May when someone else asked why virtuals are no longer listed. I hope it gives you an idea of why the change was made and how you can still find interesting places when you are traveling and share them with others.

[+FireRef]

 

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

 

 

it isn't Groundspeak's fault that nobody else has created a huge database.

 

if i'm the only one who makes and sells fig-flavored potholders it isn't a monopoly. i'm just the only one doing it.

 

why don't you go set up an alternate listing service to save us from the evils of an unresponsive company with a stranglehold on the game?

 

if you're really concerned about this state of affairs, should you even be supporting the megalith? you should instead give your business to the other companies. come on, time's a-wasting! those other, better companies won't be getting much traffic if you spend all your time playing from over here.

 

be a part of the solution.

 

I have no problem supporting other companies. I would love to see Terracaching grow and be able to challenge this site - so this site would have to listen to its users or risk losing them.

 

I only pay to have access to PQ's - that is it. If I was supporting the site, I wouldn't use the PQ's, or make donations in excess of what is required to get that extra service. Since I choose not to do that, I do not feel I am supporting them in any way in excess of what is required to get what I would like to get out of this site. Yes, its a wierd argument, but it makes sense to me, and people I have explained it to.

 

As for setting up an alternate listing service, I do not have the time nor the inclination. Just because I might not like Wal-Mart doesn't mean I have to go set up my own store - I simply complain to the management about the things which I do not agree with, and, unlike some companies, they at least listen and try to rectify the situation. Most businesses do. Otherwise, they lose their business, and go out of business. I don't see that happening here, but it is a possibility, if they do things which irritate enough people.

 

Sad thing is, most people probably don't care one way or the other - they are happy if they can go out and find a container, trade some stuff, and sign a log. They don't even know all of the other possibilities for this game that don't exist anymore because of a few people not liking them. I feel sorry for them.

[Tonka_Boy]

The decision to separate "physical" caches from "virtual" caches is the only pragmatic decision to make. If one wants to do "virtuals", look them up on Waymarking.com. What's the problem?

 

A 'Cache' is a container that has contents. A virtual has no place as a geocache.

[+FireRef]

Well, then events and mega-events and cito events need to be removed as well under that logic. I don't remember climbing into a container at MWGB last year, nor at the WWFM event I attended.

 

Can't have one without the other (or kick one out without kicking out the other) - unless you just want to write rules and not follow them if you don't feel like it.

[+briansnat]

I tried to register a Virtual Cache and discovered geocaching.com is no longer accepting or posting those kinds of caches. Has anyone else discovered or was anyone else aware of this policy change?

 

When you submitted your cache you checked a box that said you had read and understood the guidelines. This information is in the guidelines, so it should be no surprise to anybody who submits a cache for listing.

 

Walking around with a GPSr in some countries is a sure fire way to attact the attention of authorities in those countries and then looking around, however subtly, for a hidden cache is a good way to suddenly find yourself arrested

 

I don't see how virtual caches would address this. You still need a GPS to find them.

 

My opinion is this is a very bad decision for people that travel extensively such as myself. While working to discover a "regular" cache is my preference, sometimes it is just not practical to place a "regular" cache in not just a location but in certain countries!

 

Since about 2002 it has not been permissible to place "vacation caches", meaning caches that can not be maintained. This rule included virtual caches, so bringing them back won't change anything.

 

Virtual caches solve a multitude of problems since they allow you to "discover" something new or see something you wouldn't otherwise notice.

 

So can real geocaches.

[+briansnat]

I just think that the person in charge should listen more to the people that play the game, rather than just doing whatever he wants. He wouldn't have a website if people didn't use it - seems like a poor business model not to listen to the people who provide your busienss...especially those who provide financial support by being premium members. And this doesn't happen.

 

A lot of people didn't like virtuals and didn't think they belonged here. He listened to them. If virts were brought back then what about all the people who don't think they belong here? Don't their feelings count?

 

ntil someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

 

Call your congressman and complain.

Edited December 15, 2008 by briansnat

[+FireRef]

I just think that the person in charge should listen more to the people that play the game, rather than just doing whatever he wants. He wouldn't have a website if people didn't use it - seems like a poor business model not to listen to the people who provide your busienss...especially those who provide financial support by being premium members. And this doesn't happen.

 

A lot of people didn't like virtuals and didn't think they belonged here. He listened to them. If virts were brought back then what about all the people who don't think they belong here?

 

They can choose to filter them out, as some people do with other cache types, and not hunt then. I can't choose to hunt or create a new cache which no one is allowed to do. Which benefits more people - having them available for people that want them and people who don't ignoring/filtering them, or having them gone so people who want them don't have the option, and people who don't get their way.

 

Seems more beneficial in the first circumstance to everyone. And as I recall, when it was explained to me, it wasn't because of people not wanting them - it was because reviewers were having trouble (again, this has been edited so I don't get suspended again for saying what I was actually told) keeping up with the requests and sorting out the "wow" factor which was imposed on virtuals (and NO other cache type).

[+MrD]

Absolutely fascinating! It's interesting to see that even the geocaching.com crowd has it's fair share of trolls and flamers... even those that are supposed "Moderators".

 

Was I aware that Virtual Caches had been disallowed "for years"? No. Do I think it is a reasonable thing in light of leaving the "other" kinds of caches they DO allow? No.

 

Is geocaching such a narrow game that only trolls and flamers that dismiss experienced cachers have the final say on whether something is a good idea for those of us that travel the world versus spinning wheels in a little corner of the United States? I guess that's the case....

 

So, "Moderator", feel free to close this topic. Obviously the geocaching world isn't ready for the sport to be more than a child's game....

[+Juicepig]

GS can't make money off virtuals - Most of them were archived in my province yesterday..

[+StarBrand]

They didn't "go away" - you can still list locations without a physical container on a website run by the same company. http://www.Waymarking.com

 

Just got seperated from geocaches - which are caches with a physical container.

 

Yikes!!

[+Juicepig]

http://www.Waymarking.com

 

 

Tried it, no thanks. Most of the virtuals archived are "unique", stuff that can't be nicely categorized like "Wendys resteraunts" or "phonebooths"

 

my earthcaches are quaking in their boots..

Edited December 15, 2008 by Juicepig

[+Rockin Roddy]

Well, then events and mega-events and cito events need to be removed as well under that logic. I don't remember climbing into a container at MWGB last year, nor at the WWFM event I attended.

 

Can't have one without the other (or kick one out without kicking out the other) - unless you just want to write rules and not follow them if you don't feel like it.

 

My friend, I can tell by the last few days worth of posting, you're just not happy here! I would like to point out a few things for you though...

 

First, if you go to Wal-Mart and make a complaint, do they instantly jump up, slap you on the back and say things are being changed right now...merely on YOUR complaint?? I think not! People have complained on both sides of this argument, it's been hashed and re-hashed several hundreds of times over the years, so this isn't something that TPTB haven't taken into consideration. There are many people against virts just as there are for them, the key here is TPTB are the ones who make the decisions!

 

Second, this isn't a business model in which you have any choosing how it's run, it's their website, their rules! If you don't like them, you can move on to any number of other sites...not a monopoly, not any anti-trust issues. Obviously, because you're here, it's the one you prefer most. How do you think your posts come over?? Do you feel TPTB are going to jump on board because of how you write your posts (because sugar sure draws more flies than salt you understand). You appear to "demand" things change to your liking, if you're so against this, go to another site or start your own!

 

Lastly, adding constructive criticism is great, we all do this. BUT, being demanding, acting like TPTB are against you etc will only allow YOU to get more upset, let it go, my friend! Live with what you've got and be happy...or move on and go from there!!

 

I too would love to see virts allowed, I like finding them! I also understand the reasons they disallowed them, people to lazy to enforce proper logging, it's not actually a cache (unlike events where you do sign a logbook btw) etc. I won't be losing sleep over not having them, but would be happy if a happy medium were found in the future!!

 

Back to the OP...as everyone else has said, it shouldn't have been a surprise about this had you read the guidelines! There are still virts out there, the ones grandfathered in! And no, vacation caches aren't allowed regardless if it were a regular or a virt!

[Mr.Yuck]

GS can't make money off virtuals - Most of them were archived in my province yesterday..

 

Whoa! CD's Saturday massacre? Looks like only 12 out of 52 in the Province though. Bookmark list But between that, and not allowing virts to be adopted, they do seem to be headed towards total extinction.

 

MrD. I didn't think any of the responses were that bad. I iimmediately recognized your post as being from someone who rarely posts to or looks at these forums, and probably doesn't have too much social interaction with other geocachers. And the moderator you refer to is not a moderator of this forum. Yeah, there's the whole Waymarking thing, and other geocaching websites still accept virtuals (albeit much lower traffic websites, and not competitive with the "de-factco monopoly" of this website).

[+StarBrand]

http://www.Waymarking.com

 

 

Tried it, no thanks. Most of the virtuals archived are "unique", stuff that can't be nicely categorized like "Wendys resteraunts" or "phonebooths"

 

...

But can't you see - that was the problem. Folks were starting to mark things like phonebooths and an old shoes dumped in the woods as virtual caches. Sadly that made the unique stuff start looking bad. Something had to be done. Thus the new website.

[+FireRef]

For the post above: That's fine - they shouldn't all be virtual caches (and that is a lot of what Waymarking has turned into - I have marked a few fast food joints on there myself before I became bored with it). That was the "WOW" factor that the reviewers didn't want to have to enforce.

 

Yet they choose not to enforce it with LPC's and other "lame micros" as some people call them. Why are they still here? Again - inconsistency... How can you play a game with no rules? Or with rules that keep changing? Oh wait... we do (and why I put that line in my sig file). And that is why there are so many problems and complaints.

 

First, if you go to Wal-Mart and make a complaint, do they instantly jump up, slap you on the back and say things are being changed right now...merely on YOUR complaint?? I think not! People have complained on both sides of this argument, it's been hashed and re-hashed several hundreds of times over the years, so this isn't something that TPTB haven't taken into consideration. There are many people against virts just as there are for them, the key here is TPTB are the ones who make the decisions!

 

Yes, and that is the problem. Without the users, TPTB woulnd't have a website. They list OUR caches... so why shouldn't they listen to us and respond to us, instead of singlehandedly making decisions "they" think are best, regardless of what we want? I expect Wal-Mart to address the issue - and in most cases, most stores have - if I was clear about what i wanted, or how I expected a problem to be dealt with, it was generally dealt with - and it was done regardless of how i approached it. Generally, I approach it nicely at first, and if they refuse or are resistant, i push harder, and most of the time, things go the way I ask. Isn't the customer supposed to be first?

 

Second, this isn't a business model in which you have any choosing how it's run, it's their website, their rules! If you don't like them, you can move on to any number of other sites...not a monopoly, not any anti-trust issues. Obviously, because you're here, it's the one you prefer most. How do you think your posts come over?? Do you feel TPTB are going to jump on board because of how you write your posts (because sugar sure draws more flies than salt you understand). You appear to "demand" things change to your liking, if you're so against this, go to another site or start your own!

 

The only reason I'm here is because they have the largest list of caches and the easiest interface to download them. I don't agree with a number of their rules (sorry - guidelines, again, made so they can change or enforce them at a whim or will, instead of being consistent like rules are supposed to be) for what can be placed, how it can be placed, how things are chosen or done, etc. This doesn't change the fact that they have the largest, most easily accessible database (which is a plus for them).

 

Lastly, adding constructive criticism is great, we all do this. BUT, being demanding, acting like TPTB are against you etc will only allow YOU to get more upset, let it go, my friend! Live with what you've got and be happy...or move on and go from there!!

 

I have found through most of my experiences in life that if you want something, you need to be clear and concise, and not accept excuses. Generally, you get what you ask for when you do this. Being wishy-washy, just being nice and accepting the way things are, or decisions that are made, doesn't generally get you much in this life. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as the saying goes.

 

I too would love to see virts allowed, I like finding them! I also understand the reasons they disallowed them, people to lazy to enforce proper logging, it's not actually a cache (unlike events where you do sign a logbook btw) etc. I won't be losing sleep over not having them, but would be happy if a happy medium were found in the future!!

 

The happy medium is bringing them back, and just restricting them to something of merit or value - the Wow factor. It can NOT have been that hard to sort through them - give a good reason for one here, and if the reason is not good enough, it doesn't get approved. Simple as that. Again, the reason for this not working that was given to me I can't point out, other than that the reviewers didn't like that process, because I have been suspended in the past for saying exactly what I was told.

 

It doesn't seem too complicated to have these caches. The answer we get from TPTB isn't that they're considering it - isn't that it might come back - it's "They're gone, live with it", and that is not the answer many of us want to hear. So we support their return. The game really shoulnd't be decided by one person.

[+trainlove]

It says right on a cache creation page what's available, virtuals are not in the cache type selector, duh.

It says on the cache types link what kinds are grandfathered, and have been for over 3 three years.

Everyone but you appearently knew about this 'change'.

 

The only place you will be able to place a virtual will be www.Waymarking.com created by Groundspeak when they did away with accepting new virtuals. But don't expect people to go looking for your waymark, LOL.

 

By definition a geocache is a container of some kind with at least a 'logbook' in it. Virtuals aren't. Earths aren't either, but at least there they have some redeaming value and are not dregs of mostly junk.

Edited December 15, 2008 by trainlove

[+briansnat]

Absolutely fascinating! It's interesting to see that even the geocaching.com crowd has it's fair share of trolls and flamers... even those that are supposed "Moderators".

 

You posted an opinion and people disagreed. Disagreement isn't necessarily flaming.

 

As others stated, virtuals aren't gone. If you like them just head on over to Waymarking.com.

[+Juicepig]

http://www.Waymarking.com

 

 

Tried it, no thanks. Most of the virtuals archived are "unique", stuff that can't be nicely categorized like "Wendys resteraunts" or "phonebooths"

 

...

But can't you see - that was the problem. Folks were starting to mark things like phonebooths and an old shoes dumped in the woods as virtual caches. Sadly that made the unique stuff start looking bad. Something had to be done. Thus the new website.

 

 

That trend never made it up here.. but then again Waymarking never caught on either. Virtuals like a shoe in the woods would go against the guidelines FOR a virtual, and should never be published in the first place. Its reviewers that disregard such guidelines that lead to their extinction.

[+Tequila]

Something good has come out of this thread. I wondered why the local Dairy Queen was a waymark. Now, I think I know.

[+StarBrand]

http://www.Waymarking.com

 

 

Tried it, no thanks. Most of the virtuals archived are "unique", stuff that can't be nicely categorized like "Wendys resteraunts" or "phonebooths"

 

...

But can't you see - that was the problem. Folks were starting to mark things like phonebooths and an old shoes dumped in the woods as virtual caches. Sadly that made the unique stuff start looking bad. Something had to be done. Thus the new website.

 

 

That trend never made it up here.. but then again Waymarking never caught on either. Virtuals like a shoe in the woods would go against the guidelines FOR a virtual, and should never be published in the first place. Its reviewers that disregard such guidelines that lead to their extinction.

Not always - the "WOW" guideline for virtuals didn't always exist. It was in fact the result of caches like I mentioned. But "WOW" is far too subjective and that resulted in the current situation.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

It's been a long time since I responded to this, but here's my 2 cents:

 

1) Waymarking is not really the equivalent of virtuals. It is more the equivalent of locationless caches. I can understand why they moved them (locationless) to Waymarking; they are not a cache in one single location, and are designed in a way that produces massive logging and slows down the system. It made sense to move these to Waymarking, but not virtuals. GC.com never allowed a McDonald's to be a virtual, but there they are on Waymarking.....

 

2) I don't know all the details, but there have been successful lawsuits against competitive listing sites in the past by Groundspeak that makes it really hard to have any major competitors. In this sense the Wal-Mart argument given earlier is invalid because if you don't like Wal-Mart, you have an option to go to a competitor (even though many small towns would say otherwise ). Granted there are other reasons (startup costs, etc.) that make it hard to have another major competitor, but it is worth noting.

 

3) I would buy the argument about virtuals on Waymarking more if Event Caches didn't count in your smiley count (though the person noting that it has a physical log has a good argument there I never thought of). But TPTB know that if that were made the case, there'd be far fewer events and the ones that do happen would be much smaller. I have a similar cynicism about this because of the return of Earthcaches to GC.com. Here what I think happened is that the educational society supporting this saw them languishing on Waymarking.com and demanded they go back. I guess money talks.....

[+Prime Suspect]

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

Last time you checked? And that would be.... never?

 

For anti-trust to kick in, gc.com would have to actively be preventing others from entering into the business. They're not doing that. Remember - it's that other site (no, not that one - the other other site) that doesn't allow cross-posting of caches. No such restrictions here.

[+Tequila]

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

Last time you checked? And that would be.... never?

 

For anti-trust to kick in, gc.com would have to actively be preventing others from entering into the business. They're not doing that. Remember - it's that other site (no, not that one - the other other site) that doesn't allow cross-posting of caches. No such restrictions here.

 

Are you saying I can cross post my caches on another site?

[+sTeamTraen]

I don't know all the details, but there have been successful lawsuits against competitive listing sites in the past by Groundspeak that makes it really hard to have any major competitors. In this sense the Wal-Mart argument given earlier is invalid because if you don't like Wal-Mart, you have an option to go to a competitor (even though many small towns would say otherwise ). Granted there are other reasons (startup costs, etc.) that make it hard to have another major competitor, but it is worth noting.

I would be fascinated to hear of any details of any of these lawsuits. I wonder why they are not mentioned on a daily basis in this forum even by the leading proponents of the "Groundspeak is evil" argument?

 

And did you know that in several European countries, other listing sites list more caches than geocaching.com?

 

Here what I think happened is that the educational society supporting this saw them languishing on Waymarking.com and demanded they go back. I guess money talks.....

Groundspeak has stated in public that no money has changed hands over the Earthcache program.

[+Xaa]

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

Last time you checked? And that would be.... never?

 

For anti-trust to kick in, gc.com would have to actively be preventing others from entering into the business. They're not doing that. Remember - it's that other site (no, not that one - the other other site) that doesn't allow cross-posting of caches. No such restrictions here.

 

Are you saying I can cross post my caches on another site?

 

Various caches are. Why shouldn't you be able to do that?

[+Tequila]

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

Last time you checked? And that would be.... never?

 

For anti-trust to kick in, gc.com would have to actively be preventing others from entering into the business. They're not doing that. Remember - it's that other site (no, not that one - the other other site) that doesn't allow cross-posting of caches. No such restrictions here.

 

Are you saying I can cross post my caches on another site?

 

Various caches are. Why shouldn't you be able to do that?

 

I thought I read somewhere that Groundspeak would delete your listing if you cross posted. Not sure where I saw that. Glad to hear it is not true.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't know all the details, but there have been successful lawsuits against competitive listing sites in the past by Groundspeak that makes it really hard to have any major competitors. In this sense the Wal-Mart argument given earlier is invalid because if you don't like Wal-Mart, you have an option to go to a competitor (even though many small towns would say otherwise ). Granted there are other reasons (startup costs, etc.) that make it hard to have another major competitor, but it is worth noting.

I would be fascinated to hear of any details of any of these lawsuits. I wonder why they are not mentioned on a daily basis in this forum even by the leading proponents of the "Groundspeak is evil" argument?

 

And did you know that in several European countries, other listing sites list more caches than geocaching.com?

 

Here what I think happened is that the educational society supporting this saw them languishing on Waymarking.com and demanded they go back. I guess money talks.....

Groundspeak has stated in public that no money has changed hands over the Earthcache program.

 

Yeah, I was familiar with the fact that there are some pretty popular listing sites in Europe. Australia too, but that one doesn't look all that popular, at least on the surface to me. But as you know, the forums are dominated by Americans, and we only have three other ones, one of which, last I checked, has well under 1,000 cache listings worldwide. #2 has only about 8,000 active listings worldwide, with half of them in Germany. They are not even a blip on the Frog's radar, as far as being competitive.

 

I've never heard that Groundspeak stated no money changed hands over the Earthcache program. I always assumed money did change hands.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I tried to register a Virtual Cache and discovered geocaching.com is no longer accepting or posting those kinds of caches. Has anyone else discovered or was anyone else aware of this policy change?

 

My opinion is this is a very bad decision for people that travel extensively such as myself. While working to discover a "regular" cache is my preference, sometimes it is just not practical to place a "regular" cache in not just a location but in certain countries! Walking around with a GPSr in some countries is a sure fire way to attact the attention of authorities in those countries and then looking around, however subtly, for a hidden cache is a good way to suddenly find yourself arrested!

 

Virtual caches solve a multitude of problems since they allow you to "discover" something new or see something you wouldn't otherwise notice.

 

I vote we reinstate Virtual Caches immediately, or at least be told the reason WHY geocaching.com has decided to no longer list them.

 

I see that you have found 12 virtuals including the one you found today in Beijing. There are many grandfathered virtuals all over the world. There are several problems that have encountered with the virts I have logged. #1 non-responsive CO, emails not answered, #2 sign or other object changed or removed from the location and #3 area gets fenced or otherwise restricted due to so many people visiting.

While in Beijing, you should visit the TB Hotel about 1.3 miles east of the rickshaw.

It isn't as if there aren't lots of virtuals and earthcaches listed on GC. I found 2 in Yosemite NP last month.

I also logged 2 earthcaches in Crater Lake NP this summer.

The first virtual that I remember logging was Doc Holliday's grave in Glenwood Springs, CO. I never would have known it was there if I didn't do the search.

When I visited Washington, DC I only visited 1 virtual and one benchmark even though there are hundreds.

It's been 16 months since your only cache was archived. Why not put in an ammobox in the same area as your first cache which was plastic and got broken?

Even if I could get a virtual approved, I would try to find an approved place to put at least a micro within sight of whatever I wanted cachers to see. If that was impossible, I'd look into publishing an earthcache but only within 75 miles of home.

It will be a sad day when the last virtual is archived on geocaching.com. If they had never been allowed there would not be the controversy that there is now about not allowing new listings. Too many virtuals were logged by people (I won't call them cachers) that never were within a mile and logged from their "armchair".

[+tozainamboku]

For the post above: That's fine - they shouldn't all be virtual caches (and that is a lot of what Waymarking has turned into - I have marked a few fast food joints on there myself before I became bored with it). That was the "WOW" factor that the reviewers didn't want to have to enforce.

 

Yet they choose not to enforce it with LPC's and other "lame micros" as some people call them. Why are they still here? Again - inconsistency... How can you play a game with no rules? Or with rules that keep changing? Oh wait... we do (and why I put that line in my sig file). And that is why there are so many problems and complaints.

The idea that it is inconsistent to have a Wow requirement for virtuals but not have one for urban micros points out that there are two different views as to what geocaching should be.

 

One side feels that geocaching is about using a GPS to find hidden things (called caches). Virtual cache were accepted for a while as an experiment to provide the same experience in places where a cache could not be hidden.

 

The other side feels that geocaching it about taking you to unusual or interesting places. Caches in uninteresting places are considered lame. Virtuals on the other hand don't really need to be a specific object to find anymore, just someplace wow. Some also found the idea of locationless caches useful. Ask people to find something that matches an interesting category and list the coordinates - just so long as no one else had listed that particular object already.

 

Rather than making geocaching all things to all people, TPTB decided to create a new solution for those who wanted to find interesting places to share. Rather than trying to define the subjective "wow" requirement, the allowed groups to define the categories they are interested in and have these groups approve the waymarks submitted for listing in their categories.

 

Virtual geocaches an webcams were grandfathered because they were some issues with moving these to Waymarking. Especially virtuals which would have to be assigned a Waymarking category. TPTB clearly intend to remove virtuals and webcams through attrition by not allowing them to be adopted and archiving those that have been abandoned by the owner. Abandon geocaches however can still be maintained by the community (although forced adoptions are no longer allowed).

 

It's been a long time since I responded to this, but here's my 2 cents:

 

1) Waymarking is not really the equivalent of virtuals. It is more the equivalent of locationless caches. I can understand why they moved them (locationless) to Waymarking; they are not a cache in one single location, and are designed in a way that produces massive logging and slows down the system. It made sense to move these to Waymarking, but not virtuals. GC.com never allowed a McDonald's to be a virtual, but there they are on Waymarking.....

Rather than trying to define "wow" for Waymarking categories, TPTB decided to allow anything that got a group of 3 or more cachers to say "this is an interesting category that we are willing to manage." Perhaps unfortunatel, the McDonalds category was presented as a example category because one of the developers thought it was interesting. This of course led to many creating similar categories. The idea with Waymarking is that you can pick your favorite categories and filter out all the others. So if you find McDonalds lame you don't have to look at it.

 

I agree that the better virtuals had some features that most waymarks don't have. First was they made you actually search for something - either to take a picture or to get the answers to verification questions. Second they had some element of surprise when you found what you were looking for. Sometimes the write-up left you wondering what you would find. Other times you'd have a good idea but seeing the real item still made you go "wow". There are some Waymarking categories that try to provide this kind of experience. You just have to search for them. (They're a best kept secret )

 

2) I don't know all the details, but there have been successful lawsuits against competitive listing sites in the past by Groundspeak that makes it really hard to have any major competitors. In this sense the Wal-Mart argument given earlier is invalid because if you don't like Wal-Mart, you have an option to go to a competitor (even though many small towns would say otherwise ). Granted there are other reasons (startup costs, etc.) that make it hard to have another major competitor, but it is worth noting.

I don't believe Grounspeak every threaten legal action against other listing sites. They did go after some site that scrape Geocaching.com to provide maps, statistics, or other add-ons to what Groundspeak provided. They also have worked out agreements with other third-party site. There main concern has been the protection of the database of caches listed on Geocaching.com which they consider an asset. On the other hand, the caches themselves are the property of the cache owner and AFIK, they have never told cache owners they may not cross list geocaches on other sites.

 

3) I would buy the argument about virtuals on Waymarking more if Event Caches didn't count in your smiley count (though the person noting that it has a physical log has a good argument there I never thought of). But TPTB know that if that were made the case, there'd be far fewer events and the ones that do happen would be much smaller. I have a similar cynicism about this because of the return of Earthcaches to GC.com. Here what I think happened is that the educational society supporting this saw them languishing on Waymarking.com and demanded they go back. I guess money talks.....

TPTB must feel that geocaching events are beneficial to geocaching and want to have them listed on the geocaching.com site. Similarly they must have been convinced of an advantage for having EarthCaches listed as well. I doubt it was monetary, but only Groundspeak and EarthCache.org can answer that. When Geocaching v2.0 is ready to release, I would suspect that EarthCaches and event caches will have their own categories. Initially you will still see EarthCaches and Event caches listed along with geocaches if you go to Geocaching.com. But there may soon follow other ways to combine geocaching with any set of Waymarking categories you find you like. So you will be able to get pocket queries that list geocaches, EarthCaches, and Place of Geologic Significance waymarks if that is what you want. Or you could get geocaches, Geocaching Events, Web Cameras, and U.S. Benchmarks if you prefer.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

2) I don't know all the details, but there have been successful lawsuits against competitive listing sites in the past by Groundspeak that makes it really hard to have any major competitors. In this sense the Wal-Mart argument given earlier is invalid because if you don't like Wal-Mart, you have an option to go to a competitor (even though many small towns would say otherwise ). Granted there are other reasons (startup costs, etc.) that make it hard to have another major competitor, but it is worth noting.

 

I don't believe Grounspeak every threaten legal action against other listing sites. They did go after some site that scrape Geocaching.com to provide maps, statistics, or other add-ons to what Groundspeak provided. They also have worked out agreements with other third-party site. There main concern has been the protection of the database of caches listed on Geocaching.com which they consider an asset. On the other hand, the caches themselves are the property of the cache owner and AFIK, they have never told cache owners they may not cross list geocaches on other sites.

 

 

The Frog has in the past threatened to sue Navicache and Buxley's Maps (over the use of the word geocaching) as documented in the GPSgames.org version of the history of geocaching. The Terracaching forums are not searchable, but I'm positive Angry Kid has said The Frog either sued him, or threatened to. You'll just have to believe me, as I can't find any documentation on that one.

 

Yes, in North America (seeing as it was a Canadian who was asking) GPSgames.org, and Navicache.com will gleefully accept your cross-listed caches. And neither they or Groundspeak care about it one bit. Terracaches are not supposed to be cross-listed, although some are.

[+Prime Suspect]

Are you saying I can cross post my caches on another site?

Yes, of course you can, and always have been able to. Restricting cross posting would be a terra-ble idea.

[+Prime Suspect]

The Frog has in the past threatened to sue Navicache and Buxley's Maps (over the use of the word geocaching) as documented in the GPSgames.org version of the history of geocaching. The Terracaching forums are not searchable, but I'm positive Angry Kid has said The Frog either sued him, or threatened to. You'll just have to believe me, as I can't find any documentation on that one.

Don't know about those allegations. But I do know the following is fact: Anyone can use the word "geocaching" with a single exception, that as it related to sales of goods with the Geocaching logo designed by Grounded, Inc. To quote Jeremy, "You are free to use the word geocaching in any form you like. However, any creative of mine (logo, "you are the search engine" quote) is owned by Grounded, Inc. and me. Feel free to make your own logo and quote for the sport if you like. If you create a fan site and want to use my logo, as long as you have it link back to me I'm fine with it - just let me know out of common courtesy."

 

BTW, take what you read at GPSgames.org with a grain of salt. The owner has an axe to grind, so it's not exactly an objective account.

[+flask]

Absolutely fascinating! It's interesting to see that even the geocaching.com crowd has it's fair share of trolls and flamers... even those that are supposed "Moderators".

 

Was I aware that Virtual Caches had been disallowed "for years"? No. Do I think it is a reasonable thing in light of leaving the "other" kinds of caches they DO allow? No.

 

Is geocaching such a narrow game that only trolls and flamers that dismiss experienced cachers have the final say on whether something is a good idea for those of us that travel the world versus spinning wheels in a little corner of the United States? I guess that's the case....

 

So, "Moderator", feel free to close this topic. Obviously the geocaching world isn't ready for the sport to be more than a child's game....

 

absolutely fascinating!

 

someone didn't read the guidelines, didn't get accurate information, and declares themselves to be legitimate "experienced cachers" as opposed to "trolls and flamers"!

 

astounding! amazing! stupendous!

 

what i want to know is how long do i have to keep caching before i can be an experienced cacher? brian?

 

who is this briansnat, anyway? pffft. newcomer.

 

do i think it is a reasonable thing that someone checking the "yes i have read the guidelines" box on the posting form might have read the guidelines?

 

of course i do!

 

stageringly amusing!

 

based on the color of traffic lights available to me, i wish to conclude that my local intersection would benefit greatly by the addition of a mauve and a chartreuse light. red green and yellow are allowed; therefore other colors must be acceptable as well.

 

 

moderator, feel free to close this thread. obviously the OP isn't ready either to read the guidelines or to keep abreast of the most up-to-date news.

 

 

 

 

by "most up-to-date", of course, i mean "an established position five years old".

 

maybe that's what the OP means by "child's game"! maybe the OP does not actually wish to categorize Those Who Do Not Agree with his/her narrow viewpoint as childish, but instead intends to highlight the fact that geocaching as a sport has not yet been around long enough to drink legally in the US.

 

obviously i am not well-traveled enough and far too provincial to have an opinion; if you'll excuse me, i've just about worn through my floor mats with all this wheel-spinning.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I tried to register a Virtual Cache and discovered geocaching.com is no longer accepting or posting those kinds of caches. Has anyone else discovered or was anyone else aware of this policy change?

 

My opinion is this is a very bad decision for people that travel extensively such as myself. While working to discover a "regular" cache is my preference, sometimes it is just not practical to place a "regular" cache in not just a location but in certain countries! Walking around with a GPSr in some countries is a sure fire way to attact the attention of authorities in those countries and then looking around, however subtly, for a hidden cache is a good way to suddenly find yourself arrested!

 

Virtual caches solve a multitude of problems since they allow you to "discover" something new or see something you wouldn't otherwise notice.

 

I vote we reinstate Virtual Caches immediately, or at least be told the reason WHY geocaching.com has decided to no longer list them.

 

People post Waymarks while traveling all the time without any problem whatsoever.

 

Funny, that.

 

As Prince Humperdink said in The Princess Bride, "Please consider Waymarking an alternative to Virtuals."

Or he said something like that. I don't really remember.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Redneck Parrotheads

[vagabond]

I

1. GC.com never allowed a McDonald's to be a virtual,

 

McDonalds

 

[+TrailGators]

I

1. GC.com never allowed a McDonald's to be a virtual,

 

McDonalds

 

[+briansnat]

1) Waymarking is not really the equivalent of virtuals. It is more the equivalent of locationless caches.

 

It is actually the equivalent of both. Category owner creates a category, lets say lighthouses. Waymarkers then go out and find examples of lighthouses and list them. That is similar to locationless caches.

 

Once that lighthouse has been listed it becomes the equivalent of a virtual cache. It is posted with its coordinates and other people can use those coordinates to find it and log their visit.

[+FunnyNose]

 

I see that you have found 12 virtuals including the one you found today in Beijing.

 

WOW went al the way to Beijing and didn't get my recently placed Virtual..

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I see that you have found 12 virtuals including the one you found today in Beijing.

 

WOW went al the way to Beijing and didn't get my recently placed Virtual..

 

If you contact him via email, I'm sure he's still there. You'll probably have to sponsor him though.

[+The Leprechauns]

1. GC.com never allowed a McDonald's to be a virtual,

McDonalds

 

I enjoyed finding this virtual McCache in the Los Angeles area.

 

Never say never.

[+FireRef]

1) Waymarking is not really the equivalent of virtuals. It is more the equivalent of locationless caches.

 

It is actually the equivalent of both. Category owner creates a category, lets say lighthouses. Waymarkers then go out and find examples of lighthouses and list them. That is similar to locationless caches.

 

Once that lighthouse has been listed it becomes the equivalent of a virtual cache. It is posted with its coordinates and other people can use those coordinates to find it and log their visit.

 

And that is fantastic - except that unlike this site, Waymarking hasn't developed the ability to do PQ's yet, so there is no way to know if you are anywhere near a waymark unless you want to download them in tiny batches... maybe if they had the tools over there, some people would be more likely to play both games.

 

Or maybe if GS had left well enough alone, moved the locationless caches like they did, and left virts and webcams, there would be less argument.

 

And putting 2 and 2 together - for the person who said that GC.com threatened to sue over the concept of geocaching, or whatever else they threatened to sue over, that right there supports the monopoly position - they did actively try to keep competition from gaining a foothold, at least in the US.

 

As I've said - I like the fact that they have a large database. I don't like their restrictions on downloading it, nor their way of administering the game. But I stay with it only because they have the biggest and easiest to access database. I don't agree with many of their customer interaction decisions, such as sending in an email Sunday and receiving nothing back as of yet (usually I get that they're on vacation, or were out of the office for weeks at a time, as excuses), and their decisions for what they will allow to be part of THEIR game (which is more OUR game). As far as I'm concerned, the only thing they have going for them is the size of their database.

Edited December 16, 2008 by FireRef

[+The Leprechauns]

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing they have going for them is the size of their database.

They also have friendly, helpful forums filled with shiny happy people talking about geocaching.

 

So that's two things.

[+Tequila]

And even if the only thing they had going for them is "the size of their database.", that is a pretty BIG thing.

 

I have looked at a couple of other sites and they are far from user friendly and have next to no data.

 

I am not a huge fan of some of Groundspeak's methods etc. but the reality is they are the only game in town of any consequence. And I doubt it would be feasible, financially or otherwise, to develop an alternative at this stage of the game.