Why have virtual caches been eliminated?

[+sbell111]

I found the one and only virtual cache close to my house. I liked the idea so much that I told the CO that I wanted to do one myself. He told me that they weren't allowed any more, but all the existing virtual caches were grandfathered. The CO's explanation to me was that some cachers whined because there wasn't an actual cache to find or log book to sign. So the powers to be did away with them because of a few squeaky wheels.

There's a bit more to the dramatic story than that, but whatever.

 

Here it is as I remember it, in whatever order you prefer:

• Some people (including TPTB) took the position that virts weren't geocaches
  
• Virts gave land managers an easy way to deny physical caches, potentially endangering the game in some areas.
  
• Some people made virts out of really dumb things (like dead animal carcasses).
  

 

Awesome explanation! I still don't get the "Wow Factor" period, 2003-2005. That was kinda strange.

"Wow" was an attempt to stop the 'dumb thing' virts without doing away with virts all together.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

*Official Opinion* They were done away with due to the lack of WOW Factor. That is SAD!!! I'll volunteer to be a reviewer for Virtuals, and ALRs. Of course, if I need an specific area, there's a few that I could also assist with.

 

I think I know what a WOW factor is. Its something that makes me actually WANT to figure out exactly how far that is from where I am, and go and See it. (Kinda like Earth Caches)

 

The Steaks

 

Fixed it with an edit to one word - "me". 'WOW is something that makes me... '

 

You inadvertently hit upon the exact problem - what is WOW to you is not interesting at all to someone else...

 

WOW can only be judged for oneself.

 

I cannot (nor could the Reviewers) decide what would WOW you.

 

Some people think that the Grand Canyon has WOW factor - I see it as wasted land that should be dammed to make a huge hydroelectric production facility.

 

WOW was, is and ever shall be subjective in the eyes of the beholder.

[+Team Cotati]

*Official Opinion* They were done away with due to the lack of WOW Factor. That is SAD!!! I'll volunteer to be a reviewer for Virtuals, and ALRs. Of course, if I need an specific area, there's a few that I could also assist with.

 

I think I know what a WOW factor is. Its something that makes me actually WANT to figure out exactly how far that is from where I am, and go and See it. (Kinda like Earth Caches)

 

The Steaks

 

Fixed it with an edit to one word - "me". 'WOW is something that makes me... '

 

You inadvertently hit upon the exact problem - what is WOW to you is not interesting at all to someone else...

 

WOW can only be judged for oneself.

 

I cannot (nor could the Reviewers) decide what would WOW you.

 

Some people think that the Grand Canyon has WOW factor - I see it as wasted land that should be dammed to make a huge hydroelectric production facility.

 

WOW was, is and ever shall be subjective in the eyes of the beholder.

 

That explains why virtual caches have and always and forever more will be, until eternity ends, exceedingly popular. It doesn't matter, it is just true.

 

Odd that.

[GreyLurk]

While some virtuals had a good "Wow" factor, others kind of sucked, and I don't mind them being eliminated.

 

Either way, you can still have a cache with a cool "wow" factor, just don't make it a virtual, put a cache there, with a log book. Then there's a wow, and you get to find something.

[Radman Forever]

*Official Opinion* They were done away with due to the lack of WOW Factor. That is SAD!!! I'll volunteer to be a reviewer for Virtuals, and ALRs. Of course, if I need an specific area, there's a few that I could also assist with.

 

I think I know what a WOW factor is. Its something that makes me actually WANT to figure out exactly how far that is from where I am, and go and See it. (Kinda like Earth Caches)

 

The Steaks

 

Fixed it with an edit to one word - "me". 'WOW is something that makes me... '

 

You inadvertently hit upon the exact problem - what is WOW to you is not interesting at all to someone else...

 

WOW can only be judged for oneself.

 

I cannot (nor could the Reviewers) decide what would WOW you.

 

Some people think that the Grand Canyon has WOW factor - I see it as wasted land that should be dammed to make a huge hydroelectric production facility.

 

WOW was, is and ever shall be subjective in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Heck, with all of the natural disasters, it will probably be filled with floodwater in no time!

 

Anyways, I like the idea of Earthcaches, but I hate that we accepted the reasons listed previously.

 

* Some people (including TPTB) took the position that virts weren't geocaches * Virts gave land managers an easy way to deny physical caches, potentially endangering the game in some areas. * Some people made virts out of really dumb things (like dead animal carcasses).

 

* Earthcaches aren't caches either. They can be monitored by another website, but they are still listed on a geocaching website, thus contradicting themselves.

* Earthcaches can also be used by an excuse by land managers to exclude caches from their parks. "Hey y'all, there is a swamp in the back of the park, can't that be acceptable?" I know a swamp isn't good enough, but tell that to a stubborn land manager! This hasn't happened yet, but it could happen!

* There has to be a dead animal next to an earthcache somewhere. Not all earthcaches/virtuals/traditionals are exciting, but that was never really a good enough excuse to get rid of any cache type, IMO.

 

And Waymarks aren't virtuals. If you have seen one post office/road marker/rest area, you have just about seen every waymark out there. I kid, but not really.

[+Team Cotati]

While some virtuals had a good "Wow" factor, others kind of sucked, and I don't mind them being eliminated.

 

Either way, you can still have a cache with a cool "wow" factor, just don't make it a virtual, put a cache there, with a log book. Then there's a wow, and you get to find something.

 

You get to find "something" at everyone of the virtuals that I have seen. It's just not in a Tupperware container or an ammo can or the ever popular 35mm film canister.

 

Virtual caches are popular for a reason. Finding a piece of Tupperware or similar is not one of the reasons.

[Dinoprophet]

I'm starting to get the feeling I should have posted this in the newbie forum

 

Why does my post say "ringbone"?

 

Very funny. I've done enough homework to know about this

You're a good sport, OP.

 

And Waymarks aren't virtuals. If you have seen one post office/road marker/rest area, you have just about seen every waymark out there. laugh.gif I kid, but not really.

Yeah, and if you've seen a lamp post, there's no point to geocaching.

[Radman Forever]

And Waymarks aren't virtuals. If you have seen one post office/road marker/rest area, you have just about seen every waymark out there. laugh.gif I kid, but not really.

Yeah, and if you've seen a lamp post, there's no point to geocaching.

 

Yeah, but i get a smiley, which makes up for LPCs! I have tried Waymarking, but I never got behind it. Despite LPCs, Geocaching has taken me to enough exciting places and I have done enough challenges to be kept in the game. Waymarking is too conformed for me, I need the diversity!

 

Virtuals took you to great historical places, and because there are traditionals nearby usually, it spiced things up for me to like them.

 

To each their own!

[+mtn-man]

(/me wakes up and looks around)

 

Actually, for virtuals, ALR stands for Actual Logging Requirement. There is nothing additional about it.

 

The moderating team was curious how many forum threads have been created since that date to ask about virtual caches. We were also wondering whether they appeared in predictable pattern so that the next such thread could be forecasted. With that forecast, we could wake up mtn-man on that day and make sure he was prepared with a generous supply of admin bricks.

Did somebody say something?

 

(turns over and goes back to sleep)

[GOF and Bacall]

Look, they are gone because of me. I hounded the powers that be relentlessly. I sent bribes. I sent threats. I sent home baked pies! Finally it just got to be way to much for them to deal with and they relented. From that point on no more virts.

 

You wanna know why I did it? For the kids! What kid wants to read some boring historical marker. At least the virt I wanted to put at the rotting carcass was interesting, not just stinky. So remember, it was done for the children and the only reason I can see for the continued crying and whining is that the criers and whiners must all hate children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

Edited April 16, 2009 by GOF & Bacall

[+Renegade Knight]

...* There has to be a dead animal next to an earthcache somewhere. Not all earthcaches/virtuals/traditionals are exciting, but that was never really a good enough excuse to get rid of any cache type, IMO.....

 

That's all a fossil is. Dead animal. Smashed and preserved for our enjoyment.

[GOF and Bacall]

...* There has to be a dead animal next to an earthcache somewhere. Not all earthcaches/virtuals/traditionals are exciting, but that was never really a good enough excuse to get rid of any cache type, IMO.....

 

That's all a fossil is. Dead animal. Smashed and preserved for our enjoyment.

 

Fossil. Another dead animal that doesn't have the smell factor to bother me.

[+Semper Questio]

While some virtuals had a good "Wow" factor, others kind of sucked, and I don't mind them being eliminated.

 

Either way, you can still have a cache with a cool "wow" factor, just don't make it a virtual, put a cache there, with a log book. Then there's a wow, and you get to find something.

 

Putting a film can under a rock near something someone thinks is cool does not give a location "wow". It gives it a film can under a rock.

 

The whole discussion of good virts vs. bad virts is completely irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the same argument for regular caches. If you don't allow virts because you no longer want to list caches with no containers or because they create to much admin overhead, fine. If you don't solely because of quality control issues, then where is the concern for quality control for other cache types? Applying QC to one and not the others is nothing but hypocritical.

[GOF and Bacall]

While some virtuals had a good "Wow" factor, others kind of sucked, and I don't mind them being eliminated.

 

Either way, you can still have a cache with a cool "wow" factor, just don't make it a virtual, put a cache there, with a log book. Then there's a wow, and you get to find something.

 

Putting a film can under a rock near something someone thinks is cool does not give a location "wow". It gives it a film can under a rock.

 

The whole discussion of good virts vs. bad virts is completely irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the same argument for regular caches. If you don't allow virts because you no longer want to list caches with no containers or because they create to much admin overhead, fine. If you don't solely because of quality control issues, then where is the concern for quality control for other cache types? Applying QC to one and not the others is nothing but hypocritical.

 

I do believe the point was to find a wow spot and hide a cache. Not that hiding a cache makes it a wow spot.

[+Semper Questio]

While some virtuals had a good "Wow" factor, others kind of sucked, and I don't mind them being eliminated.

 

Either way, you can still have a cache with a cool "wow" factor, just don't make it a virtual, put a cache there, with a log book. Then there's a wow, and you get to find something.

 

Putting a film can under a rock near something someone thinks is cool does not give a location "wow". It gives it a film can under a rock.

 

The whole discussion of good virts vs. bad virts is completely irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the same argument for regular caches. If you don't allow virts because you no longer want to list caches with no containers or because they create to much admin overhead, fine. If you don't solely because of quality control issues, then where is the concern for quality control for other cache types? Applying QC to one and not the others is nothing but hypocritical.

 

I do believe the point was to find a wow spot and hide a cache. Not that hiding a cache makes it a wow spot.

 

That would be the best case and I would certainly hope that was the point, but all too often that is not what has happened since banning virts. Now instead of just having enjoyable virts, we have "lame" micros scattered about and the point of bringing folks to a spot is now often overlooked. Yeah, it could be made a puzzle to force folks to read/view/whatever the "thing" in question, but then there are lots of folks that sort out mystery caches as a matter of course so they get missed.

 

I know. Same ol' discussion.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

While some virtuals had a good "Wow" factor, others kind of sucked, and I don't mind them being eliminated.

 

Either way, you can still have a cache with a cool "wow" factor, just don't make it a virtual, put a cache there, with a log book. Then there's a wow, and you get to find something.

 

Putting a film can under a rock near something someone thinks is cool does not give a location "wow". It gives it a film can under a rock.

 

The whole discussion of good virts vs. bad virts is completely irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the same argument for regular caches. If you don't allow virts because you no longer want to list caches with no containers or because they create to much admin overhead, fine. If you don't solely because of quality control issues, then where is the concern for quality control for other cache types? Applying QC to one and not the others is nothing but hypocritical.

Since when has there ever been a requirement for placing a cache next to something "wow!"? The idea was to find a container using GPS.

 

Often, a geocache would be hidden to take people to someplace special (near some interesting art, the site of a great view, or yet another park I didn't know about) and that kind of cache is usually highly preferred over the side of a 7-Eleven. If I wanted to explore the "special" place before or after finding the cache that was my option. Multicaches push you to explore enough to gather information to find the final and many times you don't really need to read the plaque to get the answers.

 

Virtuals, however, aren't about finding a container and letting you explore if you want to. The purpose of a virtual is to get you to visit the exact spot the owner did and force you to answer certain questions just to prove you were there (in a sense, forcing you to learn what the owner wants you to learn). Virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching - there is no container and most of the time you don't even need a GPSr. The subjects of virtuals could usually be found in a tour guide of the area and/or they're prominently displayed for all muggles to see. At least with a properly hidden geocache, no one would know it was there if they weren't looking for it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...* There has to be a dead animal next to an earthcache somewhere. Not all earthcaches/virtuals/traditionals are exciting, but that was never really a good enough excuse to get rid of any cache type, IMO.....

 

That's all a fossil is. Dead animal. Smashed and preserved for our enjoyment.

 

Fossil. Another dead animal that doesn't have the smell factor to bother me.

Don't they have longhorn caddies in Texas?

[Radman Forever]

Virtuals, however, aren't about finding a container and letting you explore if you want to. The purpose of a virtual is to get you to visit the exact spot the owner did and force you to answer certain questions just to prove you were there (in a sense, forcing you to learn what the owner wants you to learn). Virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching - there is no container and most of the time you don't even need a GPSr. The subjects of virtuals could usually be found in a tour guide of the area and/or they're prominently displayed for all muggles to see. At least with a properly hidden geocache, no one would know it was there if they weren't looking for it.[/color]

 

Why is "force" tossed around so much lately? Earthcaches do the same thing, and no head honcho has EVER listed "forcing another to answer questions" as a reason for getting rid of virtuals.

 

* I force someone to visit the exact place I did when I hid the cache in a spot I expect it to stay.

* Virtuals/Earthcaches don't have a container. There used to be a time when virtuals were just part of a game that people chose to do along with geocaching. At least they allowed it on another website, which would've been find if earthcaches hadn't come along.

 

The one major reason for hiding a virtual was because of a few things:

 

*There are parks that have banned geocaching and virtuals were the only way of allowing the game inside its boundaries.

* Many interesting areas that geocachers wanted to hide a cache had no room for even a micro, or the micro could not be hidden well enough for muggles not to find it.

 

Waymarking was going to be a way to keep virtual enthusiasts happy, but it just hasn't caught on like I am sure they were hoping for. I know waymarks in Michigan that haven't been found since the website was introduced!

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

virtuals have been fun when they are worth going to. take me to a historical marker, have me answer questions about the history of an area by getting info from somewhere at GZ, but tking me to a street corner with no special meaning and having me count the staves in a picket fence is stupid. from my understanding that is what virtuals were being led to become.

 

Earthcaches are cool and neat, IMO. cayses you to think and (gasp) maybe learn a little.

[+Team Cotati]

virtuals have been fun when they are worth going to. take me to a historical marker, have me answer questions about the history of an area by getting info from somewhere at GZ, but tking me to a street corner with no special meaning and having me count the staves in a picket fence is stupid. from my understanding that is what virtuals were being led to become.

 

Earthcaches are cool and neat, IMO. cayses you to think and (gasp) maybe learn a little.

 

If that were in fact true, and I seriously doubt it. But if they were, perhaps you ought to consider for a moment that those type of worthless virtuals were being approved by someone in advance of their being listed on the site.

 

I heard a similar story one time regarding a so called virtual cache that involved inspecting a series of telephone poles and writing down their serial numbers for some unknown purpose. I give that story the same credence as picket fences or other such preposterious stories.

 

Regardless of all of that, if proper monitoring of such garbage were being done on a consistient basis, they'd have been removed in short order.

 

It is my understanding that physical caches, improperly placed are routinely archived every day. Therefore in my way of thinking, such stories hold little validity. I mean come on, a micro 'hidden' under the front porch of a tax accountant's office in a highly muggle infested area. Please spare me. While I personally might not refer to that one as 'stupid', I centainly would not hold it up as something against which I'd compare favorably against a single one of the virtuals that I've seen. Not one.

 

Can you point me to any virtual caches that meet your criteria of 'stupidity'?

 

Thanks.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

virtuals have been fun when they are worth going to. take me to a historical marker, have me answer questions about the history of an area by getting info from somewhere at GZ, but tking me to a street corner with no special meaning and having me count the staves in a picket fence is stupid. from my understanding that is what virtuals were being led to become.

 

Earthcaches are cool and neat, IMO. cayses you to think and (gasp) maybe learn a little.

 

If that were in fact true, and I seriously doubt it. But if they were, perhaps you ought to consider for a moment that those type of worthless virtuals were being approved by someone in advance of their being listed on the site.

 

I heard a similar story one time regarding a so called virtual cache that involved inspecting a series of telephone poles and writing down their serial numbers for some unknown purpose. I give that story the same credence as picket fences or other such preposterious stories.

 

Regardless of all of that, if proper monitoring of such garbage were being done one a consistient basis, they'd have been removed in short order.

 

It is my understanding that physical caches, improperly placed are routinely archived every day. Therefore in my way of thinking, such stories hold little validity. I mean come on, a micro 'hidden' under the front porch of a tax accountant's office in a highly muggle infested area. Please spare me. While I personally might not refer to that one as 'stupid', I centainly would not hold it up as something against which I'd compare favorably against a single one of the virtuals that I've seen. Not one.

 

Can you point me to any virtual caches that meet your criteria of 'stupidity'?

 

Thanks.

 

Nope! Not here. All the virtuals that we found were worth our time. I wish they didn't go away. Waywhatever is not the same!

[+Team Cotati]

While some virtuals had a good "Wow" factor, others kind of sucked, and I don't mind them being eliminated.

 

Either way, you can still have a cache with a cool "wow" factor, just don't make it a virtual, put a cache there, with a log book. Then there's a wow, and you get to find something.

 

Putting a film can under a rock near something someone thinks is cool does not give a location "wow". It gives it a film can under a rock.

 

The whole discussion of good virts vs. bad virts is completely irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the same argument for regular caches. If you don't allow virts because you no longer want to list caches with no containers or because they create to much admin overhead, fine. If you don't solely because of quality control issues, then where is the concern for quality control for other cache types? Applying QC to one and not the others is nothing but hypocritical.

Since when has there ever been a requirement for placing a cache next to something "wow!"? The idea was to find a container using GPS.

 

Often, a geocache would be hidden to take people to someplace special (near some interesting art, the site of a great view, or yet another park I didn't know about) and that kind of cache is usually highly preferred over the side of a 7-Eleven. If I wanted to explore the "special" place before or after finding the cache that was my option. Multicaches push you to explore enough to gather information to find the final and many times you don't really need to read the plaque to get the answers.

 

Virtuals, however, aren't about finding a container and letting you explore if you want to. The purpose of a virtual is to get you to visit the exact spot the owner did and force you to answer certain questions just to prove you were there (in a sense, forcing you to learn what the owner wants you to learn). Virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching - there is no container and most of the time you don't even need a GPSr. The subjects of virtuals could usually be found in a tour guide of the area and/or they're prominently displayed for all muggles to see. At least with a properly hidden geocache, no one would know it was there if they weren't looking for it.

 

I have doubt that virtual caches or any other cache type were intended for the pleasure of muggles. Muggles are irrelevant when it comes to virtual caches for the very reason that they are 'hidden' in plain sight. However they do provide a very satisfying experience for cachers, who often can be from out of area and likely would not be aware of those items of local color and interest. Like with other cache types, if you don't like 'em, don't hunt for them. Or does that idea simply not apply to virtual caches that people really enjoy 'finding'.

 

Further, I can tell you for dead certain that of all of the virtuals that I have discovered near where I have lived for over 28 years, that I was not aware of a single one until I began this wonderful activity known as geocaching. So they might be obvious to some individuals, but I'd wager not to most.

 

It is like some of my non-geocaching friends often say to me when I relate some interesting location that I have visited due to being involved in this game: "Well why didn't you just go there any way?" The response: "Well geeze dude, if I had known about the location otherwise, I most likely would have done that."

Edited April 16, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Harry Dolphin]

Can you point me to any virtual caches that meet your criteria of 'stupidity'?

 

Thanks.

 

While I have done some fantastic virtuals, so have left me baffled as to what someone found interesting at the spot.

 

Passed by this interesting place on the way to some caches. Thought it would make a great virtual! In order to claim this cache, tell me via private e-mail what is at <address.. Tell me the name of the place and why it's interesting. DO NOT POST YOUR ANSWERS ON THE WEBPAGE. Have fun!

 

The only thing I found interesting about the location is that the building numbers were 150 off from one side of the street to the other. What the cache owner found interesting was that the Korean beauty salon was named after a psalm. Oh! WOW!! (not)

[+Team Cotati]

Can you point me to any virtual caches that meet your criteria of 'stupidity'?

 

Thanks.

 

While I have done some fantastic virtuals, so have left me baffled as to what someone found interesting at the spot.

 

Passed by this interesting place on the way to some caches. Thought it would make a great virtual! In order to claim this cache, tell me via private e-mail what is at <address.. Tell me the name of the place and why it's interesting. DO NOT POST YOUR ANSWERS ON THE WEBPAGE. Have fun!

 

The only thing I found interesting about the location is that the building numbers were 150 off from one side of the street to the other. What the cache owner found interesting was that the Korean beauty salon was named after a psalm. Oh! WOW!! (not)

 

"While I have done some fantastic virtuals, so have left me baffled as to what someone found interesting at the spot."

 

Do you happen to have the GC# handy for one of those baffeling ones? Thanks. Since most virtuals request that the finder supply some sort of information found at the cache location in order to claim the find, I'd be interested in learning about how that worked for the ones that baffeled you?

[Dinoprophet]

I have doubt that virtual caches or any other cache type were intended for the pleasure of muggles. Muggles are irrelevant when it comes to virtual caches for the very reason that they are 'hidden' in plain sight. However they do provide a very satisfying experience for cachers, who often can be from out of area and likely would not be aware of those items of local color and interest. Like with other cache types, if you don't like 'em, don't hunt for them. Or does that idea simply not apply to virtual caches that people really enjoy 'finding'.

 

Further, I can tell you for dead certain that of all of the virtuals that I have discovered near where I have lived for over 28 years, that I was not aware of a single one until I began this wonderful activity known as geocaching. So they might be obvious to some individuals, but I'd wager not to most.

 

It is like some of my non-geocaching friends often say to me when I relate some interesting location that I have visited due to being involved in this game: "Well why didn't you just go there any way?" The response: "Well geeze dude, if I had known about the location otherwise, I most likely would have done that."

If it were just about cool locations, everyone would be using Waymarking.com. I grant that it doesn't have the element of surprise the virtuals had, but for me, that's mostly good. My experience with virts is different than yours. Of my sixteen virtual finds, only two or three were anything beyond, "Huh, that's interesting". So I'm happier with Waymarking, knowing what I'm going to see, like labyrinths or haunted places.

[+tozainamboku]

virtuals have been fun when they are worth going to. take me to a historical marker, have me answer questions about the history of an area by getting info from somewhere at GZ, but tking me to a street corner with no special meaning and having me count the staves in a picket fence is stupid. from my understanding that is what virtuals were being led to become.

 

Earthcaches are cool and neat, IMO. cayses you to think and (gasp) maybe learn a little.

It may be that some people placing virtuals that had you count the staves in a picket fence. Supposedly the Wow requirement took care of the those. But interestingly the Wow requirement stated that

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches". So your example of a "fun" virtual wouldn't have been accepted either. Think about, if there was a virtual at every historic plaque that had you get some information off the plaque that would soon become boring. Besides which the information on the plaque was often available on the internet, resulting in the so-call armchair logging of virtuals. As GPSaxaphone says, the idea of geocaching was to find something someone had hidden at the location (later refined to be a container with a log book). Virtuals were an attempt to have an option for areas where you could not hide a physical cache. They was supposed to be a specific object that you needed to find. Then you were supposed to answer a verification question a proof you found the object in lieu of having a log to sign. The objects tended to be easy to find and the verification question easy to answer (sometimes even if you didn't find the object). People weren't hiding virtual caches, but instead the yet uninvented waymark. For virtually all virtuals, the intent of trying to share a neat place with others is better met by Waymarking. You can select Historic Markers if you are interested in that or artistic gates if that's what wows you. Some waymark owners want you to answer a question to prove you visited the waymark, most ask for a picture. But frankly you can learn about something and take more time to appreciate it if you aren't running around trying to get some silly answer. The main complaint people have is that the you have to get the coordinates for waymarks off a separate site. With virtual caches and EarthCaches you load them up with the real caches in the area and you can stop to "find" them while looking for caches. And they got counted in your find count.

 

EarthCache should really be waymarks as well, and in fact when Waymarking was launched there was an attempt to move EarthCaches to their own category of Waymarks. But the owners of existing EarthCache whined and the people of EarthCaching.org pulled out their agreement with Groundspeak to list EarthCaches and so they remain on Geocaching.com.

 

Someday, Waymarking will get some press and people who would never consider geocaching will go "Wow, when I'm out traveling I can just go to the website and find interesting places and best kept secrets to visit. The location will be downloaded right to my cellphone and I can use the GPS in the phone to navigate right to them." I can imagine this becoming the much more popular website.

[+Socal ZukiCachers]

I found the one and only virtual cache close to my house. I liked the idea so much that I told the CO that I wanted to do one myself. He told me that they weren't allowed any more, but all the existing virtual caches were grandfathered. The CO's explanation to me was that some cachers whined because there wasn't an actual cache to find or log book to sign. So the powers to be did away with them because of a few squeaky wheels.

 

I agree - they are my wife's favorite type of cache!

[+Juicepig]

Virtual geocaches were originally intended as a way of putting a geocache in an area that it might be a bad idea to put a physical container in.

 

They have been replaced with bomb squad training caches!

[+sbell111]

The whole discussion of good virts vs. bad virts is completely irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the same argument for regular caches. If you don't allow virts because you no longer want to list caches with no containers or because they create to much admin overhead, fine. If you don't solely because of quality control issues, then where is the concern for quality control for other cache types? Applying QC to one and not the others is nothing but hypocritical.

Maybe you're right. Maybe that hypocracy is yet another reason why virts went away. Either way, I definitely agree with your point that the discussion is irrelevant, since new virts have been banninated for years now and nothing is likely to change this.

 

I do believe the point was to find a wow spot and hide a cache. Not that hiding a cache makes it a wow spot.

That would be the best case and I would certainly hope that was the point, but all too often that is not what has happened since banning virts. Now instead of just having enjoyable virts, we have "lame" micros scattered about and the point of bringing folks to a spot is now often overlooked. ...

Your argument reads like the disallowal of new virts resulted in the hiding of so-called lame micros. I don't believe that this is the case. Micros that some would call lame have been plentiful since long before virts were disallowed. In fact, I bet they predate virts, period. Edited April 17, 2009 by sbell111

[+Team Cotati]

I once found a Virtual cache that appeared in Season 1, Episode 1 (not positive on this point but pretty danged certain) of that really great HBO Drama Series: 'The Sopranos'.

 

Very exciting. Looked around for Tony. He was not there, how disappointing.

 

Now THAT cache doesn't qualify as a "stupid" Virtual cache.....does it?

Edited April 17, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Renegade Knight]

...The purpose of a virtual is to get you to visit the exact spot the owner did and force you to answer certain questions just to prove you were there...

 

I think I get it.

Virtuals force you to a spot to find something where you then verify the find via a specificly prescribed method. While real ccahes force you to a spot to find something where you then verify the find via a prescribed method.

 

Yeah, I can see how the two are completely unrelated.

[+Team Cotati]

...The purpose of a virtual is to get you to visit the exact spot the owner did and force you to answer certain questions just to prove you were there...

 

I think I get it.

Virtuals force you to a spot to find something where you then verify the find via a specificly prescribed method. While real ccahes force you to a spot to find something where you then verify the find via a prescribed method.

 

Yeah, I can see how the two are completely unrelated.

 

That's one thing that I have always found humorous in here. You don't run your post thru 76 combinations and permutations prior to posting and sure enough someone will latch onto that horrific mistake and 'win' the point every single time.

 

Frustrating as heck, ain't it? Just makes it too easy, eh? One of my favorite activities too.

 

It does however provide a second important benefit. Providing a cheap method to try out one's latest comedy routine on a captive audience.

[+Team Cotati]

"You inadvertently hit upon the exact problem - what is WOW to you is not interesting at all to someone else... "

 

Unlike all of those really interesting physical caches out there, jammed into every crevasse that can possibly contain a key holder or a nano thingie with a piece of paper the size of a postage stamp meant to hold signatures.....over looking a really beautiful strip mall's back alley, stuck under a utility service's junction box, right next to that historic dumpster with some 'interesting' fluid oozing out from the bottom.

 

You can't possibly be serious.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Semper Questio]

I do believe the point was to find a wow spot and hide a cache. Not that hiding a cache makes it a wow spot.

That would be the best case and I would certainly hope that was the point, but all too often that is not what has happened since banning virts. Now instead of just having enjoyable virts, we have "lame" micros scattered about and the point of bringing folks to a spot is now often overlooked. ...

Your argument reads like the disallowal of new virts resulted in the hiding of so-called lame micros. I don't believe that this is the case. Micros that some would call lame have been plentiful since long before virts were disallowed. In fact, I bet they predate virts, period.

 

Sorry I did not make my point more clearly, but I was simply saying that the placing of more lame micros to emulate virts was a direct result of banning virts, not that banning virts was the genesis of lame micros.

 

I don't know how many monuments, historical markers, etc. I have been to now with a bison tube or film can under a rock or hanging from a fence post near the intended focal point. In these cases, what is the true difference, other than the purist's definition of geocaching, between the 'dead animal' virtual or the film can under the rock? Sure, some lame virts got listed before, but now we have traded a relatively few lame virts for even more lame micros which, just by their nature of having a container and a slip of paper, are somehow more worthy of listing than all of the "non-lame" virts.

 

Sorry to get so long-winded. Since it's all a moot point anyway, I guess I'll go back to my mainframe now.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Can you point me to any virtual caches that meet your criteria of 'stupidity'?

 

Thanks.

 

While I have done some fantastic virtuals, so have left me baffled as to what someone found interesting at the spot.

 

Passed by this interesting place on the way to some caches. Thought it would make a great virtual! In order to claim this cache, tell me via private e-mail what is at <address.. Tell me the name of the place and why it's interesting. DO NOT POST YOUR ANSWERS ON THE WEBPAGE. Have fun!

 

The only thing I found interesting about the location is that the building numbers were 150 off from one side of the street to the other. What the cache owner found interesting was that the Korean beauty salon was named after a psalm. Oh! WOW!! (not)

 

"While I have done some fantastic virtuals, so have left me baffled as to what someone found interesting at the spot."

 

Do you happen to have the GC# handy for one of those baffeling ones? Thanks. Since most virtuals request that the finder supply some sort of information found at the cache location in order to claim the find, I'd be interested in learning about how that worked for the ones that baffeled you?

 

As mentioned, what baffled me is what the cache owner found so interesting about this spot. The answer was easy. As I mentioned, it was a Korean beauty salon named after a psalm. Wow???

Most of the ones on the Capitol Mall, in DC, were a waste of time. One great one! Three interesting ones. The other six qualified as: Wow! This in incredibly boring! Why did you bother bringing me here? Ah! So you could get a cache hide? A prime example might be: Pointing Skyward Yawn. Got a smiley. Yawn.

[+eagsc7]

 

Therefore, we have asked a forum expert with a scientific and statistics background to undertake this research. Unfortunately, due to the massive scope of this project, we do not think that this forum expert will have time to post in the forums for the next few months. He will post when the results of his study are available.

 

I don't have a background in statistics, but laying the last few times out on a calender, it will come up next between 10 September and 20 October. Of course, I will say that this subject comes up more often lately, so a better guess would be that it will come up around 5 August.

 

There is the target. Strangely a Bullseye would be on 5 August, but on the target would be between 10 September and 20 October. On the paper that the target is drawn on would be between 6 August and 9 September.

 

The STeaks