Jump to content

Virtual and locationless caches


Wile E

Recommended Posts

[size=2]Groundspeak no longer allows Virtual or locationless caches. I enjoy doing this sort or caches.

 

The virtual cache allows you to post a a location that you want others to visit without actually hiding anything, they do require some sort of proof that you actually visited the location by requiring a picture or answering questions about the location. These are great for national parks or landmarks.

 

Locationless caches usually require a picture or something along a particular subject to be able to log the cache. If someone posted a cache of unique mailboxes. By submitting a picture of a unique mailbox you would get credit for the cache.

 

If we get enough geocachers to post positive experiences about Virtual and locationless caches we may be able to persuade Groundspeak to allow them again.[/size]

Edited by Wile E
Link to comment

Personally I am all about the virtual caches. Some of the caches I've enjoyed the most have been virtuals. I understand they were removed due to an excess of silliness on the part of some cachers posting really nutball things as virtuals.

 

Theoretically Waymarking is supposed to replace virtuals, but Waymarking is all sorts of fail. The UI is pathetic. I find it next to useless and spammy. Its hard to find interesting places without constantly being directed to dreck (no, I don't care about the local McDonalds in every town, thank you. Yes I know there are "filters" to not look for them, but those are horribly broken).

 

Anyhoo, my opinions, others differ B). I don't expect this thread will go very far except to spiral downwards into a flame war, but one never knows.

Edited by debaere
Link to comment

Theoretically Waymarking is supposed to replace virtuals, but Waymarking is all sorts of fail.

 

Waymarking is all sorts of fail, sadly.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing Virtuals allowed back in, with good guidelines, but it's not going to happen unless Groundspeak decides to admit that Waymarking is stupid and lame.

Link to comment

If geocaching is still an active hobby in 10 - 15 years time, sometimes I wonder whether it may become necessary to go back to accommodating Virtual caches.

 

Here in UK, with more organisations becoming aware of geocaching and some of them banning the activity on their land it's gradually becoming more restrictive and cachers have to make more effort to place caches with the correct permission given. One of the other geocaching sites in UK does accept Virtual caches (and some other variations no longer permitted on this site) and has been gaining in popularity over the last year or so.

 

Food for thought anyway.

 

MrsB B)

Link to comment

For the people who don't already know, here is my take on the history and the reason why Groundspeak decided to move virtual and locationless caches to there own site. Why new virtual caches are no longer allowed

 

I still haven't seen a good explanation of why you can't have the same experience using Waymarking.com.

 

Waymarking is of course much more than just the old locationless and virtual caches and perhaps that is part of the problem. People see some categories like McDonald's Restaurants and immediately decide that all waymarks are "lame". The either don't know or don't remember that one problem of virtual caches were that people submitted many that the reviewers thought were "lame". So they had a "Wow" rule - only "Wow" virtuals were published. The only problem was that nobody could agree on what "wow" meant. Waymarking removes the "wow" requirement. If someone wants to waymark lame locations they can start a category for lame locations. Of course you could also start a category for wow locations. If you have a neat location you want to share then take a look, most likely there is a category for it. If not you can suggest a category. If you have an idea for a fun game like a few of the old locationless provided, look at the Waymarking Games area (now called Waymarking Multifarious, I guess to include all categories that don't fit elsewhere.)

 

Now some claim that when you went to a virtual you didn't know what you would find till you got there. This is not true at all. Virtually all virtual caches told you in the description what you would find. What you sometimes got a surprise was finding where the answer to the verification question was. And that was mostly because virutals tended to have poor coordinates. But if you wanted you could suggest a Waymarking category that left what you were looking for a surprise, or one that gave a confirmation question whose answer required a search at the location. The Best Kept Secrets category tries to do just this.

Link to comment

The either don't know or don't remember that one problem of virtual caches were that people submitted many that the reviewers thought were "lame". So they had a "Wow" rule - only "Wow" virtuals were published. The only problem was that nobody could agree on what "wow" meant. Waymarking removes the "wow" requirement.

 

I did not know this and appreciate you pointing it out. I have been critical of Virtuals because I figured the idea of putting a virtual at a fast food joint just hadn't caught on yet when they were done away with. The wow rule makes sense for why I thought that.

 

However, I would not like to see Virtuals come back. Leave them as Waymarking.

 

I think a problem with the waymarks (and virtuals) is that they can be published and stay active forever. If someone places a bunch of them and then disappears, their Virtuals will stay there. With geocaches, eventually they get removed or turn in to trash and the community can get the reviewers to archive them so that the game stays "current".

 

I recently found a virtual where the owner has taken off and the cache page is way outdated and cachers are starting to just log finds without any regard to satisfying the requirements. The bogus finds are beginning to outnumber the valid ones. I would adopt it and fix it, but Groundspeak won't adopt Grandfathered cache types. In my opinion, the cache should be archived, but archiving a virtual is likened to blasphemy. How dare I even consider logging a NA on it. People are gunna have to get over it. They're not gunna last forever.

Link to comment

My usual reply to this topic is that virtuals are always at the top of my "to do" list any time I visit an area. They provide a task that make them distinct from waymarks (which has never captured my imagination) and have taken me to some of my best caching experiences. I have done virtuals in places like Yosemite, Zion, the Grand Canyon, and Bryce -- where traditional caches are not (and I daresay will never be) allowed.

 

Virtuals are also in keeping with Groundspeak's educational mission, which now is limited to the only remaining form of virtuals, earthcaches. They have shown me the history of areas that I might have otherwise missed - again, often in places where traditional caching is not allowed.

 

Granted, one reason that they are fun is because they are disappearing. But I continue to think it was shortsighted to remove the category altogether.

 

As to locationless, I really enjoyed them as part of this game. I have a limited ability to multitask, so having them part of this game was fun. They made me look carefully at the area where I live, taking me to places like an underground rail station in San Francisco and unmarked lime kilns. Part of their fun was that their numbers were limited by the time I began caching. The "universe" of locationless caching was well-defined -- one of the reasons why Waymarking is lost on me is that it is so expansive. Its too bad a limited number of locationless caches weren't kept as part of this game -- it might have helped bridge the gap to Waymarking.

Link to comment

I think a problem with the waymarks (and virtuals) is that they can be published and stay active forever. If someone places a bunch of them and then disappears, their Virtuals will stay there. With geocaches, eventually they get removed or turn in to trash and the community can get the reviewers to archive them so that the game stays "current".

 

I recently found a virtual where the owner has taken off and the cache page is way outdated and cachers are starting to just log finds without any regard to satisfying the requirements. The bogus finds are beginning to outnumber the valid ones. I would adopt it and fix it, but Groundspeak won't adopt Grandfathered cache types. In my opinion, the cache should be archived, but archiving a virtual is likened to blasphemy. How dare I even consider logging a NA on it. People are gunna have to get over it. They're not gunna last forever.

This is a good point, though not completely correct. The guidelines for virtuals included a maintenance clause. I don't know when it was added but it was there, in some form, when I started geocaching. The current wording is

Although the cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your cache's web page and respond to inquiries. In the case of Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches you must periodically check the physical location. You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

 

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing. Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

First of all the object of a virtual may change, it may no longer be accessible, or the answer to the verfication question might not be available at the site anymore. The owner is responsible for checking on this. A finder can post a Needs Maintenance or even a Needs Archive if something changes about the virtual.

 

Second, since virtuals have no log to sign, they must provide an alternative method of logging. The virtual cache owner is responsible for verifying the finds just as you suggested in another thread that a physical cache owner should check the log. I don't take the puritan stand in either case, but TPTB have done so, at least in the case of virtuals that are clearly being armchair logged.

 

The clause that an owner of a virtual must return to the website once a month to show they are active is unique to virtuals and webcams. Unlike physical caches, which sometimes can be maintained by the community and allow to exist without an active owner, TPTB have decide that a virtual cache must have an active owner.

 

One problem with Waymarking is that waymarks get posted and the owner never checks that they are still valid. Starbucks closed several hundred stores last year. I'm sure some are listed on Waymarking. There is no Needs Archive or any way (AFIK) for the category managers to delete inactive waymarks. Even Categories can get abandoned. This is a little better in that there are at least 3 officers that have the ability to run a category. And a mechanism to replace officers that are no longer participating.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

No thanks.

 

My biggest concern is the number of land managers that would not allow a physical cache because they somehow thought a virtual would be more acceptable. Removing virtual as a choice has opened up many areas and allowed physical containers to be accepted. Bringing back virtuals might get our physical caches quickly banned.

 

Also - you really can do all the virtuals you want via Waymarking. It isn't a bad design - just a different design.

 

I have long maintained that Waymarking would be deeply accepted if finds over there counted in the find count here. But that is pure speculation.......

Link to comment

I think a problem with the waymarks (and virtuals) is that they can be published and stay active forever. If someone places a bunch of them and then disappears, their Virtuals will stay there. With geocaches, eventually they get removed or turn in to trash and the community can get the reviewers to archive them so that the game stays "current".

 

I recently found a virtual where the owner has taken off and the cache page is way outdated and cachers are starting to just log finds without any regard to satisfying the requirements. The bogus finds are beginning to outnumber the valid ones. I would adopt it and fix it, but Groundspeak won't adopt Grandfathered cache types. In my opinion, the cache should be archived, but archiving a virtual is likened to blasphemy. How dare I even consider logging a NA on it. People are gunna have to get over it. They're not gunna last forever.

This is a good point, though not completely correct. The guidelines for virtuals included a maintenance clause. I don't know when it was added but it was there, in some form, when I started geocaching. The current wording is .........

 

So the owner hasn't logged on in years and their cache page definitely needs maintanence. Would you suggest logging the 'nm' or 'na' on the virtual in the situation I presented?

Link to comment

 

So the owner hasn't logged on in years and their cache page definitely needs maintanence. Would you suggest logging the 'nm' or 'na' on the virtual in the situation I presented?

 

If it's getting filled with those bogus logs by unscrupulous German cachers and nobody's maintaining it, it should be archived.

 

Yeah, it sucks to say goodbye to an old Virtual, but unmaintained Virtuals attract so much abuse that it's best to just get rid of them.

Link to comment

 

I have long maintained that Waymarking would be deeply accepted if finds over there counted in the find count here. But that is pure speculation.......

 

I would probably be more interested if Waymarking and Geocaching was more blended, but I wouldn't want to count the Waymarks *with* the Geocaches... just right alongside them. I don't like dealing with a separate site, especially since the other site suuuuuuuuuucks.

Link to comment

 

I have long maintained that Waymarking would be deeply accepted if finds over there counted in the find count here. But that is pure speculation.......

 

I would probably be more interested if Waymarking and Geocaching was more blended, but I wouldn't want to count the Waymarks *with* the Geocaches... just right alongside them. I don't like dealing with a separate site, especially since the other site suuuuuuuuuucks.

 

I agree. I think waymarkers do this by posting their Waymarking 'stat bar' in their profile information

Link to comment

 

www.terracaching.com

 

Not only do they have virtuals, and more locationless than this site ever had (I think they cut it off at about 350 locationless here), they also have a complex scoring system. B)

 

P.S. I assure you, they're never coming back here.

 

P.S.S. That website is very slow, and somewhat abandoned by it's creator.

 

P.S.S.S. Hey. I just noticed some guy deleted my last locationless find there. That wasn't very nice. :)

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
I still haven't seen a good explanation of why you can't have the same experience using Waymarking.com.

The UI.

 

Primarily it's because it's a separate web site. I would use it if it were integrated with gc.com.

 

I believe that it doesn't have all the features of gc.com, but I haven't explored it far enough to find out.

 

Edward

Link to comment

 

I have long maintained that Waymarking would be deeply accepted if finds over there counted in the find count here. But that is pure speculation.......

 

I would probably be more interested if Waymarking and Geocaching was more blended, but I wouldn't want to count the Waymarks *with* the Geocaches... just right alongside them. I don't like dealing with a separate site, especially since the other site suuuuuuuuuucks.

 

I'm still pretty new to caching, and not very computer savvy, but I have to disagree with this statement. There are way too few u's in there.

 

I like the idea of Waymarking, and would actually do a lot of it if it weren't for the the website itself.

 

My understanding was that terracaching required sponsers (or something similar) Is that the case?

Link to comment

 

I have long maintained that Waymarking would be deeply accepted if finds over there counted in the find count here. But that is pure speculation.......

 

I would probably be more interested if Waymarking and Geocaching was more blended, but I wouldn't want to count the Waymarks *with* the Geocaches... just right alongside them. I don't like dealing with a separate site, especially since the other site suuuuuuuuuucks.

 

I'm still pretty new to caching, and not very computer savvy, but I have to disagree with this statement. There are way too few u's in there.

 

I like the idea of Waymarking, and would actually do a lot of it if it weren't for the the website itself.

 

My understanding was that terracaching required sponsers (or something similar) Is that the case?

 

lol. here's some uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

 

yeah when I signed up on terracaching I needed two 'sponsors'. If I remember correctly, I needed the two sponsors before I could post a 'find' log or something along those lines.

Link to comment

One person wrote that some virtuals have had bad coordinates - we have done many virtuals and are working a Virtual Challenge and have not had any bad experiences with coordinates or getting the information or requirements needed -

I have done some Waymarking, and yes, it is interesting, and would probably do more if they counted toward finds - but like some, there are so many of one waymark - can get to be a little ridiculous at times - if integrated with geocaching.com and would count as finds, we would definitely do more of them - virtuals are such a learning experience...as are earthcaches... B)

Link to comment

Reviewing the nearest six whymarks, I find three locations. But six whymarks. Only one is of any interest (but is listed three times). One completely misrepresents the historical naming of my town. I'd really have to be pretty bored to log any of them. None of them would even make a passable interesting virtual. I'd rather go looking for LPCs! They're more interesting.

Link to comment

I think the one thing that killed virts is the one thing that keeps Waymarking from being more popular: Wow factor.

Waymarking has no "Wow" factor, and as such, folks can create a Waymark out of dang near anything, providing they can articulate how it fits into a category. That leaves us, the users, with having to sort through page after page of uninspired locations, just to find something worth driving to. I can't help but wonder if the folks who are creating Waymarks for every burger king and fire hydrant in a 50 mile radius are the same ones who submitted lame virt after lame virt, till TPTB got fed up with them. Add that Waymarking doesn't give the number hos their incremental fix, (on the GC website), and the screwy interface, and you've got a recipe for failure.

 

But to bring back virts to this site? My vote would be "No".

 

My idea of a cache is some sort of (hopefully) weatherproof storage device, designed to protect its contents, be it an itty bitty storage device like a blinky or a 55 gallon drum. When I look at a plaque, I don't think "cache". Of course I feel the same way about a group of geeks sitting in a restaurant, and a waterfall, but since this is their playground, Groundspeak can define both of those, (event cache & earth cache), as caches. B)

 

I think it was narcissa who hit on a good suggestion:

Have your Waymark count show up on your profile.

It could show up like benchmarks, which don't go toward your cache finds.

Maybe?

 

Or just scrap Waymarks & virts all together... :)

Link to comment

 

I have long maintained that Waymarking would be deeply accepted if finds over there counted in the find count here. But that is pure speculation.......

 

I would probably be more interested if Waymarking and Geocaching was more blended, but I wouldn't want to count the Waymarks *with* the Geocaches... just right alongside them. I don't like dealing with a separate site, especially since the other site suuuuuuuuuucks.

 

I'm still pretty new to caching, and not very computer savvy, but I have to disagree with this statement. There are way too few u's in there.

 

I like the idea of Waymarking, and would actually do a lot of it if it weren't for the the website itself.

 

My understanding was that terracaching required sponsers (or something similar) Is that the case?

 

lol. here's some uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

 

yeah when I signed up on terracaching I needed two 'sponsors'. If I remember correctly, I needed the two sponsors before I could post a 'find' log or something along those lines.

 

I'm certain he was talking about skidmarking I mean Waymarking. Yeah, you need two sponsorships for Terracaching. But I assure you, you'll have more offers from people you don't know than you'll ever need when you sign up. Not that I'm pimping Terracaching here or anything. The site is too slow, and has been essentially abandoned to it's status quo state forever.

Link to comment

We really enjoy the virtual caches. We travel a lot and do the virtuals in most of the small towns that we go through. We have not had a problem with coordinates. We do not want to see them go. We would like to do some locationless caches also. We have tried to do some webcams and have found that they are almost impossible to do while on the road.

Link to comment

We really enjoy the virtual caches. We travel a lot and do the virtuals in most of the small towns that we go through. We have not had a problem with coordinates. We do not want to see them go. We would like to do some locationless caches also. We have tried to do some webcams and have found that they are almost impossible to do while on the road.

 

*facepalm*

Link to comment

We do not want to see them go. We would like to do some locationless caches also. We have tried to do some webcams and have found that they are almost impossible to do while on the road.

 

Few years too late. They're gone with no plans to return or anything to replace them. Some virtuals have been grandfathered, but once they are gone, that's it.

 

Many of us miss them but, please, someone, let this topic die.

Link to comment

We do not want to see them go. We would like to do some locationless caches also. We have tried to do some webcams and have found that they are almost impossible to do while on the road.

 

Few years too late. They're gone with no plans to return or anything to replace them. Some virtuals have been grandfathered, but once they are gone, that's it.

 

Many of us miss them but, please, someone, let this topic die.

 

I disagree. Geocaching.com is a business and business relies on supply and demand.

 

A brief history lesson: It was clearly stated that there would NEVER be an Off Topic Forum here and then one day there was. Guess why? :)

 

Waymarking is a lead pony. Sooner or later someone will reflect long enough to realize that and there will be a change.

 

Wait and see.

Link to comment

Few years too late. They're gone with no plans to return or anything to replace them. Some virtuals have been grandfathered, but once they are gone, that's it.

 

Many of us miss them but, please, someone, let this topic die.

 

I disagree. Geocaching.com is a business and business relies on supply and demand.

 

A brief history lesson: It was clearly stated that there would NEVER be an Off Topic Forum here and then one day there was. Guess why? :)

 

Waymarking is a lead pony. Sooner or later someone will reflect long enough to realize that and there will be a change.

 

OK, I'll bite. What does Waymarking have to do with a discussion on virtuals or loactionless caches and how did you even remotely connect it to my post?

 

Don't hold your breath on them coming back. The majority of cachers seem opposed to them and from what was mentioned, they were very problematic for volunteer reviewers.

Link to comment
Waymarking is a lead pony. Sooner or later someone will reflect long enough to realize that and there will be a change.

 

A change towards a single Groundspeak profile with stats for all 3 sites.

Geocaching stats, Waymarking stats (move all the boxless to Waymarking, grandfather nada), and Wherigo stats.

Improve the Waymarking site, update the Wherigo builder, and fix a bunch o' stuff on GC.com too

 

In the meantime, the pony's feet need trimmed.

Link to comment

We have tried to do some webcams and have found that they are almost impossible to do while on the road.

 

Webcam caches on the road do require some planning and organization. Plus a cell phone, cell phone reception, and a friend who will be at a computer and has some idea of what s/he is trying to accomplish. :)

 

We did one in West Virginia. "We should be there early Wednesday afternoon. Will you be able to help us?" (And two alternative helpers, just in case.) Worked out very well. The same with the ones in Maine, New York and New Hampshire.

Link to comment

OK, I'll bite. What does Waymarking have to do with a discussion on virtuals or locationless caches and how did you even remotely connect it to my post?

Because waymarks are the new virtuals.

 

Groundspeak didn't eliminate virtuals, they created a whole new website for them, gave cacher's greater flexibility to create and maintain them, and allowed cachers to determine what is interesting enough to be a waymark. If cachers think that waymarks are lame then it's the fault of the cachers who created them.

 

When and if they ever include nearby of waymarks in geocache PQs I will look at it again. To my mind the failure to do this is Waymarking's biggest fail.

Link to comment

People see some categories like McDonald's Restaurants and immediately decide that all waymarks are "lame".

 

Other people look at the site, find it poorly designed and annoying to use, and conclude that Waymarking is a lame waste of time.

I disagree, but even if I did agree, at least Waymarking is designed for a game like locationless. Locationless caches made no sense here. You couldn't search for a category, you had to assign an arbitrary lat/lon to the category, there was no way to tell if a spot had already been marked in a category, there was no way to know when a new category was created unless its arbitrary coordinates happened to be in your area.

Link to comment

OK, I'll bite. What does Waymarking have to do with a discussion on virtuals or locationless caches and how did you even remotely connect it to my post?

Because waymarks are the new virtuals.

 

Groundspeak didn't eliminate virtuals, they created a whole new website for them, gave cacher's greater flexibility to create and maintain them, and allowed cachers to determine what is interesting enough to be a waymark. If cachers think that waymarks are lame then it's the fault of the cachers who created them.

 

When and if they ever include nearby of waymarks in geocache PQs I will look at it again. To my mind the failure to do this is Waymarking's biggest fail.

 

:) I really don't see any similarities. Maybe that's why Waymarking's prospects have been so dismal.

Link to comment

OK, I'll bite. What does Waymarking have to do with a discussion on virtuals or locationless caches and how did you even remotely connect it to my post?

Because waymarks are the new virtuals.

 

Groundspeak didn't eliminate virtuals, they created a whole new website for them, gave cacher's greater flexibility to create and maintain them, and allowed cachers to determine what is interesting enough to be a waymark. If cachers think that waymarks are lame then it's the fault of the cachers who created them.

 

When and if they ever include nearby of waymarks in geocache PQs I will look at it again. To my mind the failure to do this is Waymarking's biggest fail.

 

:) I really don't see any similarities. Maybe that's why Waymarking's prospects have been so dismal.

 

There are a lot of similarities.

 

Each category is like a reverse cache or locationless. You have an assigment to find one and give its coordinates.

 

The difference is it now becomes a place that can be visited. The old locationless idea took those spots out of play. The waymark is basically a virtual cache...a visitable location that has no container. The one difference is that in most waymarks there isn't verification question to be answered but you still have to provide a "proof photo" in most cases just like many virtuals.

 

Some points about various comments in the thread.

 

Waymarking in general - I have been Waymarking since day 1. Loved locationless and virtuals but both were broken on Geocaching.com. They needed to move. I do agree that the site needs more integration with the stats. From its inception the site has had updates making it easier to navigate. In the last year I have seen Waymarking really start to pick up with a lot of new users. Oh and they have a search feature that is really useful with all kinds of cool filters and features.

 

Wow factor - If you don't like certain types of listings and they do not wow you you can ignore specific categories and entire category departments. In essence you can create a site for yourself that would only return items that WOW you personally. So if you are only interested in lead ponies ignore everything else and you only get lead ponies. Don't like the commercial categories. Ignore...poof, gone. Only like the photo goals in the games category. Ignore all the rest...poof, gone.

 

Inaccurate information in a listing - If you find something that is glaring mistake you have the ability to edit it. Yes, any user can update a listing, a newer feature. What happens is that it goes back to the review process and the category reviewers make a determination if the edit is appropriate based on your input and comments regarding the proposed edit.

 

Waymarking is (Dismal, suuuuks, skidmarking) If it is wrong for you as a user, you can fix it , adjust it to your specific standards, and learn a lot about the surrounding world or you can gripe about it. Griping is easier I suppose.

 

Yes, there is a learning curve and if you approach it with a cache box mentality you will not get it.

 

I have chosen to think outside the ammo box and have found Waymarking to be very fun and a perfect replacement for the locationless caches and virtuals that didn't really fit here from the beginning.

Link to comment

I guess I must be the odd person out because I LOVE virtuals. The ones that we have locally are to places that you have never visitied and may have lived in that city all your life.

My favorite is a virtual tour of the series of bronze sculptures that resides in our downtown area.

You start at ###### coordinates, and move on to the next and so on until you travel down one side of the main street for 6 blocks and come back on the other side of the street.

You have a series of questions to answer as you progress through the tour. After you are finished, you email the author and give the answers and a photo showing the ending spot.

We did this one as a large group on a Sunday morning due to heavy traffic during the week.

It took about 1 hour to do and then we all went out for lunch. Makes for a really nice day out looking at stuff you drive by every day and never really see. I took my camera and took photos of all of the sculptures.

 

BRING BACK VIRTUALS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

 

Digitalgoddess

Mulvane,Kansas

Link to comment

 

Waymarking is (Dismal, suuuuks, skidmarking) If it is wrong for you as a user, you can fix it , adjust it to your specific standards, and learn a lot about the surrounding world or you can gripe about it. Griping is easier I suppose.

 

 

Just like preaching is easier than accepting that some of us don't like Waymarking and never will?

Link to comment

Personally I am all about the virtual caches. Some of the caches I've enjoyed the most have been virtuals. I understand they were removed due to an excess of silliness on the part of some cachers posting really nutball things as virtuals.

 

Theoretically Waymarking is supposed to replace virtuals, but Waymarking is all sorts of fail. The UI is pathetic. I find it next to useless and spammy. Its hard to find interesting places without constantly being directed to dreck (no, I don't care about the local McDonalds in every town, thank you. Yes I know there are "filters" to not look for them, but those are horribly broken).

 

Anyhoo, my opinions, others differ :). I don't expect this thread will go very far except to spiral downwards into a flame war, but one never knows.

What do you find broken about the filtering? I once clicked "Ignore National Restaurant Chains", and since that day I have not seen another McDonald's waymark. I'll never go looking for Covered Bridges and get a mislabeled WalMart (can you say that about Pocket Queries and your least favorite cache type?) I really would like to know why you say it's broken?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...