Virtual and locationless caches

[+TheBeanTeam]

I guess I must be the odd person out because I LOVE virtuals. .... 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.....

 

Digitalgoddess

Mulvane,Kansas

 

I love virtuals too. Did all I could and I am happy the granfathered ones are still here. They became a problem with absentee owners not responding to their own verification requests. Armchair logging became a problem on others when those creators moved on as well.

 

 

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?

 

Preachy....Hmm. Didn't mean it to be but there is no choir here. Usually I preach to the choir.

 

I don't care if people don't like it but I do care when it is portrayed in a way that is false. Most who denigrate Waymarking haven't bothered to really try it. If you have tried and don't like it I have no problem with that. I admit it isn't for everyone. If Waymarking had a from the get go we most likely wouldn't have threads like this.

[+niraD]

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.

FWIW, all my webcam cache "finds" were done solo. They're easy to do solo on the road if you've got a smartphone and a data connection.

[+narcissa]

I guess I must be the odd person out because I LOVE virtuals. .... 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.....

 

Digitalgoddess

Mulvane,Kansas

 

I love virtuals too. Did all I could and I am happy the granfathered ones are still here. They became a problem with absentee owners not responding to their own verification requests. Armchair logging became a problem on others when those creators moved on as well.

 

 

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?

 

Preachy....Hmm. Didn't mean it to be but there is no choir here. Usually I preach to the choir.

 

I don't care if people don't like it but I do care when it is portrayed in a way that is false. Most who denigrate Waymarking haven't bothered to really try it. If you have tried and don't like it I have no problem with that. I admit it isn't for everyone. If Waymarking had a from the get go we most likely wouldn't have threads like this.

 

An individual's impression of the site is not "false." It may differ from your experience, but that does not make it false. What you describe as a "learning curve" is, for some of us, a nuisance and a deterrent. When someone says they find the site difficult to use, it means they have tried it and are reporting on their experience. If we were merely saying that "it sounds dumb," that would be different and maybe your gloating about open-mindedness would be warranted. In this case, however, it seems that the people making negative comments about Waymarking have tried it and found it lacking.

[+Castle Mischief]

I like doing the remaining virtuals. I still enjoy doing earthcaches. My wife has logged a few waymarks but we quickly lost interest in it. Why?

 

* No pocket queries.

* Too many locations that are little more than just another waypoint (fast food, retail chains, etc).

* Existing virtuals and earthaches in the same location- why log it twice?

* Thought I'd give creating a waymark a shot. I've gone to the sight more than once and I can't figure it out. Which leads to...

* Doesn't work like geocaching.com. Yeah I could learn the listing requirements and what exactly I need to go through to get a waymark listed. But I can't get excited enough about the concept to make the time- not when I would rather be finding or hiding geocaches.

 

If there were significant changes in the way things work and in the type of locations that are accepted as waymarks I'd give it another chance. As it is, I'm just not interested. If you like it and it works for you, then have fun with it.

 

EDIT: I don't consider my dislike of Waymarking as a reason to bring back virtuals.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

An individual's impression of the site is not "false." It may differ from your experience, but that does not make it false. What you describe as a "learning curve" is, for some of us, a nuisance and a deterrent. When someone says they find the site difficult to use, it means they have tried it and are reporting on their experience. If we were merely saying that "it sounds dumb," that would be different and maybe your gloating about open-mindedness would be warranted. In this case, however, it seems that the people making negative comments about Waymarking have tried it and found it lacking.

 

A false impression is still false even if you don't think it is.

 

For example it is my impression that you simply like being contentious. It may be correct but maybe not. If you do not simply "like being contentious", my impression is false and not..."not false".

 

First I am preaching and next I am gloating.

 

Your twisting of my intent and reading into my posts things that are not there are not worth my time.

 

Take the last word and prove my impression wrong if you can.

[+Castle Mischief]

A false impression is still false even if you don't think it is.

 

For example it is my impression that you simply like being contentious. It may be correct but maybe not. If you do not simply "like being contentious", my impression is false and not..."not false".

 

My head hurts. Well, at least it doesn't not "not hurt". I think.

 

She doesn't like Waymarking. You may not like that she doesn't, but you can't tell her that not liking it is wrong.

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

My head hurts. Well, at least it doesn't not "not hurt". I think.

 

Well at least I've accomplished something today. No harm intended. Take a few Excedrin and post again tomorrow.

 

She doesn't like Waymarking. You may not like that she doesn't, but you can't tell her that not liking it is wrong.

 

I already said I don't care if people don't like Waymarking...That is fine I even get that, as I mentioned above, that it isn't for everyone. Just like lamp post caches aren't for everyone.

 

You give good clear reasons for not liking it and that I can respect.

 

The "its all McDonalds" or "There is nothing interesting there that is as good as a virtual" type statements that are simply not true.

 

I often run up against attitudes of superiority concerning Waymarking. Each time in essence I am being told that I am wrong for liking the past time. How far would I get using the same comments about caching that have been said attacking waymarkers and Waymarking in this thread?

Edited March 5, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+tozainamboku]

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

 

Many people LOVE virtuals. But most have a difficult time explaining what it is they like about virtual or what makes them different from Waymarks.

 

Many people enjoy virtuals because unlike a geocache, they don't have to find some box someone has hidden. They don't have to feel uncomfortable looking for something with muggle watching. You simply wander about looking at signs or observing some artwork to get the answers to some verification question.

 

A waymark is not much different. Many waymarks seem to have no visit requirments or they may use a photograph. Waymarkers seem to prefer this approach to asking for you to find answers to verification questions. However, waymarks can be set up that way, and some categories even require that waymark owners ask for this. Your example of a virtual that took you on a tour of sculptures in your downtown area, could easily be made into a waymark that gave you the exact same experience as a virtual

 

 

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?

 

Perhaps Waymarking appeals to some people who just enjoy listing waypoints to fill in a category. They may see a database of categorized locations as useful just in itself without a need for and game playing experience. Perhaps Waymarking appeals to people who like to have lists of interesting place they may want to visit. They don't want to be bothered sending an email to someone with the answers to some silly questions, but they may want to post a picture they took and write about their experience in the online log. Perhaps Waymarking appeals to some people who enjoy a new kind of game, one where you find places to list in as many different Waymarking categories as you can or where you try to visit a waymark in every category.

 

With Waymarking there exists the structure for developing new GPS based experiences. Thisncluding the basis for creating games that would appeal to anyone who enjoys virtuals. I started the Best Kept Secrets category with the hope it would turn into something like that. I must admit that we turn down a lot of submissions to Best Kept Secrets because they come from waymarkers who don't quite grasp what my idea of a Virtual cache is. The submit waymarks that lack any verification question or ones where the location doesn't seem to have the general interest that would attract people to want to visit (Wowness is hard to define).

 

I have always posted in these "bring back vituals" threads inviting people who say the LOVE virtuals to give Waymarking a chance. I had hope that many would propose categories that play more like virtual caches and less like waymarks. I believe it is still possible to carve out a niche on the Waymarking site that can satisfy different people's idea of what a virtual cache is. But instead of seeing people flocking to Waymarking all I see are more of these threads and more people with the attitude that Waymarking stinks and nothing wil can replace virtuals. So I give up.

 

There are people who enjoy Waymarking because they get a kick out of listing all the McDonald's Restaurants. There are people who enjoy stopping at every historic marker but who don't want to answer a stupid question about it. If no one wants to explore the Waymarking site to see how it can be used to create tons of new games using your GPS to find out about different places, then no amount of preaching is going to change it. They apparently find it more enjoyable to cry in the wilderness "Bring back the virtuals" than to open up to new ideas and add their creativity to make Waymarking better. In the meantime there are plenty of people who enjoy Waymarking as it now exists so it isn't going to go away. Good luck thinking you'll ever convince Groundspeak to bring back virtuals.

[Clan Riffster]

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

If TPTB would remove events, CITOs, earthcaches, virts, locationless and cameras from our "Found Caches" stats while they are at it, I'd start bowing to the West.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Clan Riffster

[+narcissa]

 

My head hurts. Well, at least it doesn't not "not hurt". I think.

 

Well at least I've accomplished something today. No harm intended. Take a few Excedrin and post again tomorrow.

 

She doesn't like Waymarking. You may not like that she doesn't, but you can't tell her that not liking it is wrong.

 

I already said I don't care if people don't like Waymarking...That is fine I even get that, as I mentioned above, that it isn't for everyone. Just like lamp post caches aren't for everyone.

 

You give good clear reasons for not liking it and that I can respect.

 

The "its all McDonalds" or "There is nothing interesting there that is as good as a virtual" type statements that are simply not true.

 

I often run up against attitudes of superiority concerning Waymarking. Each time in essence I am being told that I am wrong for liking the past time. How far would I get using the same comments about caching that have been said attacking waymarkers and Waymarking in this thread?

 

People in this thread were saying that Waymarking is lame. You came in and attacked people for "griping" instead of just outlining why you like Waymarking.

[+Prime Suspect]

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

There's a series in Frisco, Texas that also takes you on a tour of many of the sculptures in that town. But they did it with actual caches. The only reason I can think of for wanting to do the same thing as virtuals, is that it lets you be a lazy cache owner.

[+narcissa]

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

There's a series in Frisco, Texas that also takes you on a tour of many of the sculptures in that town. But they did it with actual caches. The only reason I can think of for wanting to do the same thing as virtuals, is that it lets you be a lazy cache owner.

 

There are some places where you just can't place a cache, either because there's nowhere to hide it, or because it's not allowed.

 

In my area, we often use monuments and other objects in multi-caches - instead of hiding caches or tags, cachers use something from the monument to figure out the next step. This is a good way to get people to notice these monuments, and it's a good way to geocache in spots where hiding a container simply isn't an option.

 

Calling cachers "lazy" for coming up with different solutions seems rather unnecessary, to me. What is with all the name-calling?

[+Prime Suspect]

This is a little late. The "Bring back virtual caches" thread was due to start on Feb 12th.

 

You will now have to wait till march 19th to post another one.

I thought a "who's watching my cache" was scheduled for March 19, followed with a "my cache is not an agenda" on the 29th. Maybe I forgot to update my calendar.

[+tozainamboku]

The only reason I can think of for wanting to do the same thing as virtuals, is that it lets you be a lazy cache owner.

 

There are some places where you just can't place a cache, either because there's nowhere to hide it, or because it's not allowed.

 

In my area, we often use monuments and other objects in multi-caches - instead of hiding caches or tags, cachers use something from the monument to figure out the next step. This is a good way to get people to notice these monuments, and it's a good way to geocache in spots where hiding a container simply isn't an option.

 

Calling cachers "lazy" for coming up with different solutions seems rather unnecessary, to me. What is with all the name-calling?

I agree that Prime Suspect shouldn't be calling people lazy but his point was the same as you make in your response.

 

Back in the day when virtual caches could be published they often weren't because the "Wow" requirement.

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as a virtual cache". People would complain when their sign, marker, or monument was turned down as a virtual cache, often complaining that "there are some places where you just can't place a cache so it should be allowed here". The suggestion was often made to use the sign, marker, or monument as a waypoint in a multicache. That would be a good way to get someone to visit the monument you wanted to take them to and still be able to find a geocache with a log to sign. In addition to dealing with the "Wow" requirement, the use of a sign, marker, or monument this way also avoids the problem of a cache owner having to to respond to emails with the verification for a virutal cache. Instead the answer would be used to derive the coordinates of a physical cache and the finder could log it online once they signed the log in the physical cache. With the grandfathering of virtual caches this option for including monuments, signs, tombstones, statues, and historic markers in a geocache remains. Virtually any virtual can be turned into a multi-cached with a physical final.

[+pklong]

Yes I'd love to see Waymarking and virtuals back, I'd even have webcams back. However the frog has spoken, and that is that so we are wasting our breath discussing it. Again. Just 'aint gonna happen.

[+narcissa]

Yes I'd love to see Waymarking and virtuals back, I'd even have webcams back. However the frog has spoken, and that is that so we are wasting our breath discussing it. Again. Just 'aint gonna happen.

 

If you think it's a waste of breath, you don't need to participate in the discussion. By the length of this thread, it would seem that some people still have thoughts to share on the subject.

[+Harry Dolphin]

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

There's a series in Frisco, Texas that also takes you on a tour of many of the sculptures in that town. But they did it with actual caches. The only reason I can think of for wanting to do the same thing as virtuals, is that it lets you be a lazy cache owner.

 

There are some places where you just can't place a cache, either because there's nowhere to hide it, or because it's not allowed.

 

In my area, we often use monuments and other objects in multi-caches - instead of hiding caches or tags, cachers use something from the monument to figure out the next step. This is a good way to get people to notice these monuments, and it's a good way to geocache in spots where hiding a container simply isn't an option.

There are some spectacular virtual caches! There are a lot of very nice virtual caches. Some that are mildly interesting. Then there are the (far too numerous) How incredibly boring! Why did you bother bringing me here?!?

There are places where only virtual caches could be hidden. The National Mall in DC, for instance. Of the ten we did there, one was spectacular, two were very interesting, two were mildly interesting. The rest were BORING!

Sometimes, the point is to highlight something in particular. Virtuals work very well for that. I can think of a few of those. Hiding a cache nearby just doesn't do the location justice. On the other fin, sometimes a non-virtual will serve the same porpoise. One of the first virtuals that I found was archived. I hid a multi in the same area. It highlights the same things. Of course, some people will do it in the fog, and not see what I'm trying to show them. Oh, well. Their loss.

[+narcissa]

 

There are some spectacular virtual caches! There are a lot of very nice virtual caches. Some that are mildly interesting. Then there are the (far too numerous) How incredibly boring! Why did you bother bringing me here?!?

There are places where only virtual caches could be hidden. The National Mall in DC, for instance. Of the ten we did there, one was spectacular, two were very interesting, two were mildly interesting. The rest were BORING!

Sometimes, the point is to highlight something in particular. Virtuals work very well for that. I can think of a few of those. Hiding a cache nearby just doesn't do the location justice. On the other fin, sometimes a non-virtual will serve the same porpoise. One of the first virtuals that I found was archived. I hid a multi in the same area. It highlights the same things. Of course, some people will do it in the fog, and not see what I'm trying to show them. Oh, well. Their loss.

 

My favourite virtual caches have been ones where the description is a little vague or mysterious, and then the location is a bit of a surprise. I found many virtual caches last summer and found some very memorable virtual caches in Gettysburg, PA, Washington, DC, and Savannah, GA.

[+humboldt flier]

http://www.Waymarking.com/

Nothing personal but I do not care for the Waymarking site. Reasons: None specific, I simply do not care for it.

[+firennice]

Personally...

The Waymarking site needs a makeover. A search like GC would be nice. The ability to downloaad PQ's of my favorite catigories and go find them would be great.

I would not mind the return of Virtuals, if the standards were high enough, but then who decides. Allow everything and we end up with Waymarking on GC.com. A reviewer in Nevada may allow a lot of things where one in Iowa may not. Too subjective. Get around that, and have them not on every house, rock, walmart, etc. Perferably fix the Waymarking site so you can have fun with it, and get rid of Walmarts, Wendy's and useless items.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think the Waymarking site is pretty good. If you go looking for interesting places, you will definitely find them. The featured and historic categories are great.

 

There are also several categories that are very uninteresting, and I really don't understand why they would be there -such as watertowers. Perhaps if I was 14 again, I might think it would be cool to climb them and find them, but other than that I don't see a reason.

 

I also have zero interest in logging my "find"?, several places I have been to many times. Does that mean I should return to prove it, and why? Other than that, It's a great site to use as a reference.

[+Mosaic55]

I would like to see virtuals brought back to Geocaching.com

 

Locationless is a different animal and I can see how Waymarking could substitute for them. Virtuals fit right into the infrastructure of geocaching.com with smileys and PQs.

 

It's too bad the Best Kept Secrets category hasn't taken off. But it hasn't. There's only one Best Kept Secret in my whole state and, quite co-incidentally, I logged it today. [i actually visited it because it's also stage one of a multicache. I'd forgotten it was also a waymark until reading this thread prompted me to look at Waymarking.com again. ]

 

I think bringing virtuals back would be a good thing and would increase the popularity of geocaching.

[+Mosaic55]

Yes I'd love to see Waymarking and virtuals back, I'd even have webcams back. However the frog has spoken, and that is that so we are wasting our breath discussing it. Again. Just 'aint gonna happen.

 

That the subject comes up over and over tells me there's a need/desire for a type of activity that isn't curently being met. I bet that someone will figure out how to cater to this desire and it ain't necessarily going to be Groundspeak.

[4wheelin_fool]

Yes I'd love to see Waymarking and virtuals back, I'd even have webcams back. However the frog has spoken, and that is that so we are wasting our breath discussing it. Again. Just 'aint gonna happen.

 

That the subject comes up over and over tells me there's a need/desire for a type of activity that isn't curently being met. I bet that someone will figure out how to cater to this desire and it ain't necessarily going to be Groundspeak.

Have the waymark finds upload to a cachers profile. It has been suggested more than a few times..

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Yes I'd love to see Waymarking and virtuals back, I'd even have webcams back. However the frog has spoken, and that is that so we are wasting our breath discussing it. Again. Just 'aint gonna happen.

 

That the subject comes up over and over tells me there's a need/desire for a type of activity that isn't curently being met. I bet that someone will figure out how to cater to this desire and it ain't necessarily going to be Groundspeak.

Stick around here and some things become predictable... such as who is going to respond to certain topics and basically what we're going to say.

 

You can count on the regular appearance of a 'Bring Back Virts' thread but if you did the statistics on who replies to them you'll find that it's pretty much the same people saying pretty much what was said in the last one.

 

I'm sure that Groundspeak has done the math and sees that there really aren't that many customers asking for their return.

 

And as far as the implied 'give us what we want or we'll leave'... where you gonna go?

[4wheelin_fool]

And as far as the implied 'give us what we want or we'll leave'... where you gonna go?

 

There are plenty of good categories on Waymarking.com ....

[+Mosaic55]

Yes I'd love to see Waymarking and virtuals back, I'd even have webcams back. However the frog has spoken, and that is that so we are wasting our breath discussing it. Again. Just 'aint gonna happen.

 

That the subject comes up over and over tells me there's a need/desire for a type of activity that isn't curently being met. I bet that someone will figure out how to cater to this desire and it ain't necessarily going to be Groundspeak.

Stick around here and some things become predictable... such as who is going to respond to certain topics and basically what we're going to say.

 

You can count on the regular appearance of a 'Bring Back Virts' thread but if you did the statistics on who replies to them you'll find that it's pretty much the same people saying pretty much what was said in the last one.

 

I'm sure that Groundspeak has done the math and sees that there really aren't that many customers asking for their return.

 

These whole forums are filled with the same people rehashing the same things over and over again. It's really amazing, I've never seen so much rehashing anywhere else on the web.

 

And as far as the implied 'give us what we want or we'll leave'... where you gonna go?

 

Not a threat to leave. Just an attempt at stating my belief that virtuals "done right" would be an asset to whoever figured out how to do it.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Mosaic55

[Clan Riffster]

There are places where only virtual caches could be hidden.

Or Wherigos... But that's another can o' worms altogether.

[+Packanack]

I love how this thread is re born every couple of months. Like a teenager pining for a lost love, the I love virtual crowd never gets over the fact that it is dead and gone. Nobody argues that virtuals should not be brought back, except Briansnat --who says no box, no log, not a geocache, they merely suggest that someone satisfy his broken heart with Waymarking--the ever romantic Harry Dolphin quickly points out the folly of that and we go on our way. But sign on to other listing sites and you will find virtuals being listed there commonly. So if you find yourself looking for that particular kind of love , you will need to find it elsewhere.

[+briansnat]

obody argues that virtuals should not be brought back, except Briansnat --who says no box, no log, not a geocache...

 

Hey I'm not the only one. There's, ummm. Well I forget his name but he agrees with me.

[Clan Riffster]

Well I forget his name but he agrees with me.

I agree with Brian!

My rather loose, personal, inner interpretation of "cache" is a container designed to protect its contents, hidden from normal view. Groundspeak has taken the definition of "cache" to a different level, (as indicated in the "Geocaches Found (All Geocache Finds)" column of our public profiles), saying that a bronze disc (benchmark) set into the ground is not a "cache", as it doesn't add to our total find count, but me picking up a beer can (CITO event) is a "cache". As is me having dinner (traditional event) with friends. A sinkhole (earthcache) also qualifies as a "cache" by their definition. For the time being, a bronze plaque (virtual) denoting some historical event, and a digital camera (webcam cache) hooked to the Internet have been grandfathered into the definition of "cache". In the past, they defined a location that had some specific quality, such as a street sign that displayed your name (locationless) as a "cache", though they recanted that definition several years ago.

 

I'm mostly OK with that, as they get to define "cache" in any way they choose, as the word applies to this website.

I think, as the game and the website evolve, we'll see these definitions change.

What form that change will take is beyond my ability to guess.

 

Earlier, someone suggested that Waymarks be included in the "Geocaches Found" column on our profiles. I'd love to see this, so long as they follow the Benchmark example, and don't include them in the total cache finds count. Heck, I'll go one step further and say I'd like CITOs, Events, Earthcaches, Locationless, Virtuals and Webcam Caches removed from our total caches found count. Will I ever see that happen? Let's just say I'm unwilling to hold my breath.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Clan Riffster

[+Semper Questio]

I'd very much like to see a return of virtuals as I've stated on these forums time and again. But I can accept if the owners of the sandbox don't want them in their sandbox.

 

I'll go Clan Riffster one better. If virtuals are not going to be allowed because of no concealed container with a log, then I'd like to see some consistency and ban earthcaches (no container or log), events (usually no container and/or no log and/or no GPS required to get there), and benchmarking (no container, no log) should all go away or be moved to their own website as well.

 

Pick one way or the other and drop the double standard.

[CoyoteRed]

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

If TPTB would remove events, CITOs, earthcaches, virts, locationless and cameras from our "Found Caches" stats while they are at it, I'd start bowing to the West.

I'd be in favor of changing the count to "caches found" and not "found it logs written" as it really is today.

 

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

There's a series in Frisco, Texas that also takes you on a tour of many of the sculptures in that town. But they did it with actual caches. The only reason I can think of for wanting to do the same thing as virtuals, is that it lets you be a lazy cache owner.

Same here. We have a beginners cache that takes you to several of a park's bronze statues and it ends in a regular sized cache.

 

There are some places where you just can't place a cache, either because there's nowhere to hide it, or because it's not allowed.

We have a SAW can hidden where most modern cachers would claim you couldn't hide a cache or, if so, only a micro. All you really need to do is have a bit of imagination. Most folks only camo nanos for hiding in plain sight or in extremely high traffic areas. Much larger caches can be hidden, too, but folks are simply choosing to not so so. Why?

 

Of course, banned caching is a different story, but not allowing virtuals has a strong tie with that. No, virtuals aren't just as good as a real, physical cache.

 

obody argues that virtuals should not be brought back, except Briansnat --who says no box, no log, not a geocache...

Hey I'm not the only one. There's, ummm. Well I forget his name but he agrees with me.

That would be me. (I'm sure among others.)

 

I'm very much against bringing virtuals back to this side. I wasn't even in favor of grandfathering the ones that were here. I wasn't in favor of bringing back Earthcaches. There should have been a clean break from all virtual caches. Groundspeak should dump the design of WM.com and make something easier to use. ...or at least read a book on usability, or two.

[+Cardinal Red]

obody argues that virtuals should not be brought back, except Briansnat --who says no box, no log, not a geocache...

 

Hey I'm not the only one. There's, ummm. Well I forget his name but he agrees with me.

I agree.

[4wheelin_fool]

obody argues that virtuals should not be brought back, except Briansnat --who says no box, no log, not a geocache...

 

Hey I'm not the only one. There's, ummm. Well I forget his name but he agrees with me.

 

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt ?

[+Prime Suspect]

The only reason I can think of for wanting to do the same thing as virtuals, is that it lets you be a lazy cache owner.

 

There are some places where you just can't place a cache, either because there's nowhere to hide it, or because it's not allowed.

 

In my area, we often use monuments and other objects in multi-caches - instead of hiding caches or tags, cachers use something from the monument to figure out the next step. This is a good way to get people to notice these monuments, and it's a good way to geocache in spots where hiding a container simply isn't an option.

 

Calling cachers "lazy" for coming up with different solutions seems rather unnecessary, to me. What is with all the name-calling?

I agree that Prime Suspect shouldn't be calling people lazy but his point was the same as you make in your response.

 

Back in the day when virtual caches could be published they often weren't because the "Wow" requirement.

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as a virtual cache". People would complain when their sign, marker, or monument was turned down as a virtual cache, often complaining that "there are some places where you just can't place a cache so it should be allowed here". The suggestion was often made to use the sign, marker, or monument as a waypoint in a multicache. That would be a good way to get someone to visit the monument you wanted to take them to and still be able to find a geocache with a log to sign. In addition to dealing with the "Wow" requirement, the use of a sign, marker, or monument this way also avoids the problem of a cache owner having to to respond to emails with the verification for a virutal cache. Instead the answer would be used to derive the coordinates of a physical cache and the finder could log it online once they signed the log in the physical cache. With the grandfathering of virtual caches this option for including monuments, signs, tombstones, statues, and historic markers in a geocache remains. Virtually any virtual can be turned into a multi-cached with a physical final.

That's correct. And I would suggest that you ask any reviewer who was reviewing back in the "Wow factor" days, how many of those people actually converted their virtual submission to a physical cache, incorporating the virtual into the cache hunt. I'd bet it's 15% or less.

[+Prime Suspect]

My favourite virtual caches have been ones where the description is a little vague or mysterious, and then the location is a bit of a surprise. I found many virtual caches last summer and found some very memorable virtual caches in Gettysburg, PA, Washington, DC, and Savannah, GA.

And some of my favorite physical caches have done the same thing. I don't get your point.

[+tozainamboku]

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

If TPTB would remove events, CITOs, earthcaches, virts, locationless and cameras from our "Found Caches" stats while they are at it, I'd start bowing to the West.

I'd be in favor of changing the count to "caches found" and not "found it logs written" as it really is today.

Good luck getting agreement on caches found. Perhaps a count of unique GC numbers on which you have logged one or more finds is doable. But you'd have people who found a grandfathered moving cache multiple time who would complain that their count doesn't actually show the number of unique cache finds they have.

 

If we did like Clan Riffster wants and remove from the count events, CITOs, EarthCaches, virtuals, webcams, and locationless, at least you would have to deal with multiple finds on a locationless caches (which was legitimate) or using Attended logs to get "credit" for temporary caches hidden at an event.

 

Personally I think bringing the issue of whether or not to count these as finds is silly; it has nothing to do with whether or not to list these on the Geocaching.com site. When locationless existed, I never logged a single locationless. To me they weren't caches. When their imminent demise was announced I still didn't log one. Some people who had never done one ran out to do at least one so they could have the icon. To me if was something I didn't want to count, I simply didn't log it. It didn't bother me that other people would log these as finds and or that they had fun doing so. (I wrote a long explanation of why I did log the virtuals I found and even hid one of my own, but that is another story, so snip...)

[Clan Riffster]

When locationless existed, I never logged a single locationless. To me they weren't caches.

That's how I feel about virtuals, events, CITOs, Earthcaches and webcams. To my admittedly narrow and biased definition, these are not caches. I still log them with the appropriate selection from the drop down menu, as the good folks who run this site consider them to be caches. If that were to change, and my find stats for my virtuals, events, CITOs, Earthcaches and webcams went away, I'd be OK with that.

 

If I had been here for the Locationless, I would've logged one... 'cuz I'm an icon junkie.

[+humboldt flier]

When locationless existed, I never logged a single locationless. To me they weren't caches.

That's how I feel about virtuals, events, CITOs, Earthcaches and webcams. To my admittedly narrow and biased definition, these are not caches. I still log them with the appropriate selection from the drop down menu, as the good folks who run this site consider them to be caches. If that were to change, and my find stats for my virtuals, events, CITOs, Earthcaches and webcams went away, I'd be OK with that.

 

If I had been here for the Locationless, I would've logged one... 'cuz I'm an icon junkie.

 

Regarding the theme " No Box, No Log, No Cache "

 

How about many of those " Prevarication " or " Harvey " related caches ... where there may or may not be a physical cache.

 

I have played the " Prevarication / Harvey " games and have gotten into the game, however, I have yet to claim a smiley ... why, I do not know.

 

I, however, would like virtuals to reappear.

 

If the Waymarking site was more like the GC.com site I might be more inclined to play in that arena, however, as earlier stated. YUK to the Waymarking site

[+Markwell]

Regarding the theme " No Box, No Log, No Cache "

 

How about many of those " Prevarication " or " Harvey " related caches ... where there may or may not be a physical cache.

 

I have played the " Prevarication / Harvey " games and have gotten into the game, however, I have yet to claim a smiley ... why, I do not know.

 

I've never heard of these, and I bet if those in charge of the site heard about these, they'd be shut down...

[+simpjkee]

Nobody argues that virtuals should not be brought back

 

I argue that they should not be brought back. I don't want to see them come back. In fact, I think when they 'grandfathered' them, they shoulda just archived them all like locationless caches, instead of letting them stick around so people could cling to the ones left over.........yeah, i said it.

 

Keep the 'virtuals' as waymarks!

[+bittsen]

What is a virtual cache?

[GOF and Bacall]

What is a virtual cache?

 

It's just a location to visit. Often they required one to identify an object or post a picture or some such ALR. Now days they have their own site. It's called "Waymarking".

[+bittsen]

What is a virtual cache?

 

It's just a location to visit. Often they required one to identify an object or post a picture or some such ALR. Now days they have their own site. It's called "Waymarking".

So people want to get smileys for sight-seeing?

 

That's just insane.

[+simpjkee]

What is a virtual cache?

 

It's just a location to visit. Often they required one to identify an object or post a picture or some such ALR. Now days they have their own site. It's called "Waymarking".

So people want to get smileys for sight-seeing?

 

That's just insane.

 

In some cases now, sight-seeing is optional.

[GOF and Bacall]

What is a virtual cache?

 

It's just a location to visit. Often they required one to identify an object or post a picture or some such ALR. Now days they have their own site. It's called "Waymarking".

So people want to get smileys for sight-seeing?

 

That's just insane.

 

Sight seeing is the only reason I geocache. It is all about the journey.

[+narcissa]

My favourite virtual caches have been ones where the description is a little vague or mysterious, and then the location is a bit of a surprise. I found many virtual caches last summer and found some very memorable virtual caches in Gettysburg, PA, Washington, DC, and Savannah, GA.

And some of my favorite physical caches have done the same thing. I don't get your point.

 

I don't have brain damage, so when I go to find a physical cache, it's not a surprise to find a container with a logbook.

 

When I go to find a virtual, it's often unclear what I'm looking for until I get there, and I enjoy that mystery. That's my point.

 

Is there a point to you attacking me for making a perfectly innocuous comment about caches I like?

[+narcissa]

 

I argue that they should not be brought back. I don't want to see them come back. In fact, I think when they 'grandfathered' them, they shoulda just archived them all like locationless caches, instead of letting them stick around so people could cling to the ones left over.........yeah, i said it.

 

Keep the 'virtuals' as waymarks!

 

Okay fine... but also fix the Waymarking site so it doesn't suck.

[+simpjkee]

 

I argue that they should not be brought back. I don't want to see them come back. In fact, I think when they 'grandfathered' them, they shoulda just archived them all like locationless caches, instead of letting them stick around so people could cling to the ones left over.........yeah, i said it.

 

Keep the 'virtuals' as waymarks!

 

Okay fine... but also fix the Waymarking site so it doesn't suck.

 

Agreed!