Jump to content

Virtual and locationless caches


Wile E

Recommended Posts

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :anitongue:

 

Digitalgoddess

Mulvane,Kansas

 

I agree Bring Back Virtuals

Link to comment

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.

We have a Winner!!!!

Wait a minute Prime. You have logged two Virtuals and bittsen has logged three Events. Why did you log "caches" you seem to agree are insane? And why does bitson think it's insane to log sightseeing but not socializing? And don't bother checking my profile for either. I don't log them.

Link to comment

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.

We have a Winner!!!!

Gosh we get smileys for taking a geology test - that's called an EarthCache.

 

For virtuals got you a smiley because you used your GPS to go and find something. At least that was the way it was supposed to work. The guideline for virtual caches required that

  1. There was a unique physical object that could be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates, that the cacher could find.
  2. This object was novel, of interest to other players, and had a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.
  3. There was something that could be asked about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location would be able to answer.

If the virtual met the above requirements (and they all should have because these were the requirements for listing virtual caches) then they were not simply sight-seeing but a reasonable substitute for a cache container to be found at the location. Unfortunately when new virtual caches could be submitted, many people tried to use them to list waymarks (there was no Waymarking.com yet). Sometimes they would make modifications that the reviewers asked for to get them listed as virtual caches. Still many ended up looking like you are just being given a location for sight seeing and any verification you needed to do was just there to satisfy some reviewer. There was no particular object to find. Just log a "Found It" and get a smiley.

 

Perhaps some day people will understand the difference between a waymark and a geocache. Until then it's probably a good idea to not allow new virtual caches on Geocaching.com. If someone has a neat place they want to share, they can list it on Waymarking.com. That is where it belongs, even if that site has a terrible interface. (I personally find it rather easy to find waymarks in the categories I'm interested in, so I'm not sure what it is about the site that people hate so much. Yes, there are some features that could be added to make visiting waymarks easier but I remember when I would geocache by printing out a few cache pages for the cache I was going to go look for.) If you have a idea for using an existing object as part of a geocache, then use it as virtual stage in a multi-stage cache and hide a container and log book for the final stage. Or if you can't do that, look at Waymarking and propose a category with the guidelines you think make something into a virtual cache and not just another waymark. Eventually the waymarkers will complain about all the categories that shouldn't be waymarks and perhaps some of these will get moved back to Geocaching.com. :anitongue:

Link to comment

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.

We have a Winner!!!!

Wait a minute Prime. You have logged two Virtuals and bittsen has logged three Events. Why did you log "caches" you seem to agree are insane? And why does bitson think it's insane to log sightseeing but not socializing? And don't bother checking my profile for either. I don't log them.

 

Less than 10% of my 347 personalities are insane, I'll have you know.

Link to comment

[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]

 

HA.. Good Luck... I want them back as well, but have resigned myself to the fact that we can have Geocaches in Space, but No Virtuals ir Locationless caches here.

 

The Steaks

Link to comment

 

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! :D

 

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

 

Agreed! ;)

People in this thread keep saying the site sucks and is broken, but no one has said what they find wrong with it. Castle Mischief has come the closest, but those complaints are addressed by the filters. I admit I may just be used to it having used it for a few years, and I can think of some ways to improve it, but I think it's a long way from broken and sucking. I'm honestly curious what more people would like from it. Pocket Queries, okay, yes, I'd like those too, but that's not the website.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

Daaaaaaaaang, I love stirring the pot. My day is not complete until I have ticked at least one person off. And this thread in all of it's carnations and re-incarnations is a wonderful place to start.

 

I am bummed that the virtual category has gone gone bye-bye. However, as has been noted by others there are work-arounds to keep important sites in the fore.

 

I recently stumbled upon a marker commemorating a baseball game involving the opposing pitchers throwing for 26 innings without the use of relievers. Yeppppppper, I worked around the ban on virtuals. Granted the work around was a bit of a pain, however, ...

 

( Pro game, early 1900's Boston Braves, vs Dodgers tied 1-1 called due to darkness. Joe Oeschger and Lew Cadore were the hurlers - no relief pitchers)

 

Geeeeee, maybe there is a memorial garden where I could go to grieve and lament the loss of the virtual category. Anything to ease the loss, the angst, the sting, the pain of separation.

 

Naaaaahhhhhhhhhh ... I will just show up here from time to time and cry in my iced tea while I stir things up.

 

Cache on cache warriors

Link to comment

 

People in this thread keep saying the site sucks and is broken, but no one has said what they find wrong with it. Castle Mischief has come the closest, but those complaints are addressed by the filters. I admit I may just be used to it having used it for a few years, and I can think of some ways to improve it, but I think it's a long way from broken and sucking. I'm honestly curious what more people would like from it. Pocket Queries, okay, yes, I'd like those too, but that's not the website.

 

If you read the thread a little more carefully, you'll see that several people have addressed the shortcomings in a fairly comprehensive manner.

 

I've been using Geocaching.com for several years, but when I go over to Waymarking, the site seems cluttered and difficult to use. I have no motivation to learn how to use the site and I'm just not interested in logging visits on an entirely different system. If it was somehow more integrated with Geocaching.com, or worked more similarly to Geocaching.com, I might have more interest.

Link to comment

 

People in this thread keep saying the site sucks and is broken, but no one has said what they find wrong with it. Castle Mischief has come the closest, but those complaints are addressed by the filters. I admit I may just be used to it having used it for a few years, and I can think of some ways to improve it, but I think it's a long way from broken and sucking. I'm honestly curious what more people would like from it. Pocket Queries, okay, yes, I'd like those too, but that's not the website.

 

If you read the thread a little more carefully, you'll see that several people have addressed the shortcomings in a fairly comprehensive manner.

 

I've been using Geocaching.com for several years, but when I go over to Waymarking, the site seems cluttered and difficult to use. I have no motivation to learn how to use the site and I'm just not interested in logging visits on an entirely different system. If it was somehow more integrated with Geocaching.com, or worked more similarly to Geocaching.com, I might have more interest.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as cluttered, and so I don't know what could be changed to make it less so. What functionality can't you find?

 

I do think a brief, easy-to-find primer up front explaining the waymark/category/group relationships would be a big help to people.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

 

People in this thread keep saying the site sucks and is broken, but no one has said what they find wrong with it. Castle Mischief has come the closest, but those complaints are addressed by the filters. I admit I may just be used to it having used it for a few years, and I can think of some ways to improve it, but I think it's a long way from broken and sucking. I'm honestly curious what more people would like from it. Pocket Queries, okay, yes, I'd like those too, but that's not the website.

 

If you read the thread a little more carefully, you'll see that several people have addressed the shortcomings in a fairly comprehensive manner.

 

I've been using Geocaching.com for several years, but when I go over to Waymarking, the site seems cluttered and difficult to use. I have no motivation to learn how to use the site and I'm just not interested in logging visits on an entirely different system. If it was somehow more integrated with Geocaching.com, or worked more similarly to Geocaching.com, I might have more interest.

 

It sucks, and it's boring, and it's stupid! That's why I call it 'whybothermarking'. The one I did submit (as a favor to some friends), I found to be tougher than reading 49 CFR, or preparing income tax forms!

What they did was to take something interesting (Virtual and Locationless caches), and water it down with drivel. Maybe I should start a category for 'Newspaper Boxes'? Whybothermarking???

Link to comment
People in this thread keep saying the site sucks and is broken, but no one has said what they find wrong with it. Castle Mischief has come the closest, but those complaints are addressed by the filters. I admit I may just be used to it having used it for a few years, and I can think of some ways to improve it, but I think it's a long way from broken and sucking. I'm honestly curious what more people would like from it. Pocket Queries, okay, yes, I'd like those too, but that's not the website.
If a lack of PQ's isn't website related, what is it? :D

 

That aside, I've fiddled around on the WM website a couple times, and this thread spurred me back for another look. Here's a few things I didn't like:

  • One thing I like to do on GC.com is use the Google Maps & pan around to see where I want to go. Other than the little itty-bitty map, like the one on this Zip-Code search page, is there a way to browse a map? If so, it's a little too well hidden, and hiding basic features is bad design. If not, having a location based activity that doesn't utilize maps is also bad design.
  • The first four waymarks on the page I linked above are actually just two locations. Just a bit further down is Madison Boulder, listed three times. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Shouldn't this be streamlined somehow?
  • Just generally navigating around the site seems, well, wonky to me.

The second two issues are not primary on my concern list, but leave me thinking "Meh. . ."

Link to comment
People in this thread keep saying the site sucks and is broken, but no one has said what they find wrong with it. Castle Mischief has come the closest, but those complaints are addressed by the filters. I admit I may just be used to it having used it for a few years, and I can think of some ways to improve it, but I think it's a long way from broken and sucking. I'm honestly curious what more people would like from it. Pocket Queries, okay, yes, I'd like those too, but that's not the website.
If a lack of PQ's isn't website related, what is it? :D

Well, as I see it I can set up PQs and never visit the site again. They're a separate service of Groundspeak.

 

That aside, I've fiddled around on the WM website a couple times, and this thread spurred me back for another look. Here's a few things I didn't like:
  • One thing I like to do on GC.com is use the Google Maps & pan around to see where I want to go. Other than the little itty-bitty map, like the one on this Zip-Code search page, is there a way to browse a map? If so, it's a little too well hidden, and hiding basic features is bad design. If not, having a location based activity that doesn't utilize maps is also bad design.
  • The first four waymarks on the page I linked above are actually just two locations. Just a bit further down is Madison Boulder, listed three times. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Shouldn't this be streamlined somehow?
  • Just generally navigating around the site seems, well, wonky to me.

The second two issues are not primary on my concern list, but leave me thinking "Meh. . ."

Those are good examples, thanks. A lot of people do get confused about multiple listings of one site. It would be cool if those would be collapsible. I'm not sure how you'd do that -- identical coordinates might be for different objects, and identical objects might not be easily (automatically) identified as such.

 

Maps -- I agree, fixing that would probably help the problem of people posting but rarely visiting waymarks (which would be the analog of virtuals).

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
If a lack of PQ's isn't website related, what is it? <_<

 

That aside, I've fiddled around on the WM website a couple times, and this thread spurred me back for another look. Here's a few things I didn't like:

  • One thing I like to do on GC.com is use the Google Maps & pan around to see where I want to go. Other than the little itty-bitty map, like the one on this Zip-Code search page, is there a way to browse a map? If so, it's a little too well hidden, and hiding basic features is bad design. If not, having a location based activity that doesn't utilize maps is also bad design.
  • The first four waymarks on the page I linked above are actually just two locations. Just a bit further down is Madison Boulder, listed three times. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Shouldn't this be streamlined somehow?
  • Just generally navigating around the site seems, well, wonky to me.

The second two issues are not primary on my concern list, but leave me thinking "Meh. . ."

 

What he just said.

 

And I've tried the filters- once I filtered out sites that I've already visited because there were caches there, all I was left with were locations that already exist in my Nuvi under the "Fast Food" category (to be fair, there were some caches there too.) Waymarking just doesn't click with me. I don't know what it is exactly. I'll play around on it later and see if I can quantify it.

 

As far as logging virtuals/earthcaches/events, etc and them not really being true "caches". I don't get to caught up in what's what. If it's someplace that I want to check out or someplace I'm going to be anyway I'll go for the smiley. I'm not a numbers freak, but yeah I do find some sense of satisfaction watching my caching odometer click over to numbers that end in zeros. If the website lets your claim a smiley, then I've got no problems doing what needs to be done to get it.

Link to comment

I believe virtuals should be allowed again but the guidelines need to be refined (I wouldn't want a virtual of your favorite McDonalds ad). However, locationless caches, though neat, are apparently VERY difficult to keep track of and log for Groundspeak.

 

<_<

Did you know that there were specific requirements for placing a virtual cache? Do ever hear about the "Wow" requirement?

 

Not just anyplace could be turned into a virtual cache. The location had to be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that set it apart from everyday subject. There were also very specific requirements for how the owner of a virtual cache was to verify that cachers actually found their cache. These requirements did not stop people from attempting to make virtuals at McDonalds restaurants or any of a whole range of places that are better suited to being waymarks. Nor did they prevent owners of these virtuals from allowing couch potato logs and in some case even encouraging these logs.

 

If you could give us specific wording of the requirements that would only result in good virtual caches and that would be understandable by all geocachers so the reviewers aren't once agained bogged down reviewing submissions from people who just don't understand the difference between a waymark and a virtuals cache, then perhaps they could be brought back.

 

 

A more general comment -

 

I think that both sides of the argument are missing that there are differencec between a generic waymark and the more specific concept of a virtual cache.

 

The pro-Waymarking folks are fond of saying that anything that could have been listed as a virtual cache could be made into a waymark - and while this is true it forgets that these would be mixed in with all the generic waymarks. The fun of discovery of new places without worrying about what category it was in, and the not knowing what you needed to find there to meet the verification requirement until you got to the spot and looked are not found in most waymarks. The fact that most waymarks don't even have a verification requirement beyond asking for a picture, certainly seems to miss one aspect that made virtual caches seem like finding something and not just sight seeing.

 

The bring back virtual side, complains that the Waymarking site is full of lame categories. They can't seem to navigate the site to find the kinds places where they can get an experience similar to virtual caches. They can't combine Waymarking and geocaching easily. One needs to recognize that there is a whole community who view Waymarking differently than virtual caches. There are some people who simply find the idea of a user built database of waymarks in both interesting and mundane categorize as worthwhile in itself. There are others who want to use Waymarking to get lists of interesting places to visit. They can filter on the categories they find interesting and get the coordinates of place to visit and even download these to their GPS. And they don't have to meet some silly requirement to verify their find. They can just visit and get the satisfaction of having gone to some neat place and at most only need to add a picture to the gallery. And while many do count there number of waymarks visited, some enjoy simply making the visit and if they didn't take a picture or have anything to share, they have no need to log their visit.

 

The Waymarking site is setup for these people and it works quite well for most of them, thank you. Geocachers complaining because this isn't what they are used to are missing the point of Waymarking. Ideally, there would be a few categories like Best Kept Secrets that are setup to provide a virtual cache experience without effecting how others are using Waymarking. Geocacher could to focus on just these categories for neat virtual cache like experience and ignore every other category including the ones you think are lame. Whether a waymark is listed in more than one category should not matter to the cacher. It only does because you are viewing getting a credit for a visit in each category like getting a find on geocache. If you only want to count one visit to a physical location, you are not forced to log the waymark in every category.

 

<My personal rant about the Waymarking site>

Of course that brings up what I think is one of the most irrational things about the Waymarking site: while with one physical visit I can log visits in multiple categories, for some unexplained reason, Waymarking will only allow one visit per waymark in a given category. If I go back to visit the same waymark again, the Waymarking site won't let me log it. The fact that is setup that way is something I can't explain and it only makes it harder when I try to explain why logging of visits seems to be far less important to waymarkers than logging of finds is to geocachers. When Waymarking started out it was clearly stated that the term visit was used so we wouldn't have the angst over multiple finds that some people have in geocaching. Yet later the site was changed to prevent multiple visits. WHY?

</rant>

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 admit that I would waymark more if this were the case.

 

But there is a huge problem. For the few of us who cache for the numbers people could go from 100 to 1000 finds in a matter of days. In a popular area of a city there could be 100+ waymarks in a mile (I think).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong I'm still a (kinda) newb.

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.

 

Good idea!! We have one section on our public profiles that says "Geocaches." There could be another one called "Waymarks." Why not?? That way people who earned their cache finds wouldn't have to lose their admiration/respect (for lack of a better word). And that would probably attract more waymarkers (including me -- i found one -- never did it again).

Link to comment

Long time listener, first time caller (well, almost).

 

I have been reading up on the subject for quite a while, old closed threads, and this newer one. It seems there is some change about, and the alternative is not GENERALLY accepted (at least within this string). I too went to Waymarking (no offering of alternative spelling, sorry) and was alienated by the interface, lack of GC.com-like PQ’s, and a lot of what I considered “noise”.

 

When I attempted to search for webcams, it came up with:

There are no categories that fit the criteria you selected.

 

Then I did a query for my local area came up with a lot of “Date Approved” in 2007/2008, but “Last visited” never. I consider the area I live in (San Diego) to be a very cache-rich area, and we still have quite a few Virtuals. Very supportive and active caching community. I don’t see the Waymarking side getting much action here.

 

I have done a few Virtuals, and loved them all. The argument that has been used in the past of “the CO doesn’t keep up with the finders” doesn’t float with me. If you aren’t maintaining your cache, it gets archived! Virtual, Multi or Traditional. That includes keeping up with the requirements the CO sets!

 

The “WOW” factor :) needs to get a facelift. Call it “Educational value”, which is what I have gained completing the virtuals in my area. LIKE VIRTUALS, Earth-caches all have a form of requirements you need to submit to the CO (send me an e-mail, include a picture, answer a question) to get credit. So in essence, it’s an “educational” virtual, but only about EARTH sciences. Aren’t there other sciences? What about historical “educational” information, where physical caches are not allowed? Then there’s the “Wow”. Not a lot of that in (yawn) Earth-caches, but it DOES have educational value!

 

There’s an alternate argument out there that uses a Multi (look at a plaque/mile marker/count stones, etc) that takes you to the “virtual” location, but ends in a physical cache. You can dip into the area of protective status, and find the location of the final (outside the area).

 

Bring back the Virtual? Ah, yes, there is the problem with “chaff”, the “junk”, caches no one cares about (except the owner, I’m sure). A lot can be said about traditionals in the same way. Just because there’s a green electrical box, doesn’t mean it needs an altoid tin! Every supermarket doesn’t need something under a light skirt! Number counters love them, not much of a challenge. So there’s a limiting location requirement (not within XX of another physical cache).

 

The Waymarking side? Last time I checked, just about any GPSr now has all the fast-food joints, and other “noise” if you’re looking for it. Smart phones too! For me, it’s not logging that I visited a fast-food joint, it’s that I stealthily found the item BEHIND the fast-food joint (thus, the Game aspect).

 

Sorry if I took some thoughts and added another twist. Earthcache.org is linked to GC.com, there are letterbox “hybrids”.

 

Virtuals? Is it really that difficult? <_<:D

Link to comment

 

I consider the area I live in (San Diego) to be a very cache-rich area, and we still have quite a few Virtuals. Very supportive and active caching community. I don’t see the Waymarking side getting much action here.......

 

The Waymarking side? Last time I checked, just about any GPSr now has all the fast-food joints, and other “noise” if you’re looking for it. Smart phones too! For me, it’s not logging that I visited a fast-food joint, it’s that I stealthily found the item BEHIND the fast-food joint (thus, the Game aspect).

 

 

I just did a search of San Diego and there are 3829 waymarks within 100 miles. Of the first 200 locations I found about 5 (give or take) that were fast food and very few stacked locations. Add the Chinese food joints and the location that was featured in the tv show Diners Drive Ins and Dives and you had around ten-fifteen commercial listings out of the first 200. Oh and don't forget the three 7-11's. There's the noise that most people claim to not like in Waymarking.

 

The murals (69 locations), Artistically Painted Utility Boxes (35 locations), National Register of Historic Places (50 locations) and most of the other locations found in the San Diego area are not found on my GPSr unless I add them to my unit with the help of Waymarking.com and GSAK.

Link to comment

I agree. If we can't have virtuals then why do we have Earth caches?

 

I think Earthcaches are an exception only because they had a sponsor and a program outside of geocaching. They don't really belong on geocaching.com in my opinion since they have no container. They did move for a time but I think the unique agreement between the two groups brought them back here.

 

I'm trying to find the Waymarking Guidelines on the website. I found the "Terms of use". Anyone have a link to the guidelines?

 

Each category is created by individual waymarkers who had an interest in that category.

 

The category is created with its own guidelines so each category may be different. You have to look at each category to see what is required for posting a waymark to that particular cat. Some are difficult some are easy. Many are mundane categories but some are fascinating to track and follow.

 

Mostly the requirements are as below but many grow beyond this.

1) accurate coords

2) 1 or two photos of the location (but not always)

3) Some cats require a GPSr photo

4) Rarely a verification or proof question...(most of these have been abandoned over the years)

 

Visit requirements vary from category to category as well since they are user generated. The category goes through a peer review process and a final approval from Groundspeak before it goes live.

Edited by TheBeanTeam
Link to comment

 

People in this thread keep saying the site sucks and is broken, but no one has said what they find wrong with it. Castle Mischief has come the closest, but those complaints are addressed by the filters. I admit I may just be used to it having used it for a few years, and I can think of some ways to improve it, but I think it's a long way from broken and sucking. I'm honestly curious what more people would like from it. Pocket Queries, okay, yes, I'd like those too, but that's not the website.

 

If you read the thread a little more carefully, you'll see that several people have addressed the shortcomings in a fairly comprehensive manner.

 

I've been using Geocaching.com for several years, but when I go over to Waymarking, the site seems cluttered and difficult to use. I have no motivation to learn how to use the site and I'm just not interested in logging visits on an entirely different system. If it was somehow more integrated with Geocaching.com, or worked more similarly to Geocaching.com, I might have more interest.

Hmmmmmm, Perhaps if there were a greater degree of integration ... great thought ... most worthy of consideration. IMHO

Link to comment

I'm trying to find the Waymarking Guidelines on the website. I found the "Terms of use". Anyone have a link to the guidelines?

As TheBeanTeam responded, each category set it's own guideline for what is accepted in that category. Perhaps this is why some categories seem a bit lame while there are others that have much more strict guidelines to ensure the quality of waymarks submitted.

 

In Waymarking, any premium Groundspeak member can start a Group. Once you have at least three members, you can appoint three officers. The group can then propose a category. They write up the guidelines for waymarks in the category and whey they agree on they, they guideline go to peer review by the general Waymarking community. The peer review results in comments and suggestion and a vote as whether to accept the category. I haven't done it in a while, but I assume from seeing that new categories are being added all the time, that any reasonable category suggestion has a good chance of getting approval. Now the officer of your group become the reviewer for waymarks submitted to your category. Officers can also call for group votes on waymarks if they think that all the officers need to look at something to approve it.

 

This thread has totally derailed. How did it get from virtuals and locationless to Waymarking?

 

"Why can't we have Virtuals anymore?"

 

"Because, Waymarking."

If you look at my first response in this thread, I link to a response I made years ago to another thread on this subject. I provide there the history of virtual caches and explain the vision that I think Groundspeak had in developing the Waymarking site. This was not done initially (IMO) so that virtuals would be moved there. The real motivation was locationless caches which didn't really fit the geocache database model. But as the idea took shape it was clear that people were using virtual caches simply to share "interesting" locations. As much as the guidelines for virtual caches were changed to emphasize that they were more than just sharing an interesting place (you can put a physical cache there and it would share the location just as well), the more they read as if they purpose was to share interesting places (the Wow requirement was interpreted by many to mean that primary purpose of a virtual cache was to share an interesting place). TPTB decided that Waymarking was a better way to share interesting places. And a lot of people would agree with this assessment.

 

Waymarks are not virtual caches. But that doesn't mean that you couldn't develop categories on the Waymarking site that are more like virtual caches. Start a group. Write some guidelines. Be prepared to defend the idea in the peer review where most of the people voting are waymarkers who prefer categories that are lists of places and have a harder time understanding guidelines that emphasize discovery and education. But it doesn't mean you can't get a category like this approved. (Although it might have been easier before Waymarking Games got changed to Waymarking Multifarious)

 

If you are a premium member, you have the power in Waymarking to define a category that for all intents and purposes, other than than the geocaching smiley, is exactly the same as a virtual cache. You have the opportunity to create categories with educational requirements like EarthCaches. You have the opportunity to define new games by creating innovative categories like the Where is Your Name locationless or the International Space Station locationless - which are now Waymarking categories. But instead of grabbing the opportunity you choose to complain about not being able to post new virtuals on geocaching.com and about Waymarking not being what you would like it to be. Your complaints are pretty silly, given that you have the opportunity to do something about them and yet you don't.

Link to comment

 

If you look at my first response in this thread, I link to a response I made years ago to another thread on this subject. I provide there the history of virtual caches and explain the vision that I think Groundspeak had in developing the Waymarking site. This was not done initially (IMO) so that virtuals would be moved there. The real motivation was locationless caches which didn't really fit the geocache database model. But as the idea took shape it was clear that people were using virtual caches simply to share "interesting" locations. As much as the guidelines for virtual caches were changed to emphasize that they were more than just sharing an interesting place (you can put a physical cache there and it would share the location just as well), the more they read as if they purpose was to share interesting places (the Wow requirement was interpreted by many to mean that primary purpose of a virtual cache was to share an interesting place). TPTB decided that Waymarking was a better way to share interesting places. And a lot of people would agree with this assessment.

 

Waymarks are not virtual caches. But that doesn't mean that you couldn't develop categories on the Waymarking site that are more like virtual caches. Start a group. Write some guidelines. Be prepared to defend the idea in the peer review where most of the people voting are waymarkers who prefer categories that are lists of places and have a harder time understanding guidelines that emphasize discovery and education. But it doesn't mean you can't get a category like this approved. (Although it might have been easier before Waymarking Games got changed to Waymarking Multifarious)

 

If you are a premium member, you have the power in Waymarking to define a category that for all intents and purposes, other than than the geocaching smiley, is exactly the same as a virtual cache. You have the opportunity to create categories with educational requirements like EarthCaches. You have the opportunity to define new games by creating innovative categories like the Where is Your Name locationless or the International Space Station locationless - which are now Waymarking categories. But instead of grabbing the opportunity you choose to complain about not being able to post new virtuals on geocaching.com and about Waymarking not being what you would like it to be. Your complaints are pretty silly, given that you have the opportunity to do something about them and yet you don't.

 

Sounds great. Too bad the site is cluttered and annoying to use.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

 

I consider the area I live in (San Diego) to be a very cache-rich area, and we still have quite a few Virtuals. Very supportive and active caching community. I don’t see the Waymarking side getting much action here.......

 

The Waymarking side? Last time I checked, just about any GPSr now has all the fast-food joints, and other “noise” if you’re looking for it. Smart phones too! For me, it’s not logging that I visited a fast-food joint, it’s that I stealthily found the item BEHIND the fast-food joint (thus, the Game aspect).

 

 

I just did a search of San Diego and there are 3829 waymarks within 100 miles. Of the first 200 locations I found about 5 (give or take) that were fast food and very few stacked locations. Add the Chinese food joints and the location that was featured in the tv show Diners Drive Ins and Dives and you had around ten-fifteen commercial listings out of the first 200. Oh and don't forget the three 7-11's. There's the noise that most people claim to not like in Waymarking.

 

The murals (69 locations), Artistically Painted Utility Boxes (35 locations), National Register of Historic Places (50 locations) and most of the other locations found in the San Diego area are not found on my GPSr unless I add them to my unit with the help of Waymarking.com and GSAK.

 

As an example of the WM's in the area, 2 and sometimes 3 entries for the same thing. That's clutter. The obvious disregard for the standard "no commercial endorsements" even has special icons for the different food chains. So Waymarking is not held to this, yet also run by Groundspeak?

 

Out of the query you mention above, the following are included: 24 7-11's, 75 McDonalds, 46 Target Stores, 40 Post Offices, 18 WalMart's, 26 Jack in the Box's, etc etc etc.

 

OOOH! 55 payphones!!

 

Chaff!

Edited by balcanthez
Link to comment

As an example of the WM's in the area, 2 and sometimes 3 entries for the same thing. That's clutter. The obvious disregard for the standard "no commercial endorsements" even has special icons for the different food chains. So Waymarking is not held to this, yet also run by Groundspeak?

 

Out of the query you mention above, the following are included: 24 7-11's, 75 McDonalds, 46 Target Stores, 40 Post Offices, 18 WalMart's, 26 Jack in the Box's, etc etc etc.

 

Chaff!

It seems like clutter and chaff to you because you are trying to view waymarks as (virtual) caches.

 

WAYMARKS ARE NOT VIRTUAL CACHES.

 

Both sides should stop trying to view things in these terms.

 

The concept of a waymark is much more generic than a virtual cache. A waymark is simply something associated with a latitude and longitude and a category. If there is something associated with a latitude and longitude it fits in more than one category of waymark then it is more than one waymark. The same latitude and longitude can be associated with many waymarks. Not every waymark has an actual object assocciated with it. Some waymarks are for events, some are places where some historic event occurred, some are just because the latitude and longitude have an interesting property like a degree confluence. If the latitude and longitude can be associated with multiple categories, whether or not it is the same object, there can be multiple waymarks.

 

Waymarks are extremely flexible. Categories can be just about anything you can think of. Here's a surprise for you. Geocaches are waymarks. Imagine a category for hidden containers with log books. For traditional caches you would associate the latitude and longitude of the cache with the geocache waymark, but other types of caches could be defined as well. The cache type, size, difficulty, terrain, attributes, and hint can all be specified with category specific fields. In fact for all you know, the Geocaching.com site might simply be a version of Waymarking that has been "decluttered" to show only this one category.

 

Since waymarks are so flexible it goes almost without saying that some categories are nothing but chaff to some people. Guess what. You can setup your account on Waymarking.com to ignore categories you don't want to see. You never have to look at them. Declutter Waymarking all you want. You have control.

 

If you would accept what waymarks are, you might find the site is not so illogical as you make it out to be. Then you might be able to explore how categories can be created within Waymarking that are a better representation of what virtual caching is. If you kept sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes at least learn from the third monkey and shut your mouth.

Link to comment

 

If you would accept what waymarks are, you might find the site is not so illogical as you make it out to be. Then you might be able to explore how categories can be created within Waymarking that are a better representation of what virtual caching is. If you kept sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes at least learn from the third monkey and shut your mouth.

 

Not trying to make this personal, and I'll ignore the obvious poke above.

 

We (collectively) were asked what we thought, and what doesn't get us motivated about Waymarking. I think I (and others) have covered that pretty well. We are also expressing our opinion regarding how Groundspeak has changed the Virtual Cache, and forced it off the website. We have learned what the reasons were, and have offered possible alternate ways that the issue could have been resolved, instead of shifting them elsewhere.

Waymarks are not virtuals, that is PAINFULLY obvious! Virtuals (at least the surviving ones on GC.com) are thought out, and have a purpose. Waymarks (like the category payphones), for the most part, offer a locating service. Thank you for the filtering ability and advice. Looks like I would need a lot of filtering (initially, as you or others point out) to remove the massive amount of unwanted categories.

My awareness has been increased as to Waymarking. I'm sure that every mural, or painted electrical box, or McDonalds, or payphone I see from now on, I will wonder if it's already on the website. Sorry, I won't be adding more.

 

Excuse me, but I have to go play with my GPS in the corner now. This sand box is too crowded and narrow.

Link to comment

To each their own. Ironically, one of the reasons I geocache less and waymark more is that I prefer the searches (full text) and filtering (100% accurate) at the Waymarking site. No more do I go to a cool-sounding virtual just to find a historical marker (interesting but nothing new) or a wrecked golf cart (that's my experience with virtuals).

 

I did have an idea this morning that's unlikely to be implemented but might ultimately bridge the virtual-Waymarking gap: give every waymark an optional field for Virtual Cache Information. Waymarks that have this filled in can be downloaded in a PQ. The PQ would only indicate the Virtual Cache Information information, nothing about the name or category, so it still has the surprise element that virtuals had.

 

So in essence, a waymark owner could turn any waymark into a virtual cache by filling out this field. Maps and such would be a bigger challenge, but it would be the beginning of integration of the sites.

Link to comment

 

We (collectively) were asked what we thought, and what doesn't get us motivated about Waymarking.

 

I appreciate the honest well thought out replies. Many of the criticisms are indeed issues that have and are being discussed by waymarkers all of the time in the Waymarking forums. Unfortunately it is what it is but thankfully the site is improved all of the time.

 

Thank you for the filtering ability and advice. Looks like I would need a lot of filtering (initially, as you or others point out) to remove the massive amount of unwanted categories.

 

It could be massive amounts of filtering or it could be easy. You can ignore entire "departments" of categories with one click. So if you wanted to ignore every commercial category that can be done easily. :lol: If you like that one particular category for that one particular ice cream chain (or whatever) then you would indeed have to go in and ignore each of the categories individually. :lol:

 

 

 

I did have an idea this morning that's unlikely to be implemented but might ultimately bridge the virtual-Waymarking gap: give every waymark an optional field for Virtual Cache Information. Waymarks that have this filled in can be downloaded in a PQ. The PQ would only indicate the Virtual Cache Information information, nothing about the name or category, so it still has the surprise element that virtuals had.

 

So in essence, a waymark owner could turn any waymark into a virtual cache by filling out this field. Maps and such would be a bigger challenge, but it would be the beginning of integration of the sites.

 

I tried a variation of this approach using the variables in my earliest waymark categories. It was ignored by other waymarkers and after two years I removed the option because in that time I think only one person took advantage of the option to create a waymark that offered an option for a virtual type question and answer. When I included the virtual question option in one category I even had one person threaten to quite the group because "Waymarking is not geocaching" and didn't think it was right to try to integrate them. :)

 

The PQ idea and a field specific criteria for a virtual type visit might work but I for one would hate to get a PQ filled with commercial type locations as virts. :huh:

Link to comment

 

It seems like clutter and chaff to you because you are trying to view waymarks as (virtual) caches.

 

WAYMARKS ARE NOT VIRTUAL CACHES.

 

Both sides should stop trying to view things in these terms.

 

The concept of a waymark is much more generic than a virtual cache. A waymark is simply something associated with a latitude and longitude and a category. If there is something associated with a latitude and longitude it fits in more than one category of waymark then it is more than one waymark. The same latitude and longitude can be associated with many waymarks. Not every waymark has an actual object assocciated with it. Some waymarks are for events, some are places where some historic event occurred, some are just because the latitude and longitude have an interesting property like a degree confluence. If the latitude and longitude can be associated with multiple categories, whether or not it is the same object, there can be multiple waymarks.

 

Waymarks are extremely flexible. Categories can be just about anything you can think of. Here's a surprise for you. Geocaches are waymarks. Imagine a category for hidden containers with log books. For traditional caches you would associate the latitude and longitude of the cache with the geocache waymark, but other types of caches could be defined as well. The cache type, size, difficulty, terrain, attributes, and hint can all be specified with category specific fields. In fact for all you know, the Geocaching.com site might simply be a version of Waymarking that has been "decluttered" to show only this one category.

 

Since waymarks are so flexible it goes almost without saying that some categories are nothing but chaff to some people. Guess what. You can setup your account on Waymarking.com to ignore categories you don't want to see. You never have to look at them. Declutter Waymarking all you want. You have control.

 

If you would accept what waymarks are, you might find the site is not so illogical as you make it out to be. Then you might be able to explore how categories can be created within Waymarking that are a better representation of what virtual caching is. If you kept sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes at least learn from the third monkey and shut your mouth.

 

Again, sounds great. Again, too bad the site is cluttered and difficult to use.

 

Additionally, too bad Waymarking has been further tainted by your inexplicably hostile behaviour. Sheesh.

Link to comment

The Visiting Instructions for the McDonalds category are as follows:

 

To log this "WayMac", you must have eaten at this particular location. Please enter the items you ordered from this visit in the log description.

 

Thats insane. So to "visit" the Waymark I've got to let them rob me and make me fat at the same time? That's as disgusting as their menu. ;)

Link to comment

 

I consider the area I live in (San Diego) to be a very cache-rich area, and we still have quite a few Virtuals. Very supportive and active caching community. I don’t see the Waymarking side getting much action here.......

 

The Waymarking side? Last time I checked, just about any GPSr now has all the fast-food joints, and other “noise” if you’re looking for it. Smart phones too! For me, it’s not logging that I visited a fast-food joint, it’s that I stealthily found the item BEHIND the fast-food joint (thus, the Game aspect).

 

 

I just did a search of San Diego and there are 3829 waymarks within 100 miles. Of the first 200 locations I found about 5 (give or take) that were fast food and very few stacked locations. Add the Chinese food joints and the location that was featured in the tv show Diners Drive Ins and Dives and you had around ten-fifteen commercial listings out of the first 200. Oh and don't forget the three 7-11's. There's the noise that most people claim to not like in Waymarking.

 

The murals (69 locations), Artistically Painted Utility Boxes (35 locations), National Register of Historic Places (50 locations) and most of the other locations found in the San Diego area are not found on my GPSr unless I add them to my unit with the help of Waymarking.com and GSAK.

 

As an example of the WM's in the area, 2 and sometimes 3 entries for the same thing. That's clutter. The obvious disregard for the standard "no commercial endorsements" even has special icons for the different food chains. So Waymarking is not held to this, yet also run by Groundspeak?

 

Out of the query you mention above, the following are included: 24 7-11's, 75 McDonalds, 46 Target Stores, 40 Post Offices, 18 WalMart's, 26 Jack in the Box's, etc etc etc.

 

OOOH! 55 payphones!!

 

Chaff!

 

Yep some are chaff.....in your opinion. Someone very wise said leave the chaff with the wheat and let the reapers sort it out......

 

Love those filters.

 

With the help of someone else (read I am not smart enough on my own) here are some statistics for the nearest 50 miles.

 

"...here are the stats for a 50 mile radius.

 

Total Waymarks 1541

Business 270

18%

Culture 223

14%

Technology 204

13%

History 200

13%

Monuments 119

8%

Buildings 109

7%

Structures 98

6%

 

The other 21% are spread across there remaining 8 departments"

 

This means that 82% are not McDonalds (or any other commercial type waymark) but the way some talk its the other way around.

 

Actually 18% for all commercial categories is high. Most areas are under 10%. For some reason in your area there is a higher percentage of commercial waymarks. Usually the history category is the highest in percentages.

 

Personally I do not like/prefer the commercial cats either but think that they do have a place in the scheme of things.

Edited by TheBeanTeam
Link to comment

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.

We have a Winner!!!!

I don't why you shouldn't after all you get smileys for lifting lamp skirts and feeling up pine trees, why shouldn't I get a smiley for sightseeing?

 

Bring back virtuals please. ;)

Link to comment

If you are a premium member, you have the power in Waymarking to define a category that for all intents and purposes, other than than the geocaching smiley, is exactly the same as a virtual cache. You have the opportunity to create categories with educational requirements like EarthCaches. You have the opportunity to define new games by creating innovative categories like the Where is Your Name locationless or the International Space Station locationless - which are now Waymarking categories. But instead of grabbing the opportunity you choose to complain about not being able to post new virtuals on geocaching.com and about Waymarking not being what you would like it to be. Your complaints are pretty silly, given that you have the opportunity to do something about them and yet you don't.

 

It would serve you well to read the thread before just rambling on aimlessly. I never said that I wanted to place new virtuals. I never said I don't like Waymarking, on the contrary, I use POI Factory all the time for our Nuvi, which is simply a better organized version of Waymarking. I don't like Waymarking as GS has it set up. I will admit to mentioning the the fact that Waymarking is not accepted by most and pretty much dead. You can argue it, but it simply will not change that it is not thriving as you would have us believe.

 

My point was, and you agree with it in a post after the quoted one, Waymarking is not virtuals. Every time this comes up people, yourself included, derail the conversation and say that they were replaced by Waymarking. It would be much simpler to just say "virtuals are gone, deal with it" as I did in an early post. Maybe even a discussion of why the were discontinued rather than constantly evangelizing to try to save the other web site.

Link to comment

If you are a premium member, you have the power in Waymarking to define a category that for all intents and purposes, other than than the geocaching smiley, is exactly the same as a virtual cache. You have the opportunity to create categories with educational requirements like EarthCaches. You have the opportunity to define new games by creating innovative categories like the Where is Your Name locationless or the International Space Station locationless - which are now Waymarking categories. But instead of grabbing the opportunity you choose to complain about not being able to post new virtuals on geocaching.com and about Waymarking not being what you would like it to be. Your complaints are pretty silly, given that you have the opportunity to do something about them and yet you don't.

 

It would serve you well to read the thread before just rambling on aimlessly. I never said that I wanted to place new virtuals. I never said I don't like Waymarking, on the contrary, I use POI Factory all the time for our Nuvi, which is simply a better organized version of Waymarking. I don't like Waymarking as GS has it set up. I will admit to mentioning the the fact that Waymarking is not accepted by most and pretty much dead. You can argue it, but it simply will not change that it is not thriving as you would have us believe.

 

My point was, and you agree with it in a post after the quoted one, Waymarking is not virtuals. Every time this comes up people, yourself included, derail the conversation and say that they were replaced by Waymarking. It would be much simpler to just say "virtuals are gone, deal with it" as I did in an early post. Maybe even a discussion of why the were discontinued rather than constantly evangelizing to try to save the other web site.

I was pointing out that unlike POI Factory which seems to be a site for sharing POI files and other sites that also are setup for sharing locations, Waymarking was setup to be flexible and allow you to use the underlying database is some pretty creative ways. That could be why some people who are simply interested in sharing the coordinates of interesting locations find it difficult. First there are lots of categories, sometimes there is some overlap and often you will find a place that belongs in more than one category; some people find that confusing. Next, category owners have guidelines for reporting a waymark that are specific to the category; many categories require you to fill in category specific information specific information. If you just want to report on a WiFi hot spot why must you know:

# Connection Type

# DHCP IP's Given Out

# Is WEP Key on or off?

# Pay Network

# SSID or Network Name

 

Some people get frustrated at what they perceive to be unnecessary complexity.

 

I look at the flexibility of Waymarking as it's strength. Once people learn what you can do with it, I believe there will all kinds of information that isn't available on other POI sites, and more ways to filter the information to get just the waymarks you want. More important, I see it as place for creating new GPS based games. If geocaching had not already been invented, someone could have proposed a category for hidden Tupperware and given coordinates and hints for people to find it. I am simply trying to encourage people to see the other things than you can do on Waymarking. If you find it is derailing the conversation of people who want to bring back vituals, I'm sorry. I know, like you, that virtuals are not going to come back to Geocaching.com. I just happen to believe that if people really believe that there was more to a virtual cache that just a POI that you visited, that they can try to recreate this on Waymarking.com

 

It's is extremely frustrating because not only do I have to deal with geocachers who can't imagine how you can make something akin to virtual caches on Waymarking. There are waymarkers who want to distinguish themselves as being different than geocaching who sometimes seem to want to limit creativity of category owners and make a site more like POI factory and just have lists of POIs. And then I have to deal people who didn't care for virtuals in the first place and still don't find any reason to make a game that involves visiting new and interesting places. For these people the flexiblity of Waymarking becomes a weakness.

 

Here's my response - if you don't care for virtual caches don't worry about the people who are looking for a way to revive them. They are not likely to come back to Geocaching.com. If you like to make list of POIs for others to visit, and find Waymarking to difficult to use, use another site that lets you share them. But if you are interested in some new type of activity that involves visiting interesting places and includes some activity that is educational, social, or entertaining; something with the appeal that some people saw in virtual caches, then at least explore how Waymarking is set up to do this. Is Waymarking perfect? Of course not, but there are updates to that site made all the time. Nobody there believes it is dead. New waymarks are posted everyday. New categories get listed. People even visit waymarks. It may not be as popular as Geocaching.com but it seem to have a thriving community. Contrary to what the naysayers say.

Link to comment

Contrary to what the naysayers say.

Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it?

 

We said that we don't like the site, some gave specifics why, and what we get back are rants about how wonderful it is and if we don't like it we're naysayers who should shut up.

 

That's probably not a very effective way to convert folks.

 

Waymarking may not be dead but there are certainly a lot of us ignoring it! ;)

Link to comment

It would serve you well to read the thread before just rambling on aimlessly. I never said that I wanted to place new virtuals. I never said I don't like Waymarking, on the contrary, I use POI Factory all the time for our Nuvi, which is simply a better organized version of Waymarking. I don't like Waymarking as GS has it set up. I will admit to mentioning the the fact that Waymarking is not accepted by most and pretty much dead. You can argue it, but it simply will not change that it is not thriving as you would have us believe.

 

My point was, and you agree with it in a post after the quoted one, Waymarking is not virtuals. Every time this comes up people, yourself included, derail the conversation and say that they were replaced by Waymarking. It would be much simpler to just say "virtuals are gone, deal with it" as I did in an early post. Maybe even a discussion of why the were discontinued rather than constantly evangelizing to try to save the other web site.

<clip>

Here's my response - if you don't care for virtual caches don't worry about the people who are looking for a way to revive them. They are not likely to come back to Geocaching.com. If you like to make list of POIs for others to visit, and find Waymarking to difficult to use, use another site that lets you share them. But if you are interested in some new type of activity that involves visiting interesting places and includes some activity that is educational, social, or entertaining; something with the appeal that some people saw in virtual caches, then at least explore how Waymarking is set up to do this. Is Waymarking perfect? Of course not, but there are updates to that site made all the time. Nobody there believes it is dead. New waymarks are posted everyday. New categories get listed. People even visit waymarks. It may not be as popular as Geocaching.com but it seem to have a thriving community. Contrary to what the naysayers say.

 

Contrary to what the naysayers say.

Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it?

 

We said that we don't like the site, some gave specifics why, and what we get back are rants about how wonderful it is and if we don't like it we're naysayers who should shut up.

 

That's probably not a very effective way to convert folks.

 

Waymarking may not be dead but there are certainly a lot of us ignoring it! ;)

That's not what Mr T said at all. Please see the relevant bold text above.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

That's not what Mr T said at all. Please see the relevant bold text above.

I did post earlier an allusion to the three wise monkeys where I said if you stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes you should also shut your mouth. That was probably out of line. I was a bit frustrated that some people have made up their minds and now won't listen to those of us who try to explain what can be done and they won't look to see what changes have made to the site to improve it. In exasperation, I wrote that if you weren't going to listen or look you might as well not say anything.

 

Once someone has made up their mind that something isn't for them, it is extremely difficult to convince them that the flexibility of Waymarking supports all kinds of uses of the GPS, including many that aren't supported by sites like POI Factory. People who simply want to geocache are either happy with geocaching or simply want to have the option of hiding virutal caches brought back. People who are interested in lists of POIs are either happy with using Waymarking for this or have found other sites whose simplicity make their use more intuitive.

 

I find it equally frustrating that on the Waymarking side I find people who oppose creating categories that are more than simple list of locations. TheBeanTeam reported in this thread of a person who objected to an optional verification question being added to a Waymarking category. I am sadden as much that I can't get any traction among waymarkers to experiment with new ideas as I am that the people crying over virtual caches here won't go help create some categories for them on Waymarking.com. There is a powerful tool out there that is being under ultilized. We could have all kinds of new games and experiences created in the framework of Waymarking but one group wants to limit it to list of POIs and the other group say it's limited to list of POIs and that's not what they want to do.

 

I get it if you say you don't like Waymarking. I understand that the site is still lacking some functions. I understand that some functionality has a steep learning curve. I'm am less impressed when you knock the site because there are some categories you think are lame. The power of Waymarking is that you can choose to ignore catgories you're not interested in. I still say that by dismissing Waymarking, you are missing out on the best chance to have something akin to virtual caches. You are missing out on opportunity to help create new uses for GPS in education and entertainment.

Link to comment

Some of my random thoughts:

 

-- I believe Virtuals have taken on this nostalgic glow because they have been banned for so long. If new ones were getting published every day people wouldn't find them nearly as great as they think they are.

 

-- I hated Waymarking when I was looking for things around home. I looked at the closest Waymarks and thought "This is stupid." However, when I travel I love going to Waymarking and finding things in categories that are interesting to me. Our trip to PA last year was great because I used Waymarking to locate a series of covered bridges -- a couple had caches nearby but most did not. It was a great use of the WM site.

 

-- Most people don't want to put in the effort required to filter out uninteresting categories on Waymarking.

 

-- Most people don't like the fact that it doesn't bump up their smiley count.

 

-- I wonder what percentage of today's active cachers were even members of gc.com the last time a new Virt got published?

Link to comment

Some of my random thoughts:

 

-- I believe Virtuals have taken on this nostalgic glow because they have been banned for so long. If new ones were getting published every day people wouldn't find them nearly as great as they think they are.

 

-- I hated Waymarking when I was looking for things around home. I looked at the closest Waymarks and thought "This is stupid." However, when I travel I love going to Waymarking and finding things in categories that are interesting to me. Our trip to PA last year was great because I used Waymarking to locate a series of covered bridges -- a couple had caches nearby but most did not. It was a great use of the WM site.

 

-- Most people don't want to put in the effort required to filter out uninteresting categories on Waymarking.

 

-- Most people don't like the fact that it doesn't bump up their smiley count.

 

-- I wonder what percentage of today's active cachers were even members of gc.com the last time a new Virt got published?

 

I certainly wasn't an active when new virtuals were allowed. So the few virtuals I've found have been around for a while. While I don't care for Waymarking.com's interface, I certainly don't have anything against Waymarking. I just personally believe that virtuals and Waymarking can co-exist.

 

I think if we get really religious about caching returning to its exact roots, we would have to eliminate a lot of other different cache types, as well as existing caches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original idea of geocaching was to "cache" something. So all of today's nano's and most of the micro caches really don't "cache" anything (most of them don't even have a pencil). So are they really "caches"?

 

Of course that said, I don't support eliminating these types of caches, I just really think that virtuals had useful place in geocaching.com and could in the future.

Link to comment

I love "good" virtuals, earthcaches and webcams. While I am sad virtuals are not allowed, I have accepted it and have moved on. If virtuals and webcams were to ever become reinstated, I'd support it 100% but with new rules (however they happen to be defined).

 

I refuse to use Waymarking.com for all of the reasons already mentioned..

Link to comment

I certainly wasn't an active when new virtuals were allowed. So the few virtuals I've found have been around for a while. While I don't care for Waymarking.com's interface, I certainly don't have anything against Waymarking. I just personally believe that virtuals and Waymarking can co-exist.

The question may be "Can virtual caches and physical caches co-exist on the same website?". History shows us that cost involved in reviewers' time and in explaining geoaching to land managers are substantial. It would take a lot to convince TPTB that the benefits outweigh these costs.

 

I think if we get really religious about caching returning to its exact roots, we would have to eliminate a lot of other different cache types, as well as existing caches. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original idea of geocaching was to "cache" something. So all of today's nano's and most of the micro caches really don't "cache" anything (most of them don't even have a pencil). So are they really "caches"?
The original idea of geocaching was to see if one could use GPS to find sometime hidded after selective availability was turned off. Dave Ulmer just happened to include stuff in his original hide to make it more interesting. He may have first though of leaving a prize for each finder to encourage people to search, but end up with the idea of "take something, leave something" as way of making it self-sustaining. It didn't really take long for smaller an smaller containers to be hidden including some without any swag. Also the idea of virtual caches was born very early on as well. Don't need to hide anything, just have something small enough that you would need to use the GPS coordinates to find it.

 

Another early innovation that had nothing to do with the original idea of a geocache, was to put the cache in a interesting location you wanted to share with others. It could be a great view or a secluded glen. Or even an historic site or an intersting piece of public art. Some people began expecting that geocaches needed to be hiddend in "wow" locations. Others, felt that if you wanted to share a "wow" location why hide anything. There were other sites that allowed you to define points of interest and to download these to a GPSr. But some geocachers would try using virtual caches as a way to share sites. I think the realization that these were not geocaches but something else lead Groundspeak to look for a solution for sharing interesting or special locations separate from Geocaching.

 

It could be there are two things here: Virtual caches: prexisting object that you find using a GPS just as you would find a physical caches; and Waymarks (or POIs): interesting locations you want to share with other people. The difficulty has always been how to tell these apart.

 

Of course that said, I don't support eliminating these types of caches, I just really think that virtuals had useful place in geocaching.com and could in the future.

Geoaching history is amazing. Do you know these same issues were being debated back when geocaching was only a month old. On June 7, 2000 Dave Ulmer suggested the idea of a code word cache. He called them DiskCaches. You hide a number or code at some urban location. The finder would email you the code and in return you would email back an attachment with some music or pictures. Needless to say the other 11 geocachers in the world at the time thought this was a pretty bad idea. But Dave though the future of geocaching was something in this direction. There were too many issues with hiding containers - especially in urban areas. Even though it was more than a year before 9/11/2001, some people expressed concern that a cache would be seen a a suspicious package an mistake for a bomb. On June 16, 2000 Dave proposed the Wondert game - places where just being there would be the reward.
Link to comment

 

I refuse to use Waymarking.com for all of the reasons already mentioned..

 

And are these reasons you mention backed by your own personal experience with the site or simply based on what others here in the forums say? Just wondering, because many of the reasons (not all, some valid points have been made) but many of the reasons stated are misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what Waymarking is and the way the site functions.

 

If someone really tried it beyond a cursory look and found it to much for them to handle then OK, but if we are just holding to the party line without real investigation......:P

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...