Virtual cache?

[Dinoprophet]

 

Bravo!

If you start a thread in the Waymarking forums for conversion I'll bet you can get a lot of people to go there and support your case.

I volunteer.

 

Honestly, by the looks of the Waymarking site and what I've seen from people who are serious about Waymarking, I think there's a better chance of getting virtual geocaches back. I'll stay over here with the sane people, thanks.

Now, see? That's why these threads degrade, and why waymarkers feel compelled to defend themselves in them. People start attacking the users instead of the concept.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+Vater_Araignee]

My arguments are passionless in there usage of cold logic and that mean ultimately I am not a zealot due to the lack of zeal contained within them.

 

I wouldn't classify you as a zealot, but I think it's a bit silly for you to say that you make passionless arguments. Your word count alone indicates otherwise. You've messaged me privately in an attempt to continue an argument from an abandoned thread, and I wouldn't be surprised if you've done the same to others.

 

It's cool that you have an opinion and you care enough about geocaching to get in here and talk this stuff out with others. I think you make a lot of valid points and have a lot to offer. But you're not passionless.

I was not attempting to continue, I was make an attempt to prevent further derailment in a thread that was not abandoned (check the time stamps and read the massage subject name "avoiding further derailment "), unfortunately that derailment went into another thread and unfortunately I stated participating in that derailment.

It is also unfortunate that you equate over explaining with passion and that you would bring an unrelated issue into the debate in a failed attempt to prove a pointless point. There is not here.

[+narcissa]

 

I was not attempting to continue, I was make an attempt to prevent further derailment in a thread that was not abandoned (check the time stamps and read the massage subject name "avoiding further derailment "), unfortunately that derailment went into another thread and unfortunately I stated participating in that derailment.

It is also unfortunate that you equate over explaining with passion and that you would bring an unrelated issue into the debate in a failed attempt to prove a pointless point. There is not here.

 

Dude, I wasn't trying to insult you, just pointing out that you're not as "passionless" as you want people to think you are.

 

Many smart people fail to see the emotional basis for their arguments. I have no doubt that you believe you're arguing without passion but - you're not. It's emotion that drives you to participate in these discussion.

 

We're all here because we like geocaching. That's why we have strong opinions. Nothing wrong with that.

[+mtn-man]

"But really, why not? If they really were that good, does it matter which website hosts them?"

 

Because the other site sucks!

 

 

" The 'complainers' are actually providing a good reason to have the entire "virtual" category locked. Locationless caches and webcam caches were locked and unlisted. They only reason why the "virtual" cache threads keep reapearing is because the category was not locked, and they still are listed along with the other caches. Many virtual owners have abandoned their listings anyhow and are allowing couch potato loggers."

 

This is just moronic

 

 

"This person who is complaining, just joined this past sunday, and has no finds: "

 

Well I guess you don't have a clue what you're talking about do you! Dont assume that because my userid is new that I just joined. Forgive me for leaving the area while the military transferred me. I have retired and moved back to the area. I was unable to access my original userid until yesterday, so I created a new one. I am IceG8r and I placed one of the most popular caches in DC. So roll your eyes if you want to. Virtual caches are popular. If they weren't there wouldn't be a continual stream of requests to bring them back.

Nice to see you back. Tone down your posts though. You need to show people respect, and not call their opinions "moronic".

 

In addition, you and I need to chat via email as soon as possible.

[+bittsen]

Intending to hide is key.

 

Why?

 

I think intending to bring people to a location to find something hidden is key.

 

No, then it's sightseeing.

 

Too much emphasis is placed on taking people to awesome locations. Though it's nice to be taken to places I would argue that for many that is not the reason they geocache (and the numbers back it up).

[+narcissa]

 

Bravo!

If you start a thread in the Waymarking forums for conversion I'll bet you can get a lot of people to go there and support your case.

I volunteer.

 

Honestly, by the looks of the Waymarking site and what I've seen from people who are serious about Waymarking, I think there's a better chance of getting virtual geocaches back. I'll stay over here with the sane people, thanks.

Now, see? That's why these threads degrade, and why waymarkers feel compelled to defend themselves in them. People start attacking the users instead of the concept.

 

Sorry, I forgot to add emoticons to that.

 

 

Sorry if I've caused any Waymarkers to burst into tears.

[+narcissa]

 

No, then it's sightseeing.

 

Too much emphasis is placed on taking people to awesome locations. Though it's nice to be taken to places I would argue that for many that is not the reason they geocache (and the numbers back it up).

 

I don't think everyone does, or needs to, geocache for the same reasons. Heck, my reasons for geocaching vary from day to day. Sometimes I want a long hike or a challenging puzzle, other times I just want an excuse to drive around in my car and clear my head.

[+tozainamboku]

I wonder who has read my oft linked explanation from last year? link

 

In it I explained why I believe virtuals were created in the first place. As first envisioned, I believe that virtuals were much like narcissa and others picture them. There was in fact something hidden at the location that could be found using a GPSr. The verification question or picture was meant to replace the signed log as proof that you had indeed found the "cache". They were meant to be used in areas where a physical cache could not be placed.

 

The problem, like many other guidelines, is in explaining this to geocachers. Too many many people wanted to use the virtual cache simply to share the location of someplace they found interesting with others. They gave no thought to whether there was anything you could hunt for using the GPSr. They often submitted their virtual cache without any verification question, and if the did have a verification question it was often not well thought out - resulting in something that could be easily couch potato logged.

 

Some cachers turned to virtuals because they saw fewer barriers to cache ownership. No containter to buy, no swag to stock it with, easier to get permission or to rationalize that it did not need permission because it was virtual, no logs to maintain, no muggles stealing caches. Some even ignored the requirement to respond to emails with the verification answer. It got to be that if you found a virtual you'd just log a find and not even bother sending email because the cache owners didn't check them anyhow. If we have more caches now that are LPCs or other PnG caches in not very creative locations, it might be because the people who hide these are the ones who would have hidden lame virtuals before. Perhaps we should rate cachers and the ones who hide lame caches should not be allowed to hide more?

 

Over time the guidelines for virtual caches were changed to try to correct for such abuses. Virtuals were given a "wow" requirement to limit them to some truly great places. But people kept submitting things that weren't virtuals. The number of "bring back virtuals" thread pales into insignificance compared to the number of "why was my virtual denied" threads we used to have. Sure there were many cachers who got it and submitted good virtuals, and only hid virtuals if they couldn'te figure out how to hide a physical cache, using the virtual location as an offset or some other way. But the bulk of what got submitted were not virtual caches. I would say the bulk of what got submitted as virtuals were Waymarks.

 

The Waymarking site gives a place where what used to be submitted as virtual caches could find a home. But if virtual caches were kept on Geocaching.com, I suspect that there would be just as many waymarks submitted as virtual caches as there were before Waymarking. Perhaps it would be easier for reviewers to deny these caches by telling the people who submit them that this is just a waymark. But I think would just see a lot of threads on "My virtual was turned down and the reviewer said I should submit on the sucky Waymarking site".

 

In the weeks leading up to the release of Waymarking, Jeremy would ask on the forum if someone could come up with a definition of virtual cache that would distinguish between a virtual cache and what was to become a waymark. Many people tried to come up with a definition. Even I tried. Nothing seemed to satisfy Jeremy. I believe he understands there is something different between a virtual cache and an ordinary waymark. The problem has been how to define it. Those asking to bring back virtuals must first find a definition that we can agree on and that will be understood by most geocachers.

 

I took a slightly different approach. I saw where ordinary waymarks did not fit my definition of what a virtual cache was. I attempted to put my definition into the definition of a Waymarking category, Best Kept Secrets. I expected others to create similar categories based on how they defined virtual caches. If one or more of these categories worked well we could then tell Jeremy that these ought to be listed on Geocaching.com as well. I will point out that we routinely turn down submission to Best Kept Secrets - often because there is no verification question or anything to hunt for. Sometimes I get the feeling that waymarks are submitted to Best Kept Secrets because someone could not find the appropriate category to submit their waymark in. Writing requirements for virtual caches is hard and expecting people to read and understand them is near impossible.

[Dinoprophet]

 

Bravo!

If you start a thread in the Waymarking forums for conversion I'll bet you can get a lot of people to go there and support your case.

I volunteer.

 

Honestly, by the looks of the Waymarking site and what I've seen from people who are serious about Waymarking, I think there's a better chance of getting virtual geocaches back. I'll stay over here with the sane people, thanks.

Now, see? That's why these threads degrade, and why waymarkers feel compelled to defend themselves in them. People start attacking the users instead of the concept.

 

Sorry, I forgot to add emoticons to that.

 

 

Sorry if I've caused any Waymarkers to burst into tears.

We're tougher-skinned than that, given the constant ridicule of our punctuation.

[Clan Riffster]

So do what I did. I proposed the Best Kept Secrets category that saopaulo1 links to above.

OK, but if I propose a "Best Kept Secrets" category, won't the Waymarking folks tell me it already exists?

 

Seriously though, what I did was submit a bunch of WMs in a category that appeals to me.

I even built a Wherigo cache around 10 of them.

The WMs are not getting logged, even by the folks who visit the sites doing the Wherigo.

I suspect that if I created virts instead of WMs, they'd get gobs of visits.

 

I dove into WMs with both feet, and found it lacking.

 

I did my part to make it more appealing to folks who like things that I like.

 

It's still lacking.

 

That's the customer speaking. He's saying WM sucks.

 

Virtual caches are popular. If they weren't there wouldn't be a continual stream of requests to bring them back.

It could also be that the number hos and lazy cachers simply want a kwick way to boost their numbers.

Allowing virts back into favor, as they were originally conceived could have one being placed on every street sign in town.

A 30 minute drive could up your count by hundreds, and you'd never have to leave your car.

 

If you pay attention, you'll note that the majority of the "Bring Back Virts" calls are coming from the same dozen or so people.

Compare those 12 or so people to the million or so active cachers and the percentages are not in your favor.

I would guess that the majority of posters in the forums are not frothing at the mouth to see the return of virts.

 

Virtual caches ARE geocaches.

For now, that's true. On this site, Groundspeak gets to determine what is, and what is not, a cache. If I click on my public profile, I see the following: "Total Caches Found", followed by a number. This number includes a building I visited, a webcam I had my photo taken at, a bridge I crossed, an occasion when I picked up litter on the side of a road and an occasion where I met with friends to eat dinner. It does not count the embossed metal disks I've found embedded in concrete. While I prefer the more puritan definition of cache, which equates to a container with stuff, secreted from normal view, I don't get to call the shots here.

 

As for us going to the other site and try to change what they are doing, why should we expect them to change their site for us?

Isn't that what you are trying to do here?

A "restoration" is still a change.

In this case, a huge change.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing strict guidelines for virts. When I submitted mine I was told that it was only because of the uniqueness of it that it was approved.

Therein lies the problem. Who gets to decide if something is "unique" enough?

I can assure you the Reviewers are not interested in making that distinction.

[+dfx]

Why?

 

I think intending to bring people to a location to find something hidden is key.

maybe it should be, but in reality it isn't. geocaching is about caches, and caches are hidden containers. they don't have to be hidden in any special way, but they have to be containers. that's how geocaching started, and that's what the guidelines are all about. powertrails and LPCs are the best proof of that, there's nothing interesting about those at all, yet they perfectly qualify as geocaches as per the guidelines.

 

like it or not, that's how it is, and it's not gonna change. nothing in the guidelines says that a cache has to be hidden in any particularly interesting spot, and it never did. having a cache in an interesting spot is a nice plus for the hunt, and that's probably why most people got into geocaching and like doing it, but it's never been a requirement and it never will be. that's why it's a good thing to have abandonded virtual caches: they could have been placed anywhere, in totally uninteresting and boring places, and since placing one is 100% effortless, it was just a matter of time till that kind of virtual was popping up.

 

in fact i'm sure there's already totally pointless virtuals out there, or at least have been in the past. GCF55A comes to mind as an extreme example, which i also logged simply because i could. it's also a bad example in that apparently it also went against the guidelines, but still.

 

the only way to bring back virtuals in any meaningful manner is a massive overhaul of the guidelines and to change the meaning of what a geocache is, at the same time probably disqualifying the majority of existing geocaches from being a geocache. you may disagree in what you think a geocache is and you're free to do so, but Groundspeak has guidelines and those guidelines define what a geocache is, in the context of a Groundspeak site, which gc.com is.

Edited April 8, 2010 by dfx

[+narcissa]

 

It could also be that the number hos and lazy cachers simply want a kwick way to boost their numbers.

Allowing virts back into favor, as they were originally conceived could have one being placed on every street sign in town.

A 30 minute drive could up your count by hundreds, and you'd never have to leave your car.

 

If you pay attention, you'll note that the majority of the "Bring Back Virts" calls are coming from the same dozen or so people.

Compare those 12 or so people to the million or so active cachers and the percentages are not in your favor.

I would guess that the majority of posters in the forums are not frothing at the mouth to see the return of virts.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone calling for virtuals to come back without some sort of "WoW" requirement.

 

The number of people actively arguing for or against ANYTHING in the forums is pretty tiny compared to the number of active geocachers, and with one or two exceptions, I don't think any of us is frothing at the mouth about anything.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't think any of us is frothing at the mouth about anything.

Is there an echo in here?

[+narcissa]

I don't think any of us is frothing at the mouth about anything.

Is there an echo in here?

 

Sorry, my point is that even those of us who do wish to see the return of virtuals (or a reasonable replacement that doesn't suck) aren't frothing at the mouth about it.

[+sseegars]

Now how about a new Waymarking category: "Virtual Caches".

 

You won't know what is there until you find it, and you just answer a few verification questions.

 

Hmmm. How about it?

 

Make up your mind. Either Virtuals aren't caches or they are. You wouldn't post Virtual Caches to Waymarking. That would be virtually frustrating.

[+IceG8r]

More than I miss virtuals, I object to TPTB telling us to go to Waymarking if we want them.

 

Fine, GC.com doesn't do them anymore. That's too bad. But Waymarking is not a replacement. It's something very different, on a site that doesn't work the same way, isn't well integrated with Geocaching.com, and has different rules for publication.

 

If I was interested in the sort of thing that Waymarking does offer - and I understand that some people are - there are several other sites that do it better.

 

The fact of the matter is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. Because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

Waymarks are actually very similar in most respects to virtual caches and Waymarking categories are similar to locationless caches.

 

Seriously can someone tell me how this is that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

Indeed the rules for publication are different. The community decides what categories are worthy of inclusion and the officers of each category decide whether submissions meet the criteria set for the category. That is actually better in many ways than a reviewer who is told that he has to use the very subjective "wow factor". If the community thinks its worthy and it fits the criteria the waymark gets published, whereas very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced in 2003.

 

The site indeed works differently than this one and I think that's a good thing. I wish there was a good way on this site to filter out the kinds of caches that don't interest me. On Waymarking it's a simple process to filter out unwanted categories.

 

As a moderator, I would think that you would know that you can filter what types of caches come back.

[+narcissa]

As a moderator, I would think that you would know that you can filter what types of caches come back.

 

[+dfx]

As a moderator, I would think that you would know that you can filter what types of caches come back.

um, ok. he wasn't talking about "cache type" as in traditional vs multi vs mystery etc, but rather as in lamp post cache vs ammo can in the middle of nowhere vs micro in the woods vs cache in place with historic background, etc etc. at least, that's what i'm assuming.

Edited April 8, 2010 by dfx

[+briansnat]

More than I miss virtuals, I object to TPTB telling us to go to Waymarking if we want them.

 

Fine, GC.com doesn't do them anymore. That's too bad. But Waymarking is not a replacement. It's something very different, on a site that doesn't work the same way, isn't well integrated with Geocaching.com, and has different rules for publication.

 

If I was interested in the sort of thing that Waymarking does offer - and I understand that some people are - there are several other sites that do it better.

 

The fact of the matter is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. Because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

Waymarks are actually very similar in most respects to virtual caches and Waymarking categories are similar to locationless caches.

 

Seriously can someone tell me how this is that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

Indeed the rules for publication are different. The community decides what categories are worthy of inclusion and the officers of each category decide whether submissions meet the criteria set for the category. That is actually better in many ways than a reviewer who is told that he has to use the very subjective "wow factor". If the community thinks its worthy and it fits the criteria the waymark gets published, whereas very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced in 2003.

 

The site indeed works differently than this one and I think that's a good thing. I wish there was a good way on this site to filter out the kinds of caches that don't interest me. On Waymarking it's a simple process to filter out unwanted categories.

 

As a moderator, I would think that you would know that you can filter what types of caches come back.

 

Please explain how. I love both urban and back country caches. I enjoy micros, smalls and regulars. I enjoy caches with a variety of terrain and difficulty levels. How do I filter out caches that don't interest me? Where is the PQ check box that tells me that it's a cache that I probably won't care for?

 

I can do that on Waymarking.

Edited April 8, 2010 by briansnat

[+Taoiseach]

Uh... Run a PQ for micros with difficulty and terrain ratings less than 2, and centre it in an urban area?

 

Also, on the cache page there is an option to search for 'Nearby caches of this type'

 

Edited April 8, 2010 by Taoiseach

[+briansnat]

Uh... Run a PQ for micros with difficulty and terrain ratings less than 2, and centre it in an urban area?

 

Also, on the cache page there is an option to search for 'Nearby caches of this type'

 

 

And how does that separate caches that are interesting to me from those that don't?

[+Taoiseach]

Uh... Run a PQ for micros with difficulty and terrain ratings less than 2, and centre it in an urban area?

 

Also, on the cache page there is an option to search for 'Nearby caches of this type'

 

 

And how does that separate caches that are interesting to me from those that don't?

 

If we had 900,000 categories of caches, there'd be no improperly listed of caches, now would there?

 

It's hard to find really interesting caches, and it takes a bit of effort to find them. Don't forget that the proximity guidelines can also affect the number of really interesting caches. If I could hide caches closer together, I'd have a lot of caches that are really interesting to people who like local history. It's difficult to find areas in a cache dense area, and so I'm often left to wait for archivals in order to avoid annoying caches that are 5 miles away from the posted co-ords, and all of the stages.

 

BTW, well done on editing your post to completely change it

[+TheBeanTeam]

Perhaps geocachers avoid Waymarking in droves because they were never that interested in finding virtuals in the first place.

Not sure that's true, Toz. It seems that whenever the topic comes up, folks who love virts are the loudest detractors of WMs.

 

I fall into that category. I'd love for Waymarking to go away and for virtuals and webcams to come back. But then I figured no one that matters is listening so I ignore the topic.

 

Funny, I find that many of the waymarkers are folks who loved virts and locationless caches and waymark as a result of that connection to them.

 

My love was locationless caches and that is why I waymark. I was a geocacher first and now I waymark. They do not have to be mutually exclusive activities.

 

Virtuals didn't fit and had their problems.

Locationless caches were broken and had their problems

 

Waymarking addressed those issues.

[+Team Cotati]

 

Not to mention the incredibly lame items that were being submitted as virtuals. Flag poles, cell towers, fence posts, a rotting animal carcass, a sneaker in the woods. Eventually the "wow factor" was introduced in response to this nonsense, which put the reviewers in the difficult position of having to judge cache quality.

 

 

Instead we got LPC or nano flag pole caches, fence post top caches, etc.

 

If virtuals weren't discontinued, eventually there would have been power trails of lame virtuals. The WOW factor would be continuously pushed to the limit until they just eventually were overwhelmed. Initially they never allowed geocache power trails, until the dam finally broke. I suspect that was one reason why lame waymarks (such as McDonalds) were submitted and approved early on, because they didn't want to keep judging cachers ideas.

 

Lameness is one reason why the Waymark site is disliked, and is the same reason why virtuals were discontinued...

 

Remember, all of those lame waymarks would have been either lame locationless caches or lame virtuals if it wasn't for the other site. They were all submitted by mostly geocachers. It's bad enough that people get upset when reviewers enforce the guidelines as written, let alone enforce an arbitrary guage of WOW versus LAME.

 

"If virtuals weren't discontinued, eventually there would have been power trails of lame virtuals."

 

You cant possibly know that.

[+Vater_Araignee]

My "No" vote comes from knowing that real caches were nearly banned in favor of virtuals in Michigan state parks.

And we all know how all the state parks have wow locations.

Like I go spastic over a nice kettle bog I haven't seen before.

Does the average geocacher think it has wow factor?

How about the average reviewer?

 

To bad I wasn't here to try to define what a virtual should be, or at least show examples.

I'll use a Waymarking category, but with restrictions.

Hidden Mickeys.

Not just any old Hidden Mickey will do. Ie it can not be directly related to Disney because if it was put there by Disney, it is just cute advertising in the advertising.

Now, you go to a public park, you looking at statue and you see a Hidden Mickey. That Hidden Mickey can be a virtual but not the statue.

 

An old missile silo that has been cammoed by it's creators or current owners.

A statue that has had hedges planted around it that where allowed to grow and hide the statue from view.

A mural of a living JFK is not hidden, slight discolorations where his assassination wounds should be, are.

The word Shintoism in "Mountains at St. Remy with Dark Cottage" by Van Gogh could be a virt, bit not the dragon and Shinto priest, because they take way to much interpretation even to those that know they where intended.

I'll stop with Van Gogh paintings because I can make both "Starry Night" and "Starry Night over the Rhone" extremely depressing and unless the painting is in a fixed location for at least a year it really shouldn't count as a virt anyway.

 

Ben some time since I wrote the above (went to start making dinner and got a phone call) so I forgot the rest of what I was going to say except...

 

I'll support Virts but only if they do not interfere with geocaches.

time to read what has transpired since I started composing this.

[+Taoiseach]

 

Not to mention the incredibly lame items that were being submitted as virtuals. Flag poles, cell towers, fence posts, a rotting animal carcass, a sneaker in the woods. Eventually the "wow factor" was introduced in response to this nonsense, which put the reviewers in the difficult position of having to judge cache quality.

 

 

Instead we got LPC or nano flag pole caches, fence post top caches, etc.

 

If virtuals weren't discontinued, eventually there would have been power trails of lame virtuals. The WOW factor would be continuously pushed to the limit until they just eventually were overwhelmed. Initially they never allowed geocache power trails, until the dam finally broke. I suspect that was one reason why lame waymarks (such as McDonalds) were submitted and approved early on, because they didn't want to keep judging cachers ideas.

 

Lameness is one reason why the Waymark site is disliked, and is the same reason why virtuals were discontinued...

 

Remember, all of those lame waymarks would have been either lame locationless caches or lame virtuals if it wasn't for the other site. They were all submitted by mostly geocachers. It's bad enough that people get upset when reviewers enforce the guidelines as written, let alone enforce an arbitrary guage of WOW versus LAME.

 

"If virtuals weren't discontinued, eventually there would have been power trails of lame virtuals."

 

You cant possibly know that.

 

Exactly. The 'WoW factor' would have stopped that from happening.

 

For the record, I'm definitely in favour of re-established with the WoW Factor strictly enforced, but I don't think that will happen

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

For those that are fans of Waymarking, I have a question. Right now Premium membership is free on Waymarking if you are a Premium member of Geocaching.com. Would you be willing to continue to support Waymarking if you had to pay $30/yr for it as well?

 

I also wonder how many Premium members the Waymarking site has that are not geocachers, or in other words how many Premium members just paid for Waymarking.

 

I would. In fact I wasn't a premium member until just before Waymarking went live. Since locationless caches were locked and those were the ones I enjoyed most I became a premium member at that time to look into Waymarking when it went live. Initially it was only open to premium members back in its beta days.

 

Now that I see and have experienced the benefits of a premium membership here on GC.com wish I had earlier but if I had to choose I would continue Waymarking and let my geocaching membership lapse.

 

I don't know how many premium members have paid just for Waymarking. I know of a few but most are (I think) either active geocachers like I am or are former geocachers.

[+narcissa]

 

Virtuals didn't fit and had their problems.

Locationless caches were broken and had their problems

 

Waymarking addressed those issues.

 

They addressed them in a fashion that many of us find inadequate, and that's why there are still geocachers over here talking about missing virtuals even though we supposedly have a replacement.

[+briansnat]

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Can someone tell me how this is that all that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

If you are into the discovery thing then there is none. If you are into the numbers scene then I can see your quarrel. You don't get a smiley. Then just admit that, it's about the numbers to you, not the experience. That's cool too, but don't be afraid to admit it.

Edited April 9, 2010 by briansnat

[+Packanack]

Hey don't be so logical

 

Every day I walk my dog at 6 AM in one direction, a person walks her dog in the opposite direction, her dog doesn't like my nice friendly dog and snaps and barks at my dog. So we now walk on opposite sides of the street, and every morning I say Good Morning, and she says Good Morning to me. We both have a good morning and neither has to give up his or her route or walk. Funny how that works. Different strokes folks in a big wide world. Live and let live, too short a life for petty quarrels, save your fight for big things.

 

Still lovin how this topic reappears every 28 days or so.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Packanack

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

Check out the Best Kept Secrets Category.

 

Thanks, that provided another example.

Virtual Caches I can sort by distance, Waymarks don't have that either.

 

 

Actually you can sort by distance several ways.

 

The easiest way is to move the map on the page to an are you want to search and then select search from the maps center.

 

Another way is to go to any existing waymark page and select the link that says "Nearest Waymarks" if you ignore categories and departments that you are not interested in the results will only show items you have not ignored.

 

On the home page if you select the Additional Search Options link it allows you to create custom saved searches based on criteria you determine. As far as I can tell there are no limits on your personal saved searches. Each of these searches return sorted by distance. This search also gives you the opportunity to search based on coordinates if you wish.

 

There are other searches that are based on location as well. They can be done on all categories or a specific category. The search features are actually much more powerful than those here at GC.com. I hope someday that geocaching can benefit from the search tools found on Waymarking.com. There really are more options than I can list here. All will return results that sort by distance.

 

Here is the basic search filter page and its options....

 

View at EasyCaptures.com

 

....not proselytizing just clarifying a misconception.

[+narcissa]

 

I'll support Virts but only if they do not interfere with geocaches.

 

 

I understand why some geocachers think that virtuals pose a threat to physical caches.

 

Virtuals don't have a proximity circle the way physical caches do, so they don't interfere that way.

 

If a property management entity doesn't want to allow physical caches on their land, they can point to Waymarking.com (or any number of other sites that do similar things, including Geocaching.com's direct competitors) as evidence that it's possible to share GPS coordinates and bring in visitors without a container. They can also point to Earthcaches.

 

The best way to make in-roads with the numerous public entities that manage parks, forests, conservation areas, etc. is through community outreach and good publicity, not by limiting creativity and flexibility on our end.

 

I wish that Waymarking had been better designed to complement Geocaching.com. They could have made it very similar in terms of features like PQs, general interface. We could have had one site for physical geocaches and a partner site for non-cache waypoints, with the possibility of having dual/linked accounts, and a main account profile that would show all of our geocaches and waymarks. All virtual geocaches, webcams, and locationless caches could have been moved to that site instead of grandfathered on Geocaching.com.

[+briansnat]

Still lovin how this topic reappears every 28 days or so.

 

Nearly always started by a newbie who didn't read the guidlines before submitting his virtual cache.

[+Packanack]

Give a smiley for a waymark and argument disappears, I have a 20 that says I am right.

[Dinoprophet]

For those that are fans of Waymarking, I have a question. Right now Premium membership is free on Waymarking if you are a Premium member of Geocaching.com. Would you be willing to continue to support Waymarking if you had to pay $30/yr for it as well?

 

I also wonder how many Premium members the Waymarking site has that are not geocachers, or in other words how many Premium members just paid for Waymarking.

I didn't see this on the first page.

 

This is the case for me. I was a charter member here but I let me PM lapse many years ago because I wasn't very involved for a while. It was getting into Waymarking that prompted me to renew two years ago. If you look at my usage, I actually have a WM.com premium membership with a free one here thrown in.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+BruceS]

 

You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial.

 

At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

 

And there is a Waymarking category for just what your virtual is. (There might be a waymark for your virtual though not in that category)

Edited April 9, 2010 by BruceS

[+Taoiseach]

If you are into the discovery thing then there is none. If you are into the numbers scene then I can see your quarrel. You don't get a smiley. Then just admit that, it's about the numbers to you, not the experience. That's cool too, but don't be afraid to admit it.

 

No, it's about not wanting to have to use multiple websites, particularly one that's not as intuitive as gc.com. You might be used to it, but Waymarking.com is an entirely different interface that many of us find difficult to use.

[+hukilaulau]

I do think it would be interesting to do a poll that was not connected to the forums, since I also think most cachers don't read the forums. Maybe once per account when you sign on or something. My guess is the the results would be:

60% "Why would I even care about something as trivial as that?"

33% "Please Dear Frog Almighty don't get us into that mess again."

7% "If the pro virtual position doesn't win by a landslide. then this thing must be rigged."

(I should say, that's of the 40% who responded at all.)

 

I'm going to reiterate two points:

 

You're a customer, not a shareholder.

Nor are you a registered voter in the Republic of Groundspekia.

 

I really don't believe that virtuals, location-less caches or webcam caches no longer being listed had anything to do with how any percentage of cachers felt about anything. I also don't believe that any cacher voicing any position one way or the other on if they should or shouldn't be brought back will result in a change.*

 

External forces, reviewer fatigue and logistics, folks.

 

 

*Not a complaint.

Uhh... for the record, I never asked for anything, never claimed any rights or privileges. I just said it would be interesting. Your "reiterated" points are mildly insulting but have nothing to do with my comment.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Can someone tell me how this is that all that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

If you are into the discovery thing then there is none. If you are into the numbers scene then I can see your quarrel. You don't get a smiley. Then just admit that, it's about the numbers to you, not the experience. That's cool too, but don't be afraid to admit it.

The falls

Virt has logging requirements

Waymark none

Waymark does not

Virt appears to have more information

Virt has an interesting (to me) picture.

Waymark does not.

 

Highest Point:

They are identical except waymark has more info and picture.

 

Once you take the differences that are not the same between the two sets away, the only difference left is between sites..

GC you get

Waymarking you get &

 

~~~edit to add~~~

I acknowledge my information may be incomplete, so expand on it.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+simpjkee]

More than I miss virtuals, I object to TPTB telling us to go to Waymarking if we want them.

 

Fine, GC.com doesn't do them anymore. That's too bad. But Waymarking is not a replacement. It's something very different, on a site that doesn't work the same way, isn't well integrated with Geocaching.com, and has different rules for publication.

 

If I was interested in the sort of thing that Waymarking does offer - and I understand that some people are - there are several other sites that do it better.

 

The fact of the matter is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. Because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

Waymarks are actually very similar in most respects to virtual caches and Waymarking categories are similar to locationless caches.

 

Seriously can someone tell me how this is that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

There is no difference. If you want some sort of 'credit' for visiting a location you can get that credit on either website and sometimes both websites. However, some people coughnarcissacough lack the insight to realize this.

[+simpjkee]

Give a smiley for a waymark and argument disappears, I have a 20 that says I am right.

 

You don't get a geocaching smiley, but you get a Waymarking smiley. Put'em together and you get a lot of Groundspeak smileys.

[+narcissa]

 

There is no difference. If you want some sort of 'credit' for visiting a location you can get that credit on either website and sometimes both websites. However, some people coughnarcissacough lack the insight to realize this.

 

Misrepresenting the viewpoints of others is a fast and easy way to needlessly derail a discussion. I take a dim view of people who do this - it's worse than blatant trolling. Since I have no prior reason to think that you are prone to such things, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've only skimmed the thread.

 

As I've said - numerous times - the interface at Waymarking.com is horrible, and it's not integrated with Geocaching.com. This - not the lack of "credit" for finds - is the problem for me.

[+narcissa]

Give a smiley for a waymark and argument disappears, I have a 20 that says I am right.

 

You don't get a geocaching smiley, but you get a Waymarking smiley. Put'em together and you get a lot of Groundspeak smileys.

 

This is great in theory. Unfortunately, Groundspeak hasn't given us a way to put them together - or even efficiently look for them together.

 

If you read the thread more closely instead of just attacking people, you'll see that similar points to yours have been made several times - by people on both sides of the debate.

[+narcissa]

 

You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial.

 

At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

 

And there is a Waymarking category for just what your virtual is. (There might be a waymark for your virtual though not in that category)

 

Fantastic. Too bad Waymarking is cluttered and hard to use.

[+simpjkee]

 

There is no difference. If you want some sort of 'credit' for visiting a location you can get that credit on either website and sometimes both websites. However, some people coughnarcissacough lack the insight to realize this.

 

Misrepresenting the viewpoints of others is a fast and easy way to needlessly derail a discussion. I take a dim view of people who do this - it's worse than blatant trolling. Since I have no prior reason to think that you are prone to such things, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've only skimmed the thread.

 

As I've said - numerous times - the interface at Waymarking.com is horrible, and it's not integrated with Geocaching.com. This - not the lack of "credit" for finds - is the problem for me.

 

I think you're awesome narcissa. I love your posts.

[+simpjkee]

Give a smiley for a waymark and argument disappears, I have a 20 that says I am right.

 

You don't get a geocaching smiley, but you get a Waymarking smiley. Put'em together and you get a lot of Groundspeak smileys.

 

This is great in theory. Unfortunately, Groundspeak hasn't given us a way to put them together - or even efficiently look for them together.

 

If you read the thread more closely instead of just attacking people, you'll see that similar points to yours have been made several times - by people on both sides of the debate.

 

I put'em together on my profiles. It's easy to do.

 

Anyway, I don't think I 'attack people'. I would 'attack' you though, because you get all serious and defensive and stuff. It's hilarious.

[+narcissa]

 

I put'em together on my profiles. It's easy to do.

 

 

Sure, it's easy to put them both on a profile, but if Groundspeak is going to keep telling me that Waymarking is the replacement for virtual geocaches, they should make a little more effort to integrate the two sites. Pocket queries. A user interface that doesn't suck. Community moderation that isn't tyrannical.

[+simpjkee]

 

I put'em together on my profiles. It's easy to do.

 

 

A user interface that doesn't suck. Community moderation that isn't tyrannical.

 

[+narcissa]

 

I put'em together on my profiles. It's easy to do.

 

 

A user interface that doesn't suck. Community moderation that isn't tyrannical.

 

 

Oh, so you are trying to derail the thread. Well, thank you letting us all know.

[+simpjkee]

 

I put'em together on my profiles. It's easy to do.

 

 

A user interface that doesn't suck. Community moderation that isn't tyrannical.

 

 

Oh, so you are trying to derail the thread. Well, thank you letting us all know.

 

maybe kinda yeah. but the interface doesn't suck and saying the community moderation is tyrannical is laughable at best.