Virtual cache?

[Dinoprophet]

 

Whether he was right to do so or not, the point is waymarkers are no more tyrannical than geocachers (don't make me dig up the posts of people who will delete logs if they don't find your signature in your unique handwriting. Because I can if I must). And you know how it goes when a gc.com approver gets accused of petty tyranny.

 

I really don't know the ins-and-outs of Waymarking drama. The site is far too complicated for me to bother with, so I've never tried to submit anything. It just seems that Waymarking fans are always writing these tl;dr diatribes about how nobody gives Waymarking a chance, but then when someone DOES give it a chance, they get turned down because their Waymark didn't have the right punctuation in its title.

 

Say what you will about Geocaching.com reviewers (for the record, I think the vast majority of them do a terrific job), they don't look for petty reasons to turn people away.

To be clear, I'm not saying the volunteers here are poor at all. I'm saying you have to take a rejection complaint with some skepticism, just like you would here. I have yet to see a waymark rejected for punctuation. Overuse of HTML or rampant misspelling, yes, because it is intended to be informational, not just a game.

Geocaching.com, at this point, doesn't need to solicit people from other sites in order to get people to participate. Apparently, Waymarking does. Hence the proselytizing, hence the end of virtual geocaches. It just seems that if they're so hard up for new users, they should be taking down some of the barriers to new participation.

It's less proselytizing and more defending against declarations of lameness and clearing up misconceptions, such as "Groundspeak did not mean for WM to replace virtuals".

 

It occurred to me this morning that, to a large degree, Waymarking would make revived virtuals more difficult to create. You'd have to make your find confirmation something that couldn't be found on a corresponding Waymarking page. One of my waymarks has the information needed to find a multicache nearby (the waymark was there first, though, and the cache hider Visited the waymark before he placed the cache, so he was aware the info was available).

[cwmagui]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

 

I believe the problem is that TPTB don't care what the paying members want.

 

It is obvious that this issue has caused a lot of heartburn with the members, but all we get back is advice telling us to go to the other site they're trying to promote. I'm not interested in what they're selling.

 

I have been away for a few years while the military put me out of reach of this site. I was a premium member when I left, but I refuse to upgrade while these elitists ignore and even insult members who voice there displeasure at this decision.

 

There are paying members who never cared much for virtuals and were happy to see them go. Perhaps TPTB were listening to paying members when they got rid of them.

 

So if YOU don't like virtuals, they should be done away with? I don't really care about grubbing around it the woods looking for some moldy ammo can full of carnival prize rejects, but you don't hear me whining about how we need to get rid of them. IF YOU DON"T LIKE VIRTUALS, DON'T GO LOOK FOR THEM!

 

Is there really that big a difference between a virtual and a traditional cache with only a log book? Oh yeah, there is. Virtuals allow for the search and discovery of the multitude of "caches" of knowledge "hidden" on public lands where traditional caches aren't allowed.

[+briansnat]

 

Whether he was right to do so or not, the point is waymarkers are no more tyrannical than geocachers (don't make me dig up the posts of people who will delete logs if they don't find your signature in your unique handwriting. Because I can if I must). And you know how it goes when a gc.com approver gets accused of petty tyranny.

 

I really don't know the ins-and-outs of Waymarking drama. The site is far too complicated for me to bother with, so I've never tried to submit anything. It just seems that Waymarking fans are always writing these tl;dr diatribes about how nobody gives Waymarking a chance, but then when someone DOES give it a chance, they get turned down because their Waymark didn't have the right punctuation in its title.

 

 

Yep, happened to me. The category had specific requirements for the way the title was to be written. I didn't follow that and my submission was rejected. Guess what, I corrected the title to conform to the requirement, resubmitted it and it was approved. Not a big deal. Took all of about 45 seconds.

[4wheelin_fool]

No, some of us 'complaining' don't feel we should have to use a different website with different rules and a different interface to do what used to be done here.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

Keep complaining and they will only go away faster. Then what? There will be some people who will move their caches to the "other" sites, but who never did like using them anyway because of a different interface and different rules?

 

There will always be complainers, despite what the site does. They cannot please everyone. Most of the people who want to "bring back virtuals" had not even joined yet when they were discontinued..

 

 

 

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

 

 

So if YOU don't like virtuals, they should be done away with? I don't really care about grubbing around it the woods looking for some moldy ammo can full of carnival prize rejects, but you don't hear me whining about how we need to get rid of them. IF YOU DON"T LIKE VIRTUALS, DON'T GO LOOK FOR THEM!

 

Is there really that big a difference between a virtual and a traditional cache with only a log book? Oh yeah, there is. Virtuals allow for the search and discovery of the multitude of "caches" of knowledge "hidden" on public lands where traditional caches aren't allowed.

Edited April 8, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+snow_rules]

What I don't understand is why Wherigo caches are still listed on gc.com site when they also have their own other site like waymarks do.

[+ArcherDragoon]

What I don't understand is why Wherigo caches are still listed on gc.com site when they also have their own other site like waymarks do.

Um...Wherigo Hybrid...along the same lines of a Letterbox Hybrid...at least they have containers and log books...virtuals don't...

 

As for the parks that only allow virts...that happened because virts allowed for an "easy out" for those parks...eventually, I have a belief that those locations will "see the light" and allow geocaches back into their areas...

[Dinoprophet]

Yep, happened to me. The category had specific requirements for the way the title was to be written. I didn't follow that and my submission was rejected. Guess what, I corrected the title to conform to the requirement, resubmitted it and it was approved. Not a big deal. Took all of about 45 seconds.

 

I have yet to see a waymark rejected for punctuation.

[+briansnat]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

 

I believe the problem is that TPTB don't care what the paying members want.

 

It is obvious that this issue has caused a lot of heartburn with the members, but all we get back is advice telling us to go to the other site they're trying to promote. I'm not interested in what they're selling.

 

I have been away for a few years while the military put me out of reach of this site. I was a premium member when I left, but I refuse to upgrade while these elitists ignore and even insult members who voice there displeasure at this decision.

 

There are paying members who never cared much for virtuals and were happy to see them go. Perhaps TPTB were listening to paying members when they got rid of them.

 

So if YOU don't like virtuals, they should be done away with? I don't really care about grubbing around it the woods looking for some moldy ammo can full of carnival prize rejects, but you don't hear me whining about how we need to get rid of them. IF YOU DON"T LIKE VIRTUALS, DON'T GO LOOK FOR THEM!

 

Is there really that big a difference between a virtual and a traditional cache with only a log book? Oh yeah, there is. Virtuals allow for the search and discovery of the multitude of "caches" of knowledge "hidden" on public lands where traditional caches aren't allowed.

 

The difference is that moldy ammo can is a geocache and a virtual is not.

 

What many people don't realize is that virtuals threatened the existence of real caches in many areas. Often when people were negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches, the land manager would point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. By taking virtuals off the table negotiations could focus on them allowing real caches. As a result geocaches are now allowed in places that otherwise might have been off limits to all but virtuals.

 

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.

 

Since you only joined this site a few days ago surely you won't be able to recall all the forum angst and bitterness over rejected virtuals.

 

Virtuals are now where they belong on a site devoted to listing locations rather than geocaches. And if you want "the search and discovery of the multitude of "caches" of knowledge "hidden" on public lands where traditional caches aren't allowed" you can find that on Waymarking.

[+Team Cotati]

Of course, people who have never 'hidden' a virtual geocache cannot possibly be experiencing withdrawal pains caused by no longer being able to 'hide' them.

 

It is not rational to believe that someone can miss an activity in which they have never participated.

 

However I do fully believe that it is both reasonable and possible to enjoy the finding of virtual geocaches. This belief is based upon the feedback that I hear every time that the subject comes up when I meet other cachers.

 

People enjoy finding virtual geocaches. Given the opportunity, they would, in all likelihood enjoy listing virtual geocaches on geocaching.com.

 

The idea that a group of plain vanilla premium members of unknown size, origin and location decided that virtual geocaches were no longer a desirable cache type and ought to be disallowed, is just not true.

 

That cache reviewers approved worthless virtual geocaches in the past, is a failing of the approval and self-policing process and is no different than the process that to this day allows for the listing of geocaches that are at best, an embarrassment to the game and community of users.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+snow_rules]

 

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.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

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.

Edited April 8, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+narcissa]

 

The difference is that moldy ammo can is a geocache and a virtual is not.

 

 

This depends entirely on who is defining the word geocache. You keep relying on this "a virtual is not a geocache" argument, but it's really not very persuasive. It's rather like standing in front of a painting you don't like and saying "That's not art."

 

"Geocache" is a newly invented word to begin with, based on the word "cache" that is used in English to mean a hidden store of supplies. Geocaches aren't hidden for the same purpose.

 

But if we go back further, we find that "cacher" is a French verb that means "to hide." The word "caché" in French simply means "hidden."

 

Some of the other sites that publish geocache coordinates do allow a broader definition of the term "geocache." Groundspeak still does, in some instances.

 

I understand that Groundspeak had good reasons for getting rid of virtuals, but "they're not geocaches" is a poor argument.

[cwmagui]

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

 

Because the other site isn't the same!

 

 

" 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."

 

How do you figure this? Voicing our opinions may eventually get them noticed by TPTB

 

 

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

 

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.

Edited April 9, 2010 by cwmagui

[+Vater_Araignee]

I recently got my father into geocaching.

He asked what a virtual cache looked like and I showed him a few examples.

Then he asked me if the creators of virtuals spoke English.

He said no "Simulated storage, no simulated contents and it is formally recognized. The entire concept is oxymoronic. No not oxymoronic, if it is formally recognized it cant be virtual, it just is, so it is more like a fool trying to lend credibility to the concept. It should be called a fake cache."

 

I also have an anecdote about a 20 year old with with an 8th grade education and only knowledge about traditionals who explained how a bust of JFK could be used to do an offset with 5 possible locations using one of the corners or his gaze to point out the location. This guy collect SSI for retardation. Of course he never said offset just, that corner points there and that one there, he is looking at a tree.

 

I equate a virtual to slipping somebody a micky, you're not interested in actually engaging anything, you are just looking for an easy smile.

 

Virts also have ALRs there should only be one LR (CO's discretion) and once you allow Virts to be made again you open up another can of wurms yelling bring back the ALR.

[+dfx]

This depends entirely on who is defining the word geocache. You keep relying on this "a virtual is not a geocache" argument, but it's really not very persuasive. It's rather like standing in front of a painting you don't like and saying "That's not art."

 

"Geocache" is a newly invented word to begin with, based on the word "cache" that is used in English to mean a hidden store of supplies. Geocaches aren't hidden for the same purpose.

 

But if we go back further, we find that "cacher" is a French verb that means "to hide." The word "caché" in French simply means "hidden."

 

Some of the other sites that publish geocache coordinates do allow a broader definition of the term "geocache." Groundspeak still does, in some instances.

 

I understand that Groundspeak had good reasons for getting rid of virtuals, but "they're not geocaches" is a poor argument.

i don't know, it seems like a very good argument to me, as it makes perfect sense. the first geocache was exactly that, a hidden container filled with stuff. the name "cache" was only chosen because the original name for it, "stash", had a certain negative ring to it and the people wanted to get rid of that. so that's what a geocache is: a stash of which the geo (GPS) coordinates are known.

 

on the other hand, there is another aspect to geocaches: up until not too long ago, people would place geocaches in order to bring people to interesting locations, nice places, or with educational purposes etc. of course there have always been exceptions, but the majority of caches seemed to have this kind of idea behind them, and virtuals made perfect sense in this context: bring people to interesting locations where placement of a physical cache wasn't possible.

 

this kind of thinking seems to have shifted, nowadays the thinking is container with log = cache, which technically still is correct, but the second aspect of geocaching seems to have been lost. not entirely of course, there's still plenty of cachers who place caches with this intent, but the general thinking has shifted. it makes perfect sense if you think about virtuals and powertrails.

 

i don't see the point of whining and complaining though. i'm a geocacher, i like finding hidden stuff. i also enjoy doing virtuals, but i fully agree in that they're not geocaches, so Groundspeak was right to move them off to another site. of course it's a shame for those places where no container can be easily hidden and where a virtual would make sense in order to bring people to some nice/interesting place, but you gotta make tradeoffs. earthcaches have been created to remedy this gap partly - not entirely, but at least it's something.

[+narcissa]

I recently got my father into geocaching.

He asked what a virtual cache looked like and I showed him a few examples.

Then he asked me if the creators of virtuals spoke English.

He said no "Simulated storage, no simulated contents and it is formally recognized. The entire concept is oxymoronic. No not oxymoronic, if it is formally recognized it cant be virtual, it just is, so it is more like a fool trying to lend credibility to the concept. It should be called a fake cache."

 

I also have an anecdote about a 20 year old with with an 8th grade education and only knowledge about traditionals who explained how a bust of JFK could be used to do an offset with 5 possible locations using one of the corners or his gaze to point out the location. This guy collect SSI for retardation. Of course he never said offset just, that corner points there and that one there, he is looking at a tree.

 

I equate a virtual to slipping somebody a micky, you're not interested in actually engaging anything, you are just looking for an easy smile.

 

Virts also have ALRs there should only be one LR (CO's discretion) and once you allow Virts to be made again you open up another can of wurms yelling bring back the ALR.

 

Virtuals don't have an additional logging requirement, they have a logging requirement since there's no logbook.

 

In English, the word cache denotes hidden storage, but it comes from an older word that just means "to hide." The first geocache was an actual cache of stored items. It was also huge, buried, and contained items that are against Groundspeak's guidelines. If we want to get really puritanical about it, most geocaches published today bear very little resemblance to that first geocache. The game would not be what it is today if every geocache had to be like the first.

 

Most of the virtuals I've done required more engagement than a lot of traditional caches do. A good virtual involves something hidden (or, in French, "caché") in a nice location - just like a good traditional cache does.

 

Claiming that people who like virtuals just want extra smileys is insulting and unnecessary. Many of us like virtual caches for the experience. If you don't like them, cool - there's no need to insult others who have different tastes.

[+narcissa]

 

i don't see the point of whining and complaining though.

 

I don't see the point in characterizing a discussion as "whining and complaining" unless you're intentionally trying to aggravate people and drag down the quality of discourse.

[+bittsen]

Virtuals don't have an additional logging requirement, they have a logging requirement since there's no logbook.

 

In English, the word cache denotes hidden storage, but it comes from an older word that just means "to hide." The first geocache was an actual cache of stored items. It was also huge, buried, and contained items that are against Groundspeak's guidelines. If we want to get really puritanical about it, most geocaches published today bear very little resemblance to that first geocache. The game would not be what it is today if every geocache had to be like the first.

 

Most of the virtuals I've done required more engagement than a lot of traditional caches do. A good virtual involves something hidden (or, in French, "caché") in a nice location - just like a good traditional cache does.

 

Claiming that people who like virtuals just want extra smileys is insulting and unnecessary. Many of us like virtual caches for the experience. If you don't like them, cool - there's no need to insult others who have different tastes.

 

How, exactly are "virtual" caches hidden?

[+narcissa]

 

How, exactly are "virtual" caches hidden?

 

Here are a couple of my favourite virtuals. Both of these require cachers to find a small detail hidden from plain view.

 

GCK12J

GCKA5M

 

These are both things I was delighted to find, in areas where physical cache containers are simply not a possibility.

[+dfx]

 

i don't see the point of whining and complaining though.

 

I don't see the point in characterizing a discussion as "whining and complaining" unless you're intentionally trying to aggravate people and drag down the quality of discourse.

i wasn't talking about the discussion per se and especially not about your post, sorry if that wasn't clear. it's the threads popping up almost weekly trying to tell Groundspeak to bring virtuals back, that i consider whining and complaining.

[+narcissa]

 

i wasn't talking about the discussion per se and especially not about your post, sorry if that wasn't clear. it's the threads popping up almost weekly trying to tell Groundspeak to bring virtuals back, that i consider whining and complaining.

 

I haven't noticed the same people authoring these threads. Using the forum to discuss geocaching-related issues isn't whining and complaining.

[4wheelin_fool]

"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.

 

My bad. You have 35 finds and 1 hide under the other account.

 

Now which site sucks? Is it the Waymarking, Terracaching, or another cache site?

 

This site sucks also because they don't allow virtuals?

 

If everything sucks, then I don't think that virtuals are going to fix that....

 

If you would like to see virtual caches brought back, I encourage you to voice your opinion to Groundspeak. It may not do any good, but if it annoys them, at least that's something.

 

Editing of your virtual page for an agenda? Nice.

Edited April 8, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+hukilaulau]

 

However I do fully believe that it is both reasonable and possible to enjoy the finding of virtual geocaches. This belief is based upon the feedback that I hear every time that the subject comes up when I meet other cachers.

 

That's an interesting belief. I've been caching just about as long as you have (5+ years.) I have nearly 2300 finds in about 26 states. I've been to a few events. I have NEVER heard anyone even mention that they enjoy finding virtuals. Not once.

My own belief is that the people who want virtuals brought back are a small minority of cachers who are quite vocal on the forums.

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.)

[+dfx]

I haven't noticed the same people authoring these threads. Using the forum to discuss geocaching-related issues isn't whining and complaining.

please see the post that has been quoted in the post directly under your post (which is the post i have quoted in my post here) () to see what exactly i'm talking about

[+bittsen]

 

How, exactly are "virtual" caches hidden?

 

Here are a couple of my favourite virtuals. Both of these require cachers to find a small detail hidden from plain view.

 

GCK12J

GCKA5M

 

These are both things I was delighted to find, in areas where physical cache containers are simply not a possibility.

 

While those caches might be "hidden" from view, the cache owner did not hide anything.

 

So to rephrase the question... how, exactly does one "hide" a virtual to make it "hidden"?

[+Castle Mischief]

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.

[+Castle Mischief]

While those caches might be "hidden" from view, the cache owner did not hide anything.

 

So to rephrase the question... how, exactly does one "hide" a virtual to make it "hidden"?

 

I found a traditional that wasn't hidden at all. Is it still a geocache??

[+narcissa]

 

So to rephrase the question... how, exactly does one "hide" a virtual to make it "hidden"?

 

How is this relevant? If it's hidden, it's hidden.

 

If somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify as a geocache, there are a heck of a lot of geocaches out there that don't qualify!

[+dfx]

I found a traditional that wasn't hidden at all. Is it still a geocache??

depends. if it was placed in the woods where nobody would ever go unless they're looking for the cache, then yes.

 

otherwise if it's an area where there's people going by and it's in plain view, then it may still be a geocache, but probably not for long

[+bflentje]

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.

[+bittsen]

 

So to rephrase the question... how, exactly does one "hide" a virtual to make it "hidden"?

 

How is this relevant? If it's hidden, it's hidden.

 

If somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify as a geocache, there are a heck of a lot of geocaches out there that don't qualify!

 

How is it relevant?

 

What does a cacher "hide" to create a "virtual" cache? You, yourself, have demonstrated that the word "cache" means to "hide". So, what does a cache owner "hide" to create this "virtual cache" or is it merely virtually hidden?

 

Yes, there are some traditionals that, arguably, are not "hidden" but if they are NOT "hidden" then why don't they get muggled? It is also a polar opposite from the concept of a "virtual" since a cache owner actually PLACES a traditional cache, thus hiding it, whether in plain sight or not. "Virtual" caches are more of a "hey, this is cool, look" thing. It has nothing to do with being "hidden".

 

So, since it was YOU that said "cache" means "hidden", I was using your logic to prove that "virtual" caches aren't caches at all, in contrast to traditional, otherwise known as REAL, caches.

 

Virtual caches are NOT real caches. Hence the word "virtual".

[+Vater_Araignee]

I recently got my father into geocaching.

He asked what a virtual cache looked like and I showed him a few examples.

Then he asked me if the creators of virtuals spoke English.

He said no "Simulated storage, no simulated contents and it is formally recognized. The entire concept is oxymoronic. No not oxymoronic, if it is formally recognized it cant be virtual, it just is, so it is more like a fool trying to lend credibility to the concept. It should be called a fake cache."

 

I also have an anecdote about a 20 year old with with an 8th grade education and only knowledge about traditionals who explained how a bust of JFK could be used to do an offset with 5 possible locations using one of the corners or his gaze to point out the location. This guy collect SSI for retardation. Of course he never said offset just, that corner points there and that one there, he is looking at a tree.

 

I equate a virtual to slipping somebody a micky, you're not interested in actually engaging anything, you are just looking for an easy smile.

 

Virts also have ALRs there should only be one LR (CO's discretion) and once you allow Virts to be made again you open up another can of wurms yelling bring back the ALR.

 

Virtuals don't have an additional logging requirement, they have a logging requirement since there's no logbook.

 

In English, the word cache denotes hidden storage, but it comes from an older word that just means "to hide." The first geocache was an actual cache of stored items. It was also huge, buried, and contained items that are against Groundspeak's guidelines. If we want to get really puritanical about it, most geocaches published today bear very little resemblance to that first geocache. The game would not be what it is today if every geocache had to be like the first.

 

Most of the virtuals I've done required more engagement than a lot of traditional caches do. A good virtual involves something hidden (or, in French, "caché") in a nice location - just like a good traditional cache does.

 

Claiming that people who like virtuals just want extra smileys is insulting and unnecessary. Many of us like virtual caches for the experience. If you don't like them, cool - there's no need to insult others who have different tastes.

You keep bringing up cache as a defense but fail to point out that virts do not qualify even under its definition.

You show me an item that is listed as a virt that has been actually hidden and I'll show you caché but not a cache. Just because a word has a base in another language does not mean that the definitions are identical. You argument using caché is moot, especially when you consider that you are using the interpretation and not the definition"to cover up".

Cacher as it relates to french is a transitive verb, and that means that it relates to an object.

 

Insulting? That is choice. Make a flagrant accusation of insult, now that's insulting.

I'm not insulting anyone by saying they just want an extra smilie, because if that was not the motivation behind all the posturing, they would go to Waymarking and take the time to learn and use the site, and they didn't like the site as presented try to do there what they are so insistent on doing here, ie try to get the site changed. I hear it is easier to get what you want there.

If half the people that love virts and hate the Waymarking site would put as much energy into changing Waymarking to better fit their needs like they try here, it would be a better site.

 

You want insulting?

I'll argue for the creation of virts and 1 exception to the No ALR.

If somebody creates a virt in a location that also allows for the placement of a cache then the cache should be allowed to say "To log a found it on this cache you can never log a find on the corresponding virtual."

Heck forget all of that, can you understand how placing a cache under current guidelines at a virt location is insulting to the virt creator after considering what most people believe virts where for? Yeah saying I'm smarter than you because I could make a hide here is insulting, even if that isn't the intention.

 

Would you be happy with virts if they where allowed but didn't gain you a smilie? It can be done, benchmarks don't figure into the count.

I can be happy with that, as long as they don't interfere with my 500 cache display limit. Benchmarks don't but are tracked by GC.com.

Yeah, allow Virts back but with all the site restrictions of benchmarks.

Except:

1. Alow both benchmarks and virts to have gpx downloads that include
   • Description
     
   • Last 5 logs
     

[*]Icons for the marker types of benchmarks.

[*]Allow both benchmarks and virts to be in PQs, with same volume restrictions and amount per day.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

So to rephrase the question... how, exactly does one "hide" a virtual to make it "hidden"?

 

How is this relevant? If it's hidden, it's hidden.

 

If somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify as a geocache, there are a heck of a lot of geocaches out there that don't qualify!

The object of the virtual, how is the object hidden?

As for "somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify" if a person decides that they are hiding an ammo box in the middle of a field then it is hidden in some way shape or form even if everyone that drives by can see it because hidden is the intent.

If the creator of a public display decides to hide the public display then the same applies however most public displays are not hidden they are place with intention for all who come to the area to see, not find.

You cant come along and take a public display and hide it, unless it is your public display to do it with, and you cant take away the owners intention if you are not the owner.

 

The subset of people that are intended to see and pay attention to a public display are all who come and do so.

This is not the same for geocaches, all who are intended to pay attention to a geocache are geocachers and those who may become.

Intention to claim something is hidden is key.

[+narcissa]

 

Virtual caches are NOT real caches. Hence the word "virtual".

 

Virtual caches ARE geocaches. Hence the word "geocaches."

 

And around and around we go.

 

As I said to someone else today, this "they're not caches" argument is akin to claiming "it's not art" when you don't like a painting. It all depends on who's defining "geocache." No single person, and no single site can claim total authority over it.

 

Whether or not Groundspeak should allow the listing of virtual geocaches on their geocaching site is a separate issue.

[+IceG8r]

I recently got my father into geocaching.

He asked what a virtual cache looked like and I showed him a few examples.

Then he asked me if the creators of virtuals spoke English.

He said no "Simulated storage, no simulated contents and it is formally recognized. The entire concept is oxymoronic. No not oxymoronic, if it is formally recognized it cant be virtual, it just is, so it is more like a fool trying to lend credibility to the concept. It should be called a fake cache."

 

I also have an anecdote about a 20 year old with with an 8th grade education and only knowledge about traditionals who explained how a bust of JFK could be used to do an offset with 5 possible locations using one of the corners or his gaze to point out the location. This guy collect SSI for retardation. Of course he never said offset just, that corner points there and that one there, he is looking at a tree.

 

I equate a virtual to slipping somebody a micky, you're not interested in actually engaging anything, you are just looking for an easy smile.

 

Virts also have ALRs there should only be one LR (CO's discretion) and once you allow Virts to be made again you open up another can of wurms yelling bring back the ALR.

 

Virtuals don't have an additional logging requirement, they have a logging requirement since there's no logbook.

 

In English, the word cache denotes hidden storage, but it comes from an older word that just means "to hide." The first geocache was an actual cache of stored items. It was also huge, buried, and contained items that are against Groundspeak's guidelines. If we want to get really puritanical about it, most geocaches published today bear very little resemblance to that first geocache. The game would not be what it is today if every geocache had to be like the first.

 

Most of the virtuals I've done required more engagement than a lot of traditional caches do. A good virtual involves something hidden (or, in French, "caché") in a nice location - just like a good traditional cache does.

 

Claiming that people who like virtuals just want extra smileys is insulting and unnecessary. Many of us like virtual caches for the experience. If you don't like them, cool - there's no need to insult others who have different tastes.

You keep bringing up cache as a defense but fail to point out that virts do not qualify even under its definition.

You show me an item that is listed as a virt that has been actually hidden and I'll show you caché but not a cache. Just because a word has a base in another language does not mean that the definitions are identical. You argument using caché is moot, especially when you consider that you are using the interpretation and not the definition"to cover up".

Cacher as it relates to french is a transitive verb, and that means that it relates to an object.

 

Insulting? That is choice. Make a flagrant accusation of insult, now that's insulting.

I'm not insulting anyone by saying they just want an extra smilie, because if that was not the motivation behind all the posturing, they would go to Waymarking and take the time to learn and use the site, and they didn't like the site as presented try to do there what they are so insistent on doing here, ie try to get the site changed. I hear it is easier to get what you want there.

If half the people that love virts and hate the Waymarking site would put as much energy into changing Waymarking to better fit their needs like they try here, it would be a better site.

 

You want insulting?

I'll argue for the creation of virts and 1 exception to the No ALR.

If somebody creates a virt in a location that also allows for the placement of a cache then the cache should be allowed to say "To log a found it on this cache you can never log a find on the corresponding virtual."

Heck forget all of that, can you understand how placing a cache under current guidelines at a virt location is insulting to the virt creator after considering what most people believe virts where for? Yeah saying I'm smarter than you because I could make a hide here is insulting, even if that isn't the intention.

 

Would you be happy with virts if they where allowed but didn't gain you a smilie? It can be done, benchmarks don't figure into the count.

I can be happy with that, as long as they don't interfere with my 500 cache display limit. Benchmarks don't but are tracked by GC.com.

Yeah, allow Virts back but with all the site restrictions of benchmarks.

Except:

1. Alow both benchmarks and virts to have gpx downloads that include
   • Description
     
   • Last 5 logs
     

[*]Icons for the marker types of benchmarks.

[*]Allow both benchmarks and virts to be in PQs, with same volume restrictions and amount per day.

 

Why is it wrong to want to track how may verts we get? Don't you track how many finds you have?

 

What makes you think virts are easy smiles? The difficulty level of a cache has nothing to do with the inclusion of an ammo can full of junk. Why are you zelots so hung up on the fact that there are no goodies in a virt? I consider a virt a "Cache of knowledge". The word "VIRTUAL" indicates that it's not a true cache. I'd be happy if verts were only allowed in places that prohibit traditional caches.

 

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? We aren't trying to change this site. We are only trying to RESTORE a part of our site that we valuede. If for some reason, TPTB decided that YOUR favorite type of cache was no longer welcome, I'd support your fight to keep them. Why not give us the same respect.

[+bittsen]

 

Virtual caches are NOT real caches. Hence the word "virtual".

 

Virtual caches ARE geocaches. Hence the word "geocaches."

 

And around and around we go.

 

As I said to someone else today, this "they're not caches" argument is akin to claiming "it's not art" when you don't like a painting. It all depends on who's defining "geocache." No single person, and no single site can claim total authority over it.

 

Whether or not Groundspeak should allow the listing of virtual geocaches on their geocaching site is a separate issue.

 

You have not, logically, made a case for virtual caches.

Vater understands it as well as most who read what I said. Any opinions to the contrary are emotional and therefore not valid arguments in a logical debate. I used your own argument to prove you wrong.

 

Argue all you want, which I'm sure you will do, but you have already lost this argument. Sorry.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Why is it wrong to want to track how may verts we get? Don't you track how many finds you have?

 

What makes you think virts are easy smiles? The difficulty level of a cache has nothing to do with the inclusion of an ammo can full of junk. Why are you zelots so hung up on the fact that there are no goodies in a virt? I consider a virt a "Cache of knowledge". The word "VIRTUAL" indicates that it's not a true cache. I'd be happy if verts were only allowed in places that prohibit traditional caches.

 

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? We aren't trying to change this site. We are only trying to RESTORE a part of our site that we valuede. If for some reason, TPTB decided that YOUR favorite type of cache was no longer welcome, I'd support your fight to keep them. Why not give us the same respect.

I wouldn't...it would once again offer that easy out that (has been brought up a number of times in this thread) park managers took towards geocaching. For a while, Minnesota State Parks didn't allow caching...now...a couple years later...the State Parks all have at least one geocache in them run (more/less*) through state staff. Heck, they (MN DNR) even comment/acknowledge that geocaching coming back into the State Parks is a reason for their increase in revenue over the past two years.

 

*more/less because some local cachers help out local parks with questions and setup

 

Edited for Spelling and Stupid Fingers...

Edited April 8, 2010 by ArcherDragoon

[+narcissa]

 

You keep bringing up cache as a defense but fail to point out that virts do not qualify even under its definition.

You show me an item that is listed as a virt that has been actually hidden and I'll show you caché but not a cache. Just because a word has a base in another language does not mean that the definitions are identical. You argument using caché is moot, especially when you consider that you are using the interpretation and not the definition"to cover up".

Cacher as it relates to french is a transitive verb, and that means that it relates to an object.

 

Insulting? That is choice. Make a flagrant accusation of insult, now that's insulting.

I'm not insulting anyone by saying they just want an extra smilie, because if that was not the motivation behind all the posturing, they would go to Waymarking and take the time to learn and use the site, and they didn't like the site as presented try to do there what they are so insistent on doing here, ie try to get the site changed. I hear it is easier to get what you want there.

If half the people that love virts and hate the Waymarking site would put as much energy into changing Waymarking to better fit their needs like they try here, it would be a better site.

 

You want insulting?

I'll argue for the creation of virts and 1 exception to the No ALR.

If somebody creates a virt in a location that also allows for the placement of a cache then the cache should be allowed to say "To log a found it on this cache you can never log a find on the corresponding virtual."

Heck forget all of that, can you understand how placing a cache under current guidelines at a virt location is insulting to the virt creator after considering what most people believe virts where for? Yeah saying I'm smarter than you because I could make a hide here is insulting, even if that isn't the intention.

 

Would you be happy with virts if they where allowed but didn't gain you a smilie? It can be done, benchmarks don't figure into the count.

I can be happy with that, as long as they don't interfere with my 500 cache display limit. Benchmarks don't but are tracked by GC.com.

Yeah, allow Virts back but with all the site restrictions of benchmarks.

Except:

1. Alow both benchmarks and virts to have gpx downloads that include
   • Description
     
   • Last 5 logs
     

[*]Icons for the marker types of benchmarks.

[*]Allow both benchmarks and virts to be in PQs, with same volume restrictions and amount per day.

 

1. The fact that cacher is a transitive verb has nothing to do with intent. We use the word "caché" to refer to objects that are concealed or hidden, with or without intent.

 

2. Intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument with the intent to belittle them and their argument *is* insulting. It's also disingenuous, disruptive, and unnecessary. You can argue against virtual geocaches without attacking the people who like them.

 

3. I'm not really sure why anyone would be insulted because someone else placed a cache near theirs. As long as it's in keeping with the guidelines, being insulted by that seems like a pretty immature reaction. Most of the virtual geocaches I have visited were at sites where a traditional cache could not be placed because of rules, not because there was no PLACE to hide one.

 

4. I would consider taking the time to figure out the complicated labyrinth of fail that is Waymarking if Waymarks could be displayed in the same manner as benchmarks. I would be even happier to see an option to create new virtual geocaches within the existing Geocaching.com framework, even if (especially if) it meant it was rarely used and involved very strict guidelines.

[+narcissa]

which I'm sure you will do

 

There's no room for personal jabs in a purely "logical" argument.

 

The reason people come to this forum and discuss these topics is because they care about geocaching. The foundations of any argument made here are going to be emotional, unless they're being made with the intent to troll. Why do you argue your position? Is it because you care about geocaching, or is it because you're a troll? I hope it's the former, but honestly, it's hard to tell.

 

Clearly, some people like virtual geocaches. For many of us, finding good virtual geocaches involves the same amount of searching and the same visceral rewards as finding a physical geocache.

 

Whether or not the object we're looking for was intentionally placed by another geocacher, or simply discovered and shared by another geocacher doesn't seem particularly important to me. What's important is that it's FUN to FIND the HIDDEN OBJECT. I don't much care for geocaches, physical or virtual, that don't involve an element of search, discovery, and fun. Of course it's emotional.

Edited April 8, 2010 by narcissa

[+IceG8r]

 

You keep bringing up cache as a defense but fail to point out that virts do not qualify even under its definition.

You show me an item that is listed as a virt that has been actually hidden and I'll show you caché but not a cache. Just because a word has a base in another language does not mean that the definitions are identical. You argument using caché is moot, especially when you consider that you are using the interpretation and not the definition"to cover up".

Cacher as it relates to french is a transitive verb, and that means that it relates to an object.

 

Insulting? That is choice. Make a flagrant accusation of insult, now that's insulting.

I'm not insulting anyone by saying they just want an extra smilie, because if that was not the motivation behind all the posturing, they would go to Waymarking and take the time to learn and use the site, and they didn't like the site as presented try to do there what they are so insistent on doing here, ie try to get the site changed. I hear it is easier to get what you want there.

If half the people that love virts and hate the Waymarking site would put as much energy into changing Waymarking to better fit their needs like they try here, it would be a better site.

 

You want insulting?

I'll argue for the creation of virts and 1 exception to the No ALR.

If somebody creates a virt in a location that also allows for the placement of a cache then the cache should be allowed to say "To log a found it on this cache you can never log a find on the corresponding virtual."

Heck forget all of that, can you understand how placing a cache under current guidelines at a virt location is insulting to the virt creator after considering what most people believe virts where for? Yeah saying I'm smarter than you because I could make a hide here is insulting, even if that isn't the intention.

 

Would you be happy with virts if they where allowed but didn't gain you a smilie? It can be done, benchmarks don't figure into the count.

I can be happy with that, as long as they don't interfere with my 500 cache display limit. Benchmarks don't but are tracked by GC.com.

Yeah, allow Virts back but with all the site restrictions of benchmarks.

Except:

1. Alow both benchmarks and virts to have gpx downloads that include
   • Description
     
   • Last 5 logs
     

[*]Icons for the marker types of benchmarks.

[*]Allow both benchmarks and virts to be in PQs, with same volume restrictions and amount per day.

 

1. The fact that cacher is a transitive verb has nothing to do with intent. We use the word "caché" to refer to objects that are concealed or hidden, with or without intent.

 

2. Intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument with the intent to belittle them and their argument *is* insulting. It's also disingenuous, disruptive, and unnecessary. You can argue against virtual geocaches without attacking the people who like them.

 

3. I'm not really sure why anyone would be insulted because someone else placed a cache near theirs. As long as it's in keeping with the guidelines, being insulted by that seems like a pretty immature reaction. Most of the virtual geocaches I have visited were at sites where a traditional cache could not be placed because of rules, not because there was no PLACE to hide one.

 

4. I would consider taking the time to figure out the complicated labyrinth of fail that is Waymarking if Waymarks could be displayed in the same manner as benchmarks. I would be even happier to see an option to create new virtual geocaches within the existing Geocaching.com framework, even if (especially if) it meant it was rarely used and involved very strict guidelines.

 

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.

 

I'd be happy if WORTHY virts could be created under/moved to the Puzzle Cache category. After all, virts usually require some sort of verification.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

And as always the conversation devolves into petty bickering, assuring that we'll never be able to make a concerted case.

[+IceG8r]

 

So to rephrase the question... how, exactly does one "hide" a virtual to make it "hidden"?

 

How is this relevant? If it's hidden, it's hidden.

 

If somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify as a geocache, there are a heck of a lot of geocaches out there that don't qualify!

The object of the virtual, how is the object hidden?

As for "somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify" if a person decides that they are hiding an ammo box in the middle of a field then it is hidden in some way shape or form even if everyone that drives by can see it because hidden is the intent.

If the creator of a public display decides to hide the public display then the same applies however most public displays are not hidden they are place with intention for all who come to the area to see, not find.

You cant come along and take a public display and hide it, unless it is your public display to do it with, and you cant take away the owners intention if you are not the owner.

 

The subset of people that are intended to see and pay attention to a public display are all who come and do so.

This is not the same for geocaches, all who are intended to pay attention to a geocache are geocachers and those who may become.

Intention to claim something is hidden is key.

 

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.

[+narcissa]

 

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.

 

I'd be happy if WORTHY virts could be created under/moved to the Puzzle Cache category. After all, virts usually require some sort of verification.

 

Heck, I'd be happy if Waymarking was made to be more like Geocaching.com in terms of the user interface, pocket queries, etc.

 

I get that by many people's definitions, a virtual isn't a geocache. I'm not invested in having my virtual geocache finds count as actual geocaches, I just really like the way that virtuals work on Geocaching.com and I wish Waymarking wasn't so drastically different and horrible to use. I don't want to use two vastly different sites to get geocaches and non-geocache points of interest onto my GPS.

[+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.

 

I used this as an example of a HIDDEN virtual cache earlier in the thread. I love this one - it's one of my all-time favourites, and certainly as delightful as any physical geocache I've ever found.

 

I'm happy it hasn't been relegated to Waymarking.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Why is it wrong to want to track how may verts we get? Don't you track how many finds you have?

 

What makes you think virts are easy smiles? The difficulty level of a cache has nothing to do with the inclusion of an ammo can full of junk. Why are you zelots so hung up on the fact that there are no goodies in a virt? I consider a virt a "Cache of knowledge". The word "VIRTUAL" indicates that it's not a true cache. I'd be happy if verts were only allowed in places that prohibit traditional caches.

 

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? We aren't trying to change this site. We are only trying to RESTORE a part of our site that we valuede. If for some reason, TPTB decided that YOUR favorite type of cache was no longer welcome, I'd support your fight to keep them. Why not give us the same respect.

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

Your accusation of me being a zealot with my logical stance in an attempt to validate your emotional stance is showing your zeal to be contrary there for making you the zealot.

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.

Unfortunately you are going to believe what you want with your negative conations to make yourself feel righteous with disregard for facts and continue to consider me something that has become a detestable name.

Unfortunately for you, you have completely disregarded a posed compromise. One that has the potential to get you your virts back on this site if you would take the time to drum up enough support.

You going to have to convince enough:

• Geocachers who hate virts
  
• Goecachers who like virts
  
• Goecachers who like virts but think they shouldn't count as the geocaching total
  
• Geocachers that like Waymarking and don't want it brought back here
  
• Waymarkers who are geocachers
  
• Waymarkers who are not geocachers
  
• Waymarkers who hate geocaching
  
• and on
  
• and on
  

Ever stop to consider that there are more than two sides?

Obviously I have.

 

Now you want emotion? Go back and look for all the times bittsen and I agree on something. You will be hard pressed to find any significant percentage. So if you want emotional weight to be included in the debate (that you're trying to make an argument) I would have to say that our agreement lends a significant amount of weight.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

So to rephrase the question... how, exactly does one "hide" a virtual to make it "hidden"?

 

How is this relevant? If it's hidden, it's hidden.

 

If somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify as a geocache, there are a heck of a lot of geocaches out there that don't qualify!

The object of the virtual, how is the object hidden?

As for "somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify" if a person decides that they are hiding an ammo box in the middle of a field then it is hidden in some way shape or form even if everyone that drives by can see it because hidden is the intent.

If the creator of a public display decides to hide the public display then the same applies however most public displays are not hidden they are place with intention for all who come to the area to see, not find.

You cant come along and take a public display and hide it, unless it is your public display to do it with, and you cant take away the owners intention if you are not the owner.

 

The subset of people that are intended to see and pay attention to a public display are all who come and do so.

This is not the same for geocaches, all who are intended to pay attention to a geocache are geocachers and those who may become.

Intention to claim something is hidden is key.

 

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.

I have said some place before something along the lines of show me an intentionally object that is what a virt is about and I'll show you a cache.

Intending to hide is key.

[+narcissa]

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.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

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.

 

I'd be happy if WORTHY virts could be created under/moved to the Puzzle Cache category. After all, virts usually require some sort of verification.

 

Heck, I'd be happy if Waymarking was made to be more like Geocaching.com in terms of the user interface, pocket queries, etc.

 

I get that by many people's definitions, a virtual isn't a geocache. I'm not invested in having my virtual geocache finds count as actual geocaches, I just really like the way that virtuals work on Geocaching.com and I wish Waymarking wasn't so drastically different and horrible to use. I don't want to use two vastly different sites to get geocaches and non-geocache points of interest onto my GPS.

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.

[+narcissa]

Intending to hide is key.

 

Why?

 

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

[+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.