BRING BACK VIRTUAL CACHE

[Clan Riffster]

I think people are getting to hung up on definitions of what a cache is or is not.

No hang ups here. I know what my inner self calls a cache. For instance, an ammo can, full of trinkets, at the base of an ancient cypress tree, way back in a swamp, fits my inner definition of a cache. A film can, tossed into some Burger King shrubbery, does not. The first example is one I will gladly hide, and hunt. The second example I will neither hide nor hunt. Just my personal, highly biased aesthetics at work.

 

As for all the other stuff that Jeremy calls a cache? Meh... It's his website. I'm just thankful that he's given me access to the tools I need to focus my hunts on those things I enjoy, while avoiding those things I don't, putting me in charge of how much fun I have.

[+thedeadpirate]

It is true many waymarks are visited more on line than in person but then Waymarking has some of largest collections of war memorials with quality photos on the the net.

It sounds as if Waymarking is sort of geared toward virtual logging then? I did not realize this. I thought waymarks were meant to be visited in person.

No, not virtual logging. I should have been clearer, the waymark are not visited on-line, the waymark pages are viewed on line. I have received several emails from people outside the geocaching/Waymarking community thanking me or asking me about waymarks. They are intended to visited in person but someone viewing the waymark page on-line will also gain (though not visit) from the waymark listing.

It actually sounds like a logical evolution.

 

For me, if I were going to actually visit the site and not look for a cache, then I would want to be surprised by what I found.

 

However, I could see Waymarking taking off if it were promoted as a "resource" rather than a game. Using the large number of geocachers to collect data of historical or social significance and compiling it all in a central database, fully searchable.

 

Waymarkers could be still be credited for each waymark they make. Then the emphasis would be on creating quality data sets for the general public.

 

Sounds like a plan to me. At least it sounds more interesting to me than Waymarking as I currently understand it to be.

[+geodarts]

There is a video on the website called Geocaching.com founders. At 1.50 Elias says "We have some ideas around making geocaching a little more virtual, a little more social"

 

Does this count.

 

it sounds more to me like a facebook type experience which is all the rage in location based gaming these days. But I am sure Groundspeak will let us know when they are ready,

[+thedeadpirate]

No one can, because Jeremy has closed the discussion. Why should he (or anyone in Groundspeak) have to restate their position unless it has changed?

Well, if someone is claiming to have Jeremy on record as saying he IS going to bring them back, then first, I would like to see a link and second, I would have to see it dated AFTER the one stating he ISN'T bringing them back.

There is a video on the website called Geocaching.com founders. At 1.50 Elias says "We have some ideas around making geocaching a little more virtual, a little more social"

 

Does this count.

 

No. Earthcaches make geocaching a little more virtual. Events make geocaching a little more social. But neither one is a virtual geocache.

[GOF and Bacall]

As for all the other stuff that Jeremy calls a cache? Meh... It's his website. I'm just thankful that he's given me access to the tools I need to focus my hunts on those things I enjoy, while avoiding those things I don't, putting me in charge of how much fun I have.

 

The site does have some good tools. But there is still plenty of room for improvement.

[+GrateBear]

No. No. No.

Check out the Waymarking site to see how dismal that has become. Reviving virtuals would be the new LPCs.

[+narcissa]

The more BruceS and tozainamboku go on about Waymarking, the less fun it sounds.

 

As you are a known basher of Waymarking I don't expect you to find it fun.

 

I'm a "known basher of Waymarking" because it isn't fun.

 

Everything you say to defend it makes it even less fun. Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

[+ChileHead]

I'd like to see all caches moved to a new "Geocaches" category on Waymarking.com

[+narcissa]

I'd like to see all caches moved to a new "Geocaches" category on Waymarking.com

 

Close, but no cigar. That would mean we'd lose all the awesome functionality of this site.

 

I'd like to see Waymarking and Geocaching combined into one site with the goodness of both (Waymarking's filtering, Geocaching's pocket queries, etc.). It would be fantastic if people could set filters to choose geocaches AND waymarks that meet their tastes, all on ONE site that doesn't suck.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'd like to see all caches moved to a new "Geocaches" category on Waymarking.com

That's really where I thought Waymarking was going. I am surprised it hasn't happened.

[+narcissa]

I'd like to see all caches moved to a new "Geocaches" category on Waymarking.com

That's really where I thought Waymarking was going. I am surprised it hasn't happened.

 

Why are you surprised? Geocaching is Groundspeak's bread and butter.

[+brslk]

I'd like to see all caches moved to a new "Geocaches" category on Waymarking.com

That's really where I thought Waymarking was going. I am surprised it hasn't happened.

 

Why are you surprised? Geocaching is Groundspeak's bread and butter.

 

Isn't "bread and butter" about supply and demand?

[+BelKen]

No one can, because Jeremy has closed the discussion. Why should he (or anyone in Groundspeak) have to restate their position unless it has changed?

Well, if someone is claiming to have Jeremy on record as saying he IS going to bring them back, then first, I would like to see a link and second, I would have to see it dated AFTER the one stating he ISN'T bringing them back.

There is a video on the website called Geocaching.com founders. At 1.50 Elias says "We have some ideas around making geocaching a little more virtual, a little more social"

 

Does this count.

 

No. Earthcaches make geocaching a little more virtual. Events make geocaching a little more social. But neither one is a virtual geocache.

Neither is a geocache either

[+thedeadpirate]

No one can, because Jeremy has closed the discussion. Why should he (or anyone in Groundspeak) have to restate their position unless it has changed?

Well, if someone is claiming to have Jeremy on record as saying he IS going to bring them back, then first, I would like to see a link and second, I would have to see it dated AFTER the one stating he ISN'T bringing them back.

There is a video on the website called Geocaching.com founders. At 1.50 Elias says "We have some ideas around making geocaching a little more virtual, a little more social"

 

Does this count.

 

No. Earthcaches make geocaching a little more virtual. Events make geocaching a little more social. But neither one is a virtual geocache.

Neither is a geocache either

 

What's your point?

[+BruceS]

Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

 

I am not sure what you think the site was intended for but my understanding of the intent comes from the home page of the site "Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world." and I don't think I have said anything that would go against that intent.

[+dfx]

amending my initial post in this thread:

 

[+thedeadpirate]

amending my initial post in this thread:

 

 

I should have stuck with "Ni!".

[+Coldgears]

Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

 

I am not sure what you think the site was intended for but my understanding of the intent comes from the home page of the site "Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world." and I don't think I have said anything that would go against that intent.

So, someone from Groundspeak clicked on a thread "bring back virtual"... Why? It's probably not to defend Waymarking, you would never know that was in this thread unless you clicked. So why did someone from Groundspeak click this title, most likely with the intent on not posting on the main topic, but noticed a side topic while in the thread and felt compelled to respond. Why?

 

 

* Meant to point out there is hope and ground speak is listening!

[+narcissa]

Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

 

I am not sure what you think the site was intended for but my understanding of the intent comes from the home page of the site "Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world." and I don't think I have said anything that would go against that intent.

 

The key part of my statement was really the part about people actually using the site to find things that others have marked. That's not happening, at least not where I am.

 

If the true intent of the site is for control freaks and borderline autistics to waymark and categorize everything in their neighbourhood just because they can, then hey, well done - no need to sell the site to the rest of us.

[+Bossmyers]

Ok...I am going to give my opinion about virtual caches, and I do expect people to respect what I like, just as I respect what others like. I myself really like the virtual caches and I wish they would reinstate them. They not only take people to very interesting places but they also teach things about specific historic sites etc... During the times that I have found virtuals I have truly enjoyed them.

 

I know that some may say, "Why don't you do Waymarking"? First of all I am a geocacher, I don't waymark. Why recreate the wheel? Virtual caches worked great. If you want to find them you could and if you chose not to find them, then so be it. No one group should speak for everyone. No one makes you do the virtuals, but those of us that like them should have the benefit of our yearly fees too. To be honest virtual caches are probably my favorite. I am a teacher and I like the fact that virtual caches actually give you something when you find them.

 

I have done earthcaches but they deal more with geological features, rather than historical information and sites. I do find some, but then again that is my choice. I prefer the virtual caches. I think that a good balance of different kinds of caches is what we need, that way everyone has an opportunity to do what they prefer.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Bossmyers

[4wheelin_fool]

Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

 

I am not sure what you think the site was intended for but my understanding of the intent comes from the home page of the site "Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world." and I don't think I have said anything that would go against that intent.

 

The key part of my statement was really the part about people actually using the site to find things that others have marked. That's not happening, at least not where I am.

 

If the true intent of the site is for control freaks and borderline autistics to waymark and categorize everything in their neighbourhood just because they can, then hey, well done - no need to sell the site to the rest of us.

 

Your characterization is completely incorrect. I'm a borderline autistic control freak, and barely have interest in the site.

[+narcissa]

 

Your characterization is completely incorrect. I'm a borderline autistic control freak, and barely have interest in the site.

 

So who uses Waymarking then?

[Clan Riffster]

 

Your characterization is completely incorrect. I'm a borderline autistic control freak, and barely have interest in the site.

 

So who uses Waymarking then?

Well, there's this one guy... or so I heard.

[+tozainamboku]

It is true many waymarks are visited more on line than in person but then Waymarking has some of largest collections of war memorials with quality photos on the the net.

It sounds as if Waymarking is sort of geared toward virtual logging then? I did not realize this. I thought waymarks were meant to be visited in person.

No, not virtual logging. I should have been clearer, the waymark are not visited on-line, the waymark pages are viewed on line. I have received several emails from people outside the geocaching/Waymarking community thanking me or asking me about waymarks. They are intended to visited in person but someone viewing the waymark page on-line will also gain (though not visit) from the waymark listing.

It actually sounds like a logical evolution.

 

For me, if I were going to actually visit the site and not look for a cache, then I would want to be surprised by what I found.

 

However, I could see Waymarking taking off if it were promoted as a "resource" rather than a game. Using the large number of geocachers to collect data of historical or social significance and compiling it all in a central database, fully searchable.

 

Waymarkers could be still be credited for each waymark they make. Then the emphasis would be on creating quality data sets for the general public.

 

Sounds like a plan to me. At least it sounds more interesting to me than Waymarking as I currently understand it to be.

Yet that pretty much is what Waymarking is so far. It really follows the model of locationless caches more than virtual. Category owner define what sort of location they want in the category and people go find these location and write up what they find a waymarks. The main difference is that with locationless caches one simply gave the coordinates of what you found. For waymarks you need to write a description and depending on the category post picture and provide the values of a few category specific variables for your waymark. If your submission doesn't meet the requirements put forth for that category is can be rejected.

 

The more BruceS and tozainamboku go on about Waymarking, the less fun it sounds.

 

As you are a known basher of Waymarking I don't expect you to find it fun.

 

I'm a "known basher of Waymarking" because it isn't fun.

 

Everything you say to defend it makes it even less fun. Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

So you view it as intended as a replacement for virtual caches?

The intent of Waymarking is for people to share interesting places. Those who say they liked virtual caches because they got to visit interesting places can certainly use Waymarking to visit interesting places. They can pick a few categories they are interested in and visit the waymarks in those categories. Certainly there are issues with doing this. First you have to look at the categories to determine which ones you want to visit. Second, you can only download the coordinates. Since there is usually good information about the location on the waymark page it would be nice to have that along. And if the waymark has any special requirements for logging visits, you'd want to know those as well. But my guess is that a lot of people liked virtual caches because they were cache-like. You had to discover something when you visited the location and prove you did by either answering a question or taking a picture. Very few Waymarking categories are like this, so I will agree that most waymarks don't replace virtuals.

 

Often these threads are started by newbies who have a special place they want to share with other geocachers but for one reason or another they can't put a physical cache there (or make a stage in a multi). They see the grandfathered virtual caches and wonder why they can't create one. Waymarking is brought up as a way they can share the location with others. The Waymarking bashers come along and frighten the newbie away from using this option. "Don't share your location there, no one will visit it" or "You will have to jump through hoops to get it listed by the borderline autistic control freaks". If BruceS and myself seem to come on always defending Waymarking it is because we see it as ultimately the best way to share locations with other people who have similar interests.

 

I'd like to see all caches moved to a new "Geocaches" category on Waymarking.com

 

Close, but no cigar. That would mean we'd lose all the awesome functionality of this site.

 

I'd like to see Waymarking and Geocaching combined into one site with the goodness of both (Waymarking's filtering, Geocaching's pocket queries, etc.). It would be fantastic if people could set filters to choose geocaches AND waymarks that meet their tastes, all on ONE site that doesn't suck.

The Waymarking database was developed from scratch using what Groundspeak learned from Geocaching.com. The geocaching database was put together by people who were essentially amateurs and it did not scale well as geocaching grew. The new database was designed to be scalable and to apply to many different kinds of location based applications. It is clear that with a few additional features, geocaches are no more than a Waymarking category. At one time Jeremy would talk about Geocaching 2.0 and gave hint that the database would indeed be migrated over to a the Waymarking database. However, I don't think he ever intended to fully combine the sites. Geocaching.com would continue to exist as the site for geocaches. Most people would not even be aware that it was using the same backend database as Waymarking. However, this would allow the two sites to share some code, and some functionality from Geoacaching (like pocket queries) would be available on Waymarking while some Waymarking functionality (multiple home locations, ratings, and statistics) would available on Geocaching. However nothing has been mentioned in a while so I don't know where these plans are now.

[+The Blorenges]

Those who use facebook may be aware of the group "Bring Virtual Caches Back."

 

On 25th May the link to the group was posted on Jeremy's facebook wall. He replied to say that Groundspeak are "actively" looking at bringing Virtuals back in some way that doesn't cause the same problems as in the past. So there is still some grain of hope.

 

MrsB

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Those who use facebook may be aware of the group "Bring Virtual Caches Back."

 

On 25th May the link to the group was posted on Jeremy's facebook wall. He replied to say that Groundspeak are "actively" looking at bringing Virtuals back in some way that doesn't cause the same problems as in the past. So there is still some grain of hope.

 

MrsB

Woohoo!

[+Team Cotati]

Ok...I am going to give my opinion about virtual caches, and I do expect people to respect what I like, just as I respect what others like. I myself really like the virtual caches and I wish they would reinstate them. They not only take people to very interesting places but they also teach things about specific historic sites etc... During the times that I have found virtuals I have truly enjoyed them.

 

I know that some may say, "Why don't you do Waymarking"? First of all I am a geocacher, I don't waymark. Why recreate the wheel? Virtual caches worked great. If you want to find them you could and if you chose not to find them, then so be it. No one group should speak for everyone. No one makes you do the virtuals, but those of us that like them should have the benefit of our yearly fees too. To be honest virtual caches are probably my favorite. I am a teacher and I like the fact that virtual caches actually give you something when you find them.

 

I have done earthcaches but they deal more with geological features, rather than historical information and sites. I do find some, but then again that is my choice. I prefer the virtual caches. I think that a good balance of different kinds of caches is what we need, that way everyone has an opportunity to do what they prefer.

 

Right on sister!! The decision to disallow new virtual caches was a big mistake.

[knowschad]

Ni!

 

Ni! +1

 

-1

-1(-1)

 

+√i

abs(-1(-1))

[+narcissa]

So you view it as intended as a replacement for virtual caches?

 

No, actually, I don't.

 

Groundspeak keeps insisting that it is. Functionally, it doesn't even come close.

 

I don't care about the inner workings of the database - I care about the interface and the functions available to me. On that score, Waymarking fails miserably.

 

They either need to fix the site so we can use it the way they keep telling us we can use it, or stop the charade.

 

These "bring back virtuals" threads aren't going to go away, but it would be much more honest if Groundspeak would just admit that they took virtuals away, and stop lying about Waymarking being a replacement.

 

Virtuals are gone. Waymarking is irrelevant to that. End of story.

[+roziecakes]

Those who use facebook may be aware of the group "Bring Virtual Caches Back."

 

On 25th May the link to the group was posted on Jeremy's facebook wall. He replied to say that Groundspeak are "actively" looking at bringing Virtuals back in some way that doesn't cause the same problems as in the past. So there is still some grain of hope.

 

MrsB

Woohoo!

 

Wow!

[+briansnat]

The more BruceS and tozainamboku go on about Waymarking, the less fun it sounds.

 

As you are a known basher of Waymarking I don't expect you to find it fun.

 

I'm a "known basher of Waymarking" because it isn't fun.

 

Everything you say to defend it makes it even less fun. Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

 

If Waymarking and virtuals aren't your cup of beer then that's an understandable argument. Now if you are saying virtuals are fun, but wamarking isn't, that is a curious argument because the experience is nearly identical. It's like saying that you enjoy steak but don't like beef.

[+roziecakes]

If Waymarking and virtuals aren't your cup of beer then that's an understandable argument. Now if you are saying virtuals are fun, but wamarking isn't, that is a curious argument because the experience is nearly identical. It's like saying that you enjoy steak but don't like beef.

 

I don't have a lot of experience with Waymarking, but yes I did notice that the experience itself was identical; except the difference lay in the website itself and logging the waymark. Waymarking.com isn't user-friendly, as mentioned by narcissa and others as well.

[jholly]

The more BruceS and tozainamboku go on about Waymarking, the less fun it sounds.

 

As you are a known basher of Waymarking I don't expect you to find it fun.

 

I'm a "known basher of Waymarking" because it isn't fun.

 

Everything you say to defend it makes it even less fun. Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

 

If Waymarking and virtuals aren't your cup of beer then that's an understandable argument. Now if you are saying virtuals are fun, but wamarking isn't, that is a curious argument because the experience is nearly identical. It's like saying that you enjoy steak but don't like beef.

 

sticking babelfish into ear ....

 

virtuals count and waymarks don't

 

Does that help?

 

Proabably dosen't like benchmarks either, or what ever they call those things north of the border.

[+briansnat]

The more BruceS and tozainamboku go on about Waymarking, the less fun it sounds.

 

As you are a known basher of Waymarking I don't expect you to find it fun.

 

I'm a "known basher of Waymarking" because it isn't fun.

 

Everything you say to defend it makes it even less fun. Something to think about if you're actually interested in seeing people use the site as it was intended.

 

If Waymarking and virtuals aren't your cup of beer then that's an understandable argument. Now if you are saying virtuals are fun, but wamarking isn't, that is a curious argument because the experience is nearly identical. It's like saying that you enjoy steak but don't like beef.

 

sticking babelfish into ear ....

 

virtuals count and waymarks don't

 

Does that help?

 

Proabably dosen't like benchmarks either, or what ever they call those things north of the border.

 

So it's only fun if you get a smiley for it. Noooow I get it.

[+narcissa]

 

sticking babelfish into ear ....

 

virtuals count and waymarks don't

 

Does that help?

 

Proabably dosen't like benchmarks either, or what ever they call those things north of the border.

 

I can put virtuals into my GPS at the same time as other geocaches, by simply including them in my pocket query.

 

I can't create virtuals because they don't exist anymore, and I can't create waymarks because the site is so difficult to use, so that's a wash.

 

Canadian benchmarks aren't listed on Geocaching.com. I haven't found any American benchmarks, but I'd happily look for one if I saw one in a place I was visiting. I do include them in my American pocket queries.

 

It's not about smileys or whether or not they're geocaches, it's about having things in one place where it's easy to find them and load them into the GPS.

 

If I could set Waymarking filters and include waymarks in my geocaching pocket queries, I'd look for them. As it is, in order to find waymarks, I have to fiddle around with a poorly-designed site that doesn't have pocket queries. Lame.

[+dfx]

I can't create virtuals because they don't exist anymore, and I don't want to create waymarks because the site is so difficult to use and I can't be bothered to learn it, so that's a wash.

there, FYP.

 

[american benchmarks] I do include them in my American pocket queries.

really?

[+narcissa]

I can't create virtuals because they don't exist anymore, and I don't want to create waymarks because the site is so difficult to use and I can't be bothered to learn it, so that's a wash.

there, FYP.

 

[american benchmarks] I do include them in my American pocket queries.

really?

 

My post doesn't need fixing. If they want people to use the site, it should be intuitive and easy to use. I'm not dedicating a week of my time to figuring it out. Besides that, based on the horror stories I've heard, there's no point in submitting waymarks anyway, since the five people who do use the site use any excuse to reject them.

 

Never noticed that benchmarks weren't included in PQs, that's weird. We don't have them in Canada. I'd never gone out of my way to AVOID them, and just assumed they'd be included. I guess that explains why I never see them on my GPS even when I'm in the US!

 

So no, I probably wouldn't look for benchmarks, because they aren't included in PQs.

[+Dragery]

If you want to find cool places, get a travel book, or use those spinoff websites. But Geocaching seems to be going back to its original intention.

 

"Geocaching is a high-tech treasure hunting game played throughout the world by adventure seekers equipped with GPS devices. The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches, outdoors and then share your experiences online."

[+narcissa]

If you want to find cool places, get a travel book, or use those spinoff websites. But Geocaching seems to be going back to its original intention.

 

"Geocaching is a high-tech treasure hunting game played throughout the world by adventure seekers equipped with GPS devices. The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches, outdoors and then share your experiences online."

 

"Joined: 6-June 10"

 

[+Dragery]

If you want to find cool places, get a travel book, or use those spinoff websites. But Geocaching seems to be going back to its original intention.

 

"Geocaching is a high-tech treasure hunting game played throughout the world by adventure seekers equipped with GPS devices. The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches, outdoors and then share your experiences online."

 

"Joined: 6-June 10"

 

 

How cute, it's patronizing me. Must suck when someone with such little seniority still makes a valid point. Get off your high horse.

[+narcissa]

If you want to find cool places, get a travel book, or use those spinoff websites. But Geocaching seems to be going back to its original intention.

 

"Geocaching is a high-tech treasure hunting game played throughout the world by adventure seekers equipped with GPS devices. The basic idea is to locate hidden containers, called geocaches, outdoors and then share your experiences online."

 

"Joined: 6-June 10"

 

 

How cute, it's patronizing me. Must suck when someone with such little seniority still makes a valid point. Get off your high horse.

 

What is the valid point? Geocaching still encompasses Earthcaches, events, CITOs, Mega-events, and the GPS Adventure Maze. None of these are hidden containers.

 

Multi-caches and Mystery/Unknown caches often go well beyond the hidden container aspect as well.

 

So... valid point? No.

 

"Joined: 6-June 10"

 

 

Edited to add: It's well established that Groundspeak got rid of virtuals because they were a pain in the arse for reviewers, not out of some noble intention to return geocaching to its roots.

Edited June 18, 2010 by narcissa

[+Dragery]

 

What is the valid point? Geocaching still encompasses Earthcaches, events, CITOs, Mega-events, and the GPS Adventure Maze. None of these are hidden containers.

 

So... valid point? No.

 

"Joined: 6-June 10"

 

 

They can move to those other sites as well as far as I'm concerned. Especially how events count for cache finds. In my city there is about 4 events a month that the same 10 people attend every month, what a circle jerk. I can appreciate the fellowship between cachers, but the same people meeting up like 4+ times a month just for smiles and beers is padding.

 

Give me 5 years and I'll be a condescending prick as well.. well, no I wont.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Dragery

[+narcissa]

 

They can move to those other sites as well as far as I'm concerned. Especially how events count for cache finds. In my city there is about 4 events a month that the same 10 people attend every month, what a circle jerk. I can appreciate the fellowship between cachers, but the same people meeting up like 4+ times a month just for smiles and beers is padding.

 

Give me 5 years and I'll be a condescending prick as well.. well, no I wont.

 

Your personal attachment to other cache types is not at issue here. You are free to log or not log events as you see fit. Whether or not other people log them has no impact on you.

 

Virtuals were eliminated because of the problems associated with them, not because geocaching is returning to its "orginal" intent.

 

As for being a condescending *****, referring to other geocachers attending an event as mutual masturbation is pretty condescending, not to mention offensive and disgusting. Who's on the high horse now?

Edited June 18, 2010 by narcissa

[+Dragery]

Double post.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Dragery

[+Dragery]

I never said they were removing virtuals SO they could go back to how it was, I'm stating it's an effect of them doing so. Also, I didn't mean it in a literal circle jerk, think of it as 10 people getting together to stroke each others ego's and getting their numbers up. Having an opinion doesn't claim superiority, but trying to insinuate my comment doesn't hold any merit based on my time here is pretty pathetic.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Dragery

[+narcissa]

I never said they were removing virtuals SO they could go back to how it was, I'm stating it's an effect of them doing so. Also, I didn't mean it in a literal circle jerk, think of it as 10 people getting together to stroke each others ego's and getting their numbers up. Having an opinion doesn't claim superiority, but trying to say I have no opinion based on my time here is bogus.

 

Why do you care about other people's numbers? You are free to log or not log caches according to your own standards. Other people's statistics have no bearing on yours.

 

It's obvious that you have very little background knowledge of this issue, and it's also obvious that you have a seriously bizarre inferiority complex when it comes to other geocachers. I think it's appalling that you would use such a derogatory, homophobic term to describe other geocachers getting together. Absolutely disgusting.

[+Dragery]

Yawn, too much sidestepping the point. Trying to turn everything into how I'm disgusting and what not. I've already made 2 posts trying to defend myself, and you seem pretty determined to dissect and misinterpret everything else I say to make me look like something I'm not.

 

*tips hate* 5 o'clock, time to punch the ole time card and find some caches.

 

No hard feelings ;D

[+captnemo]

Ok...I am going to give my opinion about virtual caches, and I do expect people to respect what I like, just as I respect what others like. I myself really like the virtual caches and I wish they would reinstate them. They not only take people to very interesting places but they also teach things about specific historic sites etc... During the times that I have found virtuals I have truly enjoyed them.

 

I know that some may say, "Why don't you do Waymarking"? First of all I am a geocacher, I don't waymark. Why recreate the wheel? Virtual caches worked great. If you want to find them you could and if you chose not to find them, then so be it. No one group should speak for everyone. No one makes you do the virtuals, but those of us that like them should have the benefit of our yearly fees too. To be honest virtual caches are probably my favorite. I am a teacher and I like the fact that virtual caches actually give you something when you find them.

 

I have done earthcaches but they deal more with geological features, rather than historical information and sites. I do find some, but then again that is my choice. I prefer the virtual caches. I think that a good balance of different kinds of caches is what we need, that way everyone has an opportunity to do what they prefer.

 

I agree!

[+geodarts]

So it's only fun if you get a smiley for it. Noooow I get it.

 

Virtuals are fun as part of this game. The GPS Maze Exhibit was also fun because it is part of this game. Earthcaches are fun because they are part of this game. I am hoping that the Groundspeak HQ visit/event will also be fun as part of this game.

 

Could a navicache or terracache be fun? I suppose so, but I do not do them because they are not part of this game. Some of my friends think that finding a waypoint in Gowalla is fun, but I do not do that any more - for some of the reasons that I do not waymark.. (I do occasional letterboxes and am the world leader in iSpy games, but that is about as far as I take it.)

 

Earthcaching is a good example of how other types of experiences can be a part of this game. They have taken me to some of the most amazing places I have discovered through caching. Right or wrong, if they had stayed as part of Waymarking, I would have missed a lot.

 

Virtuals have also enriched my geocaching experience. I hope that the reports that Groundspeak is considering how to re-incorporate them into this game are true. I think that if virtuals provided a specific task (apart from repeating what is on a monument or taking a photo) and had a specific focus, they could enhance caching and provide an educational experience. And yes, new virtuals would be a fun part of this game.

Edited June 19, 2010 by mulvaney

[+mchaos]

Seriously, just about all don't want to see them to come back and the subject comes up 3-4 times a month.

 

On the contrary, many of us DO want to see them return. But Groundspeak has made it clear over and over that it ain't happening. They even went so far as to build a completely different site call Waymarking.com in order to have a place to push people who want the virtual experience.

 

We can argue all day how much fun they are and how we want them, but it does not change the fact that Groundspeak is FIRM in their stance.

 

Virtual Cache?

 

I came into geocaching after virtual cache was grandfathered, and even I figured out right away that Waymarking.com was a replacement for the virtual cache. I don't think a virtual cache is not in the same spirit of geocaching.