BRING BACK VIRTUAL CACHE

[+Chokecherry]

I wouldn't mind the virtual caches returning if they had some steeper guidelines like earthcaches do so they can't just be thrown up willy nilly for any old Walmart or McD's that has some sentimental value.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

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

 

The only benchmarks I've found have been incidental. I saw them while hunting for a cache, so I took a picture and when I logged the cache, I checked for nearby benchmarks. If it was listed and matched the photo I took, I logged it.

I can't say that I've ever thought of looking for nearby waymarks when I was out caching, even though a number of them are very close to the cache I was seeking/am going to be seeking. With benchmarks, I at least have the physical benchmark to make me aware that there is one there. Without a PQ, waymarks are invisible to me in the field. If I could include waymarks in a PQ, I wouldn't hesitate to visit them when out caching.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

There was no point. You said something demonstrably false, and then back-pedalled and start ranting about how the local cachers in your area get together to masturbate. Whatever, dude.

[+narcissa]

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

 

The only benchmarks I've found have been incidental. I saw them while hunting for a cache, so I took a picture and when I logged the cache, I checked for nearby benchmarks. If it was listed and matched the photo I took, I logged it.

I can't say that I've ever thought of looking for nearby waymarks when I was out caching, even though a number of them are very close to the cache I was seeking/am going to be seeking. With benchmarks, I at least have the physical benchmark to make me aware that there is one there. Without a PQ, waymarks are invisible to me in the field. If I could include waymarks in a PQ, I wouldn't hesitate to visit them when out caching.

 

We do "find" benchmarks when we're caching, but I know Canadian benchmarks aren't listed so I'd never looked into it deeply on Geocaching.com. I think it's kind of neat to find them, especially when I'm way out in the bush. If I did stumble on one while I was in the US, I might look it up later - but I wouldn't try to find out about them in advance.

 

If there was a little box I could tick off to include selected Waymarks in my pocket query, that would be awesome. Especially now that we can have up to 1000 geocaches in a query, and my GPS holds up to 5000 geocaches - I would definitely pick a few interesting categories and include them.

[4wheelin_fool]

How about just logging all waymark finds under the "brass caps" virtual in Canada?

[+thedeadpirate]

To be honest, my biggest problem with Waymarking is that it occurs on a different website. I like one stop shopping. If I wanted to fool with other sites, I'd do terracaching and navicaching as well.

 

I'm just not interesting in learning a new set of tools.

 

Call me lazy, but that's just the way it is for me.

[+tozainamboku]

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"

 

During the past ten years geocaching has gone through a number of changes. In the early years the guidelines allowed a much more open definition of what could be listed. New ideas were encouraged in part because the people who run the website didn't really know what direction this would take. It was in their interests to allow lots of different variations to encourage growth. Virtual caches were one of these variations. So were puzzle caches and multi-caches. There was even an idea for cache that could be done anywhere: locationless caches. There were moving caches. And then were were the caches that required you to do something extra to log a find online.

 

Some ideas worked well. Others caused all kinds of problems. Guidelines were changed as problems developed. For example, the guidelines for traditional caches were changed to indicate that the cache had to have accurate coordinates and that there must be an option to use a GPS as an integral part of the hunt. Puzzles could no longer require someone to download executables to solve. After being able to put an ALR on any cache, the quidelines were first changed so that caches with ALRs had to be listed and Unknown type, and then changed a second time so that no physical caches could have ALRs (and there was no grandfathering of existing ALRs either).

 

By the time I started geocaching there was already a moratorium on new locationless caches. Virtuals could still be created, but the guidelines had been tightened up so that only a few would be approved.

 

TPTB realized that a certain group of cachers really enjoyed locationless caches and virtual caches. So they looked for a solution that would allow these activities to continue. I believe they actually wanted to continue virtual caches at least on Geocaching.com. But the guideline changes were causing other problems. The "WOW" requirement allowed the reviewers to control the number of virtuals that could be published (and perhaps even provided some quality assurance on those that did get published). If reviewers thought too many virtuals were being published they would just turn up the definition of "wow". But this didn't stop lame virtuals from being submitted. People who had a neat place to share would submit a virtual cache. Reviewers had there hands full turning down the many non-wow virtuals that were submitted. Of course this made visiting the virtuals that did get published that much more fun. There weren't many new virtuals and the ones that got published were almost guaranteed to "wow" you. And since people tend to hide the kinds of caches they like to find - more virtuals got submitted and the reviewers had more caches they had turn down because they weren't "wow" enough.

 

TPTB looked for a new definition of virtual cache. They even solicited ideas in the forums. But none of the ideas seem to address the problem of how to control virtual caches so they didn't dominate the physical caches that fit the traditional definition of the sport without putting to big of a burden on the volunteer reviewers. Even the model of EarthCaches being approved by an outside organization with strict guidelines for educational content, didn't seem to solve the problem when applied to generic virtual caches.

 

Meanwhile, the solution for locationless caches began to take shape. A new website where members could define categories for locations of interest, in much the same way locationless caches were defined before the moratorium. Cachers (or waymakers on the new site) would find locations in these categories and submit these as new waymarks. Unlike locationless caches, the category owners could ask for additional information and pictures to be posted. Some categories would go beyond just the scavenger hunt of a locationless cache. The collections of locations would become a resource for people looking for locations in these categories. While the main advantage would be the collection of information provided when the waymark was created, the Waymarking categories could also be used to encourage visits to the locations. Locations could be downloaded from Waymarking.com and loaded into a GPS as points of interest that people might want to stop at when they were traveling.

 

Someone at Groundspeak then realized that most virtual caches were just people trying to share interesting locations. What if virtual caches went away? Couldn't people use waymarks as a way to share interesting locations? There surely would be a category for any location that was interesting enough to make into a virtual cache. (In fact there is now an uncategorized category where you can submit a waymark if there is no category for it.) So it was decided that new virtuals would not be published on GC.com and instead, if you wanted to share a location, you would do so on Waymarking.

 

This response is already tl;ndnr (narcissa did not read) so I can say here that I agree with some of what she is saying. Waymarking is not a replacement for virtuals. It was not design to be one. But is is a place where people can share interesting locations. In looking for ways to deal with the problems caused by too many virtuals being submitted that didn't meet the requirements (along with several other problems caused by virtuals, such as armchair logging of virtuals), TPTB decided to grandfather the virtual cache type and not accept new ones. Virtual caches are no more as are several other types that were tried early on and caused too many problems. However, if you want to share a neat place and you can't put a cache there (or use it in a multi-cache), you can create a waymark. If you like stopping at neat places, find the categories that interest you and download the coordinates of the waymarks in them near where you are going. But narcissa is right, with virtual caches you could get your pocket query with all the virtual and physical caches together and stop at the interesting places along the route you took as you looked for physical geocaches. With waymarks you need to get the data from two sites combined them on your GPS or using third party software. And of course, the biggest difference (though some deny it), you don't get a Geocaching smiley for visiting a waymark.

[+geodarts]

Even the model of EarthCaches being approved by an outside organization with strict guidelines for educational content, didn't seem to solve the problem when applied to generic virtual caches.

 

The earthcache model works because it is focused on a particular subject and overseen by a dedicated group that was able to form partnerships with Groundspeak and the National Parks. Certainly the same type of focused, educational tasks could be applied to other types of virtual caches. But the "problem" with virtuals was with trying to apply a wow factor to a generic classification.

 

I don't think anyone wants to open up the floodgates so that any plaque or fast food place could be a virtual cache. But there are unique historical, artistic, or cultural sites that could have the type of tasks and the focus required of earthcaches. And there are places where traditional caches are not appropriate that could be opened to other parts of this game.

[+narcissa]

Describing the history of this issue in exacting detail doesn't change the reality of the situation. Aside from the obvious technical problems that have been discussed to death, there's a serious culture difference between geocaching and Waymarking.

 

While most serious geocachers find AND hide geocaches, most serious waymarkers are just interested in creating waymarks and enforcing the taxonomies they create. There seems to be very little actual visiting going on - just classifying.

 

Clearly there's a sub-section of geocachers who like finding containers AND cool locations without containers. We'll keep seeing these threads every month or so until the end of time, or until Waymarking.com is made better and integrated with Geocaching.com, or until virtuals come back.

 

And if it is about the smiley for some geocachers, so what? This "oh, so it's all about the smiley" snark is the last bastion of people so humourless, uptight, and caught up in controlling others that they've completely lost all sense that this is a game. That's sad in and of itself, but what's even more sad is that some of these types actually have some authority around here. 'Tis a shame.

[Clan Riffster]

If you are saying virtuals are fun, but wamarking isn't, that is a curious argument because the experience is nearly identical.

I don't know, Brian. For me, (probably because of the way I cache), they are quite different. I can have a PQ in my hot little hands with a gazillion virts, in about 15 seconds. Loaded into my Oregon in another 5 seconds. Out the door I go. Because of the time span when "Wow" was important, chances are high that no matter which one I pick, I'm gonna visit some place fairly interesting. A couple pecks at my GPSr screen, and I'm reading the cache page.

 

Unless something has changed recently, I can't run a PQ for Waymarks, nor can I load .gpx files, which allow me to read them in my handheld. If I do manage to get a bunch loaded up, and head out the door, my risk of coming upon a lame one is much higher, as "Wow" is not a consideration when building a category. A kwick scan of my zipcode shows several parks, (which I already knew about), several libraries, (which I already knew about), several boat ramps, (which I already knew about), and a smattering of historical places, (which I already knew about), as well as a few other tidbits. As I scroll through the pages, I can't find a single thing listed that I was not already aware of.

 

This tells me that the experience prior to the find is rather different.

 

I've noticed, for me, that the experience once at ground zero has some significant differences as well. With almost all the Waymarks, I know I can probably get away with just taking a picture. Occasionally, one will require either me, or my GPSr, to be in the picture, but those are by far, the exceptions. With a virt, I typically have to do a lot more hoop jumping, figuring out stuff before I can log it.

 

I should clarify that these are not complaints, just observations. I'm not a fan of either virts or Waymarks.

[cezanne]

It can be argued that neither are bison tubes in a lamppost.

A bison tube in a lamppost is a container with a log to sign that I can find using the coordinates of the lamppost and my GPS. Just becuase you don't like some particular style of geocache doesn't make it less of a cache. There needs to be much more reason to change the guidelines to restrict some style of geocache than "I don't like it."

 

TPTB have given their rationale for no longer accepting virtual caches and for grandfathering the existing ones.

 

It appears to me that you mix up two different issues like many others in this and related discussions.

While I think that the decision to no longer accept virtual caches on gc.com was a reasonable one given all the circumstances, this does not change incidentally what a geocache is. Virtual geocaches have been treated and accepted as geocaches on gc.com for some years and the grandfathered ones and some other types of

container-less caches are still active on gc.com. When I perform a search for my nearest unfound geocaches, container-less caches are listed as well on the result page. So it's complete nonsense to claim that container-less caches are not geocaches. What is true is that except events, CITOs and Earthcaches no

other type of container-less cache is accepted according to the current guidelines. There is a huge difference between these two statements.

 

Please note that my insisting on the fact that virtual caches are geocaches does not mean that I think that it would be a good idea to bring back virtual caches to gc.com. Whenever the statement that container-less caches are no geocaches is a valid one (in my opininion it is not), everyone could start to come up with his own definition what's a geocache with the very same right than the ones who base everything on a container. (The first geocache was a bucket and certainly the hider would not have regarded a bison type as valid alternative.)

 

It might well be that Groundspeak and also some cachers who are tired of "bring back virtual" or "why virtual caches have been abolished" discussions prefer a short and simple answer and explanation about what

distinguishes the sites Waymarking.com and gc.com. Clearly this answer becomes simpler if one could ignore the history and other geocaching sites. Had virtual caches never existed, then one could come up with the definition that a geocache is a container. As this is, however, not the case, it is not possible to

change the meaning of the term geocache after years of existence.

 

 

Cezanne"

Edited June 19, 2010 by cezanne

[+DonB]

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."

I'm not trying to slam you because you are new at the game, but if you were around when caching first started you would see geocaching has, in my opinion, changed quite a bit from it's original intention.

[+Packanack]

in my opinion, changed quite a bit from it's original intention

 

Please, what do you think the original intention was ?

 

I always had this thought in my mind that it was originally intended to provide for an alternative form of recreation in the outdoors--the rest of it, the trading, the loggin, the smilies, the forums, the coins were just added non esssentials to having a good time out in the world.

 

BTW, did a virtual in Washington DC yesterday, it was fun outdoors, did not need a logbook, a box, a trinket --still found something with my gps, still had fun. I had driven my daughter down from NJ for an interview she had, I had 1 hour to chill, this provided an excellent break.

 

So I go in the Yes to Virtuals column--not that anyone keeps track.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Packanack

[+roziecakes]

I've only been caching since 2006, so I'm definitely not old school, but things have even changed a lot since I started caching. There are so many more options now in trackables, event types, things like Wherigos, so many more icons and I think it's a lot more commercialized. Not that this is a bad thing in a lot of ways. Just means there are more things for me to try to do while enjoying my favorite hobby. But that's my opinion, some others hate the changes, while still others love them much more than I do.

[+DonB]

in my opinion, changed quite a bit from it's original intention

 

Please, what do you think the original intention was ?

 

I always had this thought in my mind that it was originally intended to provide for an alternative form of recreation in the outdoors--the rest of it, the trading, the loggin, the smilies, the forums, the coins were just added non esssentials to having a good time out in the world.

 

BTW, did a virtual in Washington DC yesterday, it was fun outdoors, did not need a logbook, a box, a trinket --still found something with my gps, still had fun. I had driven my daughter down from NJ for an interview she had, I had 1 hour to chill, this provided an excellent break.

 

So I go in the Yes to Virtuals column--not that anyone keeps track.

If you noticed I did say in my opinion. Not being a mind reader I can't say for sure what the original intention of TPTB was, but I don't think it was nanos under merry-go-rounds or bison tubes hanging in trees, or in lampposts, or in a fake sprinkler head in a Walmart parking lot. I do the micros because it's better then nothing, but I would rather do a virtual anytime then I would to hunt micros. Best of all give me a good old ammo can so I can trade swag and move TBs and geocoins.

[+lcandela123]

Back when I was a newbie, I asked this same question, and got a lot of "groan" responses. Wasn't aware that this has been discussed many, many times.

 

Personally, I like virtuals, and wish they would come back. There was a concern that they would oversaturate the system.

[+briansnat]

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."

I'm not trying to slam you because you are new at the game, but if you were around when caching first started you would see geocaching has, in my opinion, changed quite a bit from it's original intention.

 

I geocache specifically to find cool places, often the kinds of places that can't be found in travel books.

[+AcousticNut]

I geocache specifically to find cool places, often the kinds of places that can't be found in travel books.

 

Exact same situation for me which is why I miss the virtuals as they are generally interesting and teach me something about an area where a traditional cache can't be hidden.

 

I would appreciate if Groundspeak would consider adding a "historical" attribute to the cache page. I was recently on vacation through the cradle of the Civil War and would have loved to be able to filter my available caches by a 'historical' attribute, taking me to places of significance that aren't typically on a Civil War stop.... be it a virtual cache or a traditional cache.

 

By browsing the descriptions I was able to find a few that took me to some minor battle sites, but the attribute would have made this much simpler.

 

A little off-topic, but related to the wish of many geocachers to bring a historical appreciation to the sport.

[+Dragery]

 

I geocache specifically to find cool places, often the kinds of places that can't be found in travel books.

 

My comment was pertaining to virtuals at the grand canyon and such. I appreciate being brougt to local hilltops with city views as well, but it would be nice if there was a cache up there

[+worldtraveler]

dose anyone agree that virtual cache should come back instead of begin grandfather caches...

 

To answer the OP's question, I am in favor of virtuals being reinstated as a submittable cache type. The reason for them being included in the early days has not changed. There are still many interesting locations around the world where physical caches are prohibited by law or are otherwise inappropriate. One physical cache that immediately comes to mind is GC1CE0. Because the coordinates were posted on this website, I had a destination I never would have otherwise known about or visited; but it was simply an inappropriate location for a physical cache. Had it been posted as a virtual cache, other geocachers could still be enjoying it today.

 

I know the history and the reasons given for disallowing new virtuals. I also know this is Jeremy's sandbox and that he can make up whatever rules he wants. I just disagree that this was the best one for geocaching, and I choose to not support the substitute he has proffered in the form of Waymarking. I continue to hope he will eventually recognize the value and legitimacy of virtual caches and figure out a way to consistently allow the "Wow!"s while filtering out the old sneakers.

 

With less than 600 finds in nearly nine years, it's clearly not about the number of smileys for me. It also has never been about the box. When I started geocaching, I knew almost every set of coordinates I loaded into my Garmin would take me to a really neat place or challenge me with an interesting hide technique. Often it was both. That's still what I hope for, but I hate missing out on some neat places simply because an earlier explorer was unable or knew better than to hide a box there.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I'm in the "Yes (with reservations)" column on bringing back Virtuals. Why? Because they took me to places I'd never have found otherwise, especially in areas where placing a container is prohibited (as in against the law!).

 

But, a suggestion.... Change the "Smiley" for all "non-container" caches to something else (pick whatever icon suits you) and lump them together. In other words: Events, MegaEvents, Virtuals, Earthcaches, Benchmarks, CITO, Locationless, Project APE, etc. should all be assigned the new icon.

 

This way, you have two categories. One for containers you've found and signed it's log (Traditional, Multi, Puzzle, Letterbox, Mystery, etc) and a second one for places you've found or attended.

 

Then modify the Profile badge to show the two categories. Of course, those who only attend events won't get a smiley but, then again, they didn't find anything anyway.

 

Thoughts here? I know, it really sounds like merging Waymarking with GeoCaching.

 

What I'd like about this is the fact that PQs could include all of the types of both categories (or they could be filtered out).

 

Same rules in the TOU would apply - especially no commercials. Thus virtuals at Jack-in-the-box would not be allowed! This isn't any different than disallowing caches next to Railroads or on Interstate highways.

 

Why do I like virtuals? Because one of my favorite areas I cached in was Washington DC. The mix of both virtuals and actual caches made it an excellent trip.

 

And, yes, I did find the benchmark virtual at the Grand Canyon.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Cache O'Plenty

[+Markwell]

Project APEs were and are containers.

 

http://markwell.us/projectape.htm

 

They're pretty big too - 60mm ammo can:

[+roziecakes]

 

 

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.

 

I don't see what's wrong with that myself... I don't think it's padding; I think it's a nice thing to do.

 

I don't think you should be condescended to either; but I do have to say that one thing you will gain with experience is that you will be less annoyed by letting others play the game in a way that they enjoy. Many of us love events, and think that it's nice that they offer a smiley along with them.

 

I consider myself to be a pretty frequent event attender, and the 16-ish smileys that I've gotten over the four years that I've been caching really isn't that much padding

Edited June 22, 2010 by nymphnsatyr

[+tozainamboku]

There a certainly silliness to suggesting that some geocaches should count in the find count and others not. Even with a well defined line like caches with physical containers and logs should count and events, virtuals, and EarthCaches should not, it doesn't prove much of a point except perhaps that if you argue this you are probably giving far more weight to the "numbers" than they deserve.

 

Currently Geocaching.com is set up to count the number of "Found It", "Attended", and "Photo Taken" logs you have entered. So if you log a "Found It" twice on the same cache it counts as two, or if you "Attend" the same event multipe times it counts for each log. If you read the find count as what it is then it doesn't matter if you are puritan who will log only one Find per GC number, or if you don't log Attended on events because you didn't find anything - the find count always accurately shows the number of certain log types written. Perhaps it should be renamed log count. (6723 logged).

 

Originally the site only had Find logs. These were used for events as well as for virtuals, locationless caches, and webcams. So the code was simple. It just counted the number of Find logs. Later, the other types were added - Attended for events and Photo Taken for webcams. People who logged these caches prior to the change have Find logs on these caches. When the new log types were added TPTB decided to count these logs in the find count because the old found logs on these cache types were already counted.

 

I am not seeing the point of whether or not to count a particular cache type has any bearing in a thread on bringing back virtuals, other than the argument that Waymarks visits don't count as finds so they can't possibly be a replacement for virtual caches.. Grandfathered virtuals are listed on Geocaching.com as are EarthCaches and events. So long as they are on the site people can log them. And so long as they are being logged, the simple thing is for the site to count them as they always have. Would you suggest that non-container caches not be included in a My Finds Pocket Query? If new virtuals were to be published on Geocaching.com I would expect them to count the same as the grandfathered ones do today. And this is from someone who feels that the best place for sharing the coordinates of interesting places is on Waymarking.com.

[Clan Riffster]

Change the "Smiley" for all "non-container" caches to something else

Yes! Yes! Yes! Someone buy this man, (or other gender), a beer!

 

Same rules in the TOU would apply - especially no commercials. Thus virtuals at Jack-in-the-box would not be allowed

Since film cans in shrubbery are allowed under the current guidelines, I'm not sure how a virt would be declined.

Especially if said virt did not include "Jack in the Box" in the title.

 

There a certainly silliness to suggesting that some geocaches should count in the find count and others not

Jeremy doesn't think so. Otherwise, those brass disks stuck in the ground would count toward our total cache finds. At some point in the equation, he decided that his website would compile stats on benchmarks, display those stats under the customer's profile, but would not increase the customer's find count when a new one was located by them. I can't speak for Jeremy, but maybe he did that because, in his mind, a benchmark is not a geocache. If he ever decides that an odd streetsign, a bunch of nerds eating hotdogs, a sinkhole, a digital camera linked to the Internet and folks cleaning up trash are not geocaches, I suspect that locationless, events, earthcaches, webcam caches and CITOs will not count toward our total cache finds. I would happily support this decision, as I personally don't think of odd streetsigns, a bunch of nerds eating hotdogs, sinkholes, digital cameras linked to the Internet and folks cleaning up trash as caches. To me, a cache is a container utilized to store stuff, out of common view.

 

Silly? Hardly. Just a different opinion.

[+joukkusisu]

But, a suggestion.... Change the "Smiley" for all "non-container" caches to something else (pick whatever icon suits you) and lump them together. In other words: Events, MegaEvents, Virtuals, Earthcaches, Benchmarks, CITO, Locationless, Project APE, etc. should all be assigned the new icon.

 

This way, you have two categories. One for containers you've found and signed it's log (Traditional, Multi, Puzzle, Letterbox, Mystery, etc) and a second one for places you've found or attended.

 

Then modify the Profile badge to show the two categories. Of course, those who only attend events won't get a smiley but, then again, they didn't find anything anyway.

 

On Terracaching, locationless caches "count" differently than physical caches. They're weighted differently.

[knowschad]

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.

 

There was no point. You said something demonstrably false, and then back-pedalled and start ranting about how the local cachers in your area get together to masturbate. Whatever, dude.

HOLY COW!!! HOW have I managed to miss THIS cage fight for so long?!?

[+tozainamboku]

There a certainly silliness to suggesting that some geocaches should count in the find count and others not

Jeremy doesn't think so. Otherwise, those brass disks stuck in the ground would count toward our total cache finds. At some point in the equation, he decided that his website would compile stats on benchmarks, display those stats under the customer's profile, but would not increase the customer's find count when a new one was located by them.

Benchmarks may be hosted on Geocaching.com, but they have never been part of the Geocaching database. The benchmark database is a snapshot made from the NGS database at certain point in time and contains fields from this database that are different than the field that describe geocaches. The logs for benchmarks are different than geocache logs as well and include different types than you have for geocaches. There is no needs archive or needs maintence, but you can log a benchmark as Destroyed. Jeremy decided to to put the number of benchmark finds on the player's profile page along with the counts of finds/attended for various types of geocaches including events. But these are not counted in your total finds because that is a query against the Geocaching database - which doesn't include benchmarks. You don't get the benchmarks you have found in your My Finds pocket query.

 

I wouldn't mind the Waymarking stats to be shown on my profile in a like manner. My guess is the difference is that Benchmarks are hosted on Geoaching.com while waymarks are on Waymarking.com. In my opinion, NGS Benchmarks would be better served as category on Waymarking along with the other categories in the Measurement Standards department. Waymarking would need to have some small modification to support the logs types currently allows for these benchmarks. The special fields in the datasheets could easily be taken care of with category specific variables. Had Waymarking existed at the time the NGS database was added to Geoaching.com, I have little doubt it would have been where Benchmarks wound up.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

There was no point. You said something demonstrably false, and then back-pedalled and start ranting about how the local cachers in your area get together to masturbate. Whatever, dude.

HOLY COW!!! HOW have I managed to miss THIS cage fight for so long?!?

 

It only lasted for like five comments.

 

But seriously, I'd be kind of bummed if I went to our monthly event and everyone was... well, you know. Kinda makes me wish I could log a DNF on events.

[Clan Riffster]

You don't get the benchmarks you have found in your My Finds pocket query.

Very true, for now. How many mouse clicks would it take for that to change, if Jeremy suddenly decided that round brass disks, stuck in the ground, were geocaches? Personally, I have no idea, but I bet someone at The Lily Pad knows. I would also venture to guess that the same group of folks at Groundspeak know how many clicks it would take to remove the locationless caches, events, earthcaches, virtuals, webcam caches and CITOs from our total find stats, if Jeremy ever decided that an odd street sign, a bunch of nerds eating hotdogs, a sinkhole, a roadside plaque, a digital camera linked to the Internet and folks cleaning up trash were no longer what he considered to be geocaches. These items are only included in our total finds count because, at some point, Jeremy decided that they should be included in what the company called geocaches. None of those things have any other reason for being considered as geocaches. As a test of this idea, you could take a picture of one of the Groundspeak ready made Lock & Lock caches, and 5 pictures representative of the 5 virtual caches I've logged, specifically, a sinkhole, a military airplane on display, a chunk of concrete from Berlin, and a pair of theme parks. Take these 6 pictures and show them to muggles. Ask them to put any geocache pictures into one pile and all the other pictures into another pile. I'm betting, if you used Groundspeak's promotional video, or their description of the game from the Getting Started webpage to explain what you were talking about, every single muggle would put the container into the geocache pile, and the virtuals into the other pile. I submit that the reason your results would look this way is because, using Groundspeak's definitions and promotional stuff, geocaches are containers, filled with stuff, hidden from common view, for others to find. Virtuals are only geocaches because Jeremy says they are. That could change. I would support such a change.

 

Suggesting that such a notion is silly is... uh... er... Silly.

[+Castle Mischief]

Bring back New Coke!

[+narcissa]

Bring back New Coke!

 

Diet Coke *is* New Coke.

[+thedeadpirate]

Crack is the new coke.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Change the "Smiley" for all "non-container" caches to something else

Yes! Yes! Yes! Someone buy this man, (or other gender), a beer!

 

on the internets, there are only us middle aged men. sorry.

[+Castle Mischief]

Bring back New Coke!

 

Diet Coke *is* New Coke.

 

That is subtle and witty. Why did I unfollow you on Twitter...? Gotta fix that.

[+narcissa]

Bring back New Coke!

 

Diet Coke *is* New Coke.

 

That is subtle and witty. Why did I unfollow you on Twitter...? Gotta fix that.

 

No really, the reason Diet Coke doesn't taste as Coca-Cola-ish as Coca-Cola Zero is because it's actually Diet "New" Coke.

 

I would argue that Waymarking is New Coke.

[cezanne]

using Groundspeak's definitions and promotional stuff, geocaches are containers, filled with stuff, hidden from common view, for others to find.

 

I do not think that nano containers and most micros match this description. To use your type of argument, I do not think that muggles will assign typical nanos, fake screws, magnetic sheets etc to the geocaching side. These items are not what non-geocachers will regard as containers.

 

Apart from that, I think that there are many different concepts what a cache is.

In my region when cachers talk about a nice cache they do not mean that the container or the trading items are nice. They refer to cache as the object as a whole, including the overall experience (walk/hike to the final location, scenery on the way, interesting places to see etc).

 

A virtual hiking multi cache fits much better into my personal concept of a cache than an event cache which is typically a gathering of cachers.

 

Reducing geocaching to the container is of course a feasible point of view, but definitely not the only one.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 24, 2010 by cezanne

[+Castle Mischief]

Bring back New Coke!

 

Diet Coke *is* New Coke.

 

That is subtle and witty. Why did I unfollow you on Twitter...? Gotta fix that.

 

No really, the reason Diet Coke doesn't taste as Coca-Cola-ish as Coca-Cola Zero is because it's actually Diet "New" Coke.

 

I would argue that Waymarking is New Coke.

 

I thought you were doing a very clever "Waymarking is the new Virtuals" visa vis "Diet Coke is the New Coke".*

 

Eh, oh well. To me Waymarking is more like a Throwback Mtn Dew. I liked the one I tried, but I can never find them when I look for them and there aren't many to be found in my area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Which begs the question: Why Diet Coke AND Coke Zero?!?!?!? Is there a difference? Why not call products what they are? Why not Low Calorie Slurm, No Calorie Slurm, No Sugar No Calorie Slurm, No Calorie Slurm with Splenda, and Cane Sugar Slurm with Double Caffeine?

[+narcissa]

 

I thought you were doing a very clever "Waymarking is the new Virtuals" visa vis "Diet Coke is the New Coke".*

 

Eh, oh well. To me Waymarking is more like a Throwback Mtn Dew. I liked the one I tried, but I can never find them when I look for them and there aren't many to be found in my area.

 

*Which begs the question: Why Diet Coke AND Coke Zero?!?!?!? Is there a difference? Why not call products what they are? Why not Low Calorie Slurm, No Calorie Slurm, No Sugar No Calorie Slurm, No Calorie Slurm with Splenda, and Cane Sugar Slurm with Double Caffeine?

 

I'm not that clever - I just know a lot of pointless minutiae about American soft drinks.

 

Waymarking is like Canadian Mountain Dew. It doesn't have caffeine, so what's the point?

[Mushtang]

using Groundspeak's definitions and promotional stuff, geocaches are containers, filled with stuff, hidden from common view, for others to find.

I do not think that nano containers and most micros match this description.

Sure they do. They contain a log for finders to sign, and the log is "stuff".

 

Is there something else you think makes them not match the description?

[Clan Riffster]

I do not think that nano containers and most micros match this description.

For what it's worth, neither do I. My inner definition of a cache mostly matches the Groundspeak promotional version of a container full of stuff. Groundspeak seems willing to include a scrap of paper in their definition of "stuff". Personally, I am not as willing. Since Jeremy sets the ground rules, he gets to decide what is a cache, and he is OK including micros in his definition.

 

To use your type of argument, I do not think that muggles will assign typical nanos, fake screws, magnetic sheets etc to the geocaching side. These items are not what non-geocachers will regard as containers.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Heck, I'm a cacher and I don't regard them to be caches.

 

Apart from that, I think that there are many different concepts what a cache is.

Absolutely. My caching aesthetics are proof of this concept. I can't look at a film can, in a Burger King shrub, containing a scrap of paper, and see that as a geocache. The owner of the website, as well as roughly a gazillion customers to the website, feel differently, having no problem at all recognizing that as a cache. Not much I can do about that, other than to ignore the ones I don't like and hide caches like the ones I do like. Such is life.

 

In my region when cachers talk about a nice cache they do not mean that the container or the trading items are nice. They refer to cache as the object as a whole, including the overall experience (walk/hike to the final location, scenery on the way, interesting places to see etc).

I think most cachers, including me, follow your example. The term "nice cache" tends to incorporate the entire experience, not just the box.

 

A virtual hiking multi cache fits much better into my personal concept of a cache than an event cache which is typically a gathering of cachers.

That's kewl. That's your caching aesthetic at work. For me, while I thoroughly enjoy both scenic hikes and gathering with friends, neither one quite fits my inner definition of a geocache. Since I am not even remotely related to anyone in the Groundspeak chain of command, I don't see my rather biased opinion having a whole lot of impact on the issue.

[cezanne]

A virtual hiking multi cache fits much better into my personal concept of a cache than an event cache which is typically a gathering of cachers.

That's kewl. That's your caching aesthetic at work.

For me, while I thoroughly enjoy both scenic hikes and gathering with friends, neither one quite fits my inner definition of a geocache.

 

Yes, certainly though I am bit hesitating about whether the term aesthetic is appropriate. In any case, it is very personal and biased. That's why I wrote "fits much better my personal concept".

 

I believe that a partial reason for why container-less hiking caches fit well into my idea of a cache

is that hiking multi caches where the intermediary stages are of question to answer type are

quite frequent in my country. Below I link to an arbitrarily selected cache of that type which is

also available in English

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f0-c79d812f6655

 

For my personal experience, the hike, the scenery and being guided from stage to stage by the creators of the cache plays a bigger role as the container in the end. Often these caches have five and more virtual stages and so I am probably more used to them. In any case, my personal preferences come into the play as there are many Austrian cachers for whom the container at the end of a hiking cache is quite important.

 

 

Since I am not even remotely related to anyone in the Groundspeak chain of command, I don't see my rather biased opinion having a whole lot of impact on the issue.

 

I agree and the same applies to my view on geocaching which is of course biased as well.

As the return of virtuals on gc.com is regarded, however your personal opinion, mine and the attitude of Groundspeak appear to match (namely, no return of virtuals).

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

Since several people have found my explanation of Why new virtual caches are no longer published is too long to read, I've made a

with much the same content.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

This thread should be retitled "I'm quiting geocaching.com to go to Waymarking.com because I want instant gratification by going to the coordinates without finding the container."

 

And personally I dont want Virtuals to come back because I dont want to see the map cluttered with ghosts when there are plenty of legitimate spots to put real caches.

Edited July 8, 2010 by bramasoleiowa

[+geodarts]

This thread should be retitled "I'm quiting geocaching.com to go to Waymarking.com because I want instant gratification by going to the coordinates without finding the container."

 

Or you could call it, "Why virtual caches are not the same as Waymarking." But if you ever figure out how to make Toroweap or the bottom of Bryce Canyon into a "legitimate spot" for a container, I would go there again as part of this particular game. Until then there are a few remaining virtuals and newer earthcaches that make caching into a richer experience.

Edited July 8, 2010 by mulvaney

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Describing the history of this issue in exacting detail doesn't change the reality of the situation. Aside from the obvious technical problems that have been discussed to death, there's a serious culture difference between geocaching and Waymarking.

 

While most serious geocachers find AND hide geocaches, most serious waymarkers are just interested in creating waymarks and enforcing the taxonomies they create. There seems to be very little actual visiting going on - just classifying.

 

Clearly there's a sub-section of geocachers who like finding containers AND cool locations without containers. We'll keep seeing these threads every month or so until the end of time, or until Waymarking.com is made better and integrated with Geocaching.com, or until virtuals come back.

 

And if it is about the smiley for some geocachers, so what? This "oh, so it's all about the smiley" snark is the last bastion of people so humourless, uptight, and caught up in controlling others that they've completely lost all sense that this is a game. That's sad in and of itself, but what's even more sad is that some of these types actually have some authority around here. 'Tis a shame.

+1

[+Castle Mischief]

Describing the history of this issue in exacting detail doesn't change the reality of the situation... ...'Tis a shame.

+1

 

+2, +3 vs goblins and bugbears.

[+tozainamboku]

Describing the history of this issue in exacting detail doesn't change the reality of the situation. Aside from the obvious technical problems that have been discussed to death, there's a serious culture difference between geocaching and Waymarking.

 

While most serious geocachers find AND hide geocaches, most serious waymarkers are just interested in creating waymarks and enforcing the taxonomies they create. There seems to be very little actual visiting going on - just classifying.

 

Clearly there's a sub-section of geocachers who like finding containers AND cool locations without containers. We'll keep seeing these threads every month or so until the end of time, or until Waymarking.com is made better and integrated with Geocaching.com, or until virtuals come back.

 

And if it is about the smiley for some geocachers, so what? This "oh, so it's all about the smiley" snark is the last bastion of people so humourless, uptight, and caught up in controlling others that they've completely lost all sense that this is a game. That's sad in and of itself, but what's even more sad is that some of these types actually have some authority around here. 'Tis a shame.

+1

The history isn't provided as a solution to the problem people have not being able to create a new virtuals on geocaching.com. It is provided to explain why Groundspeak made the decision to move these things to Waymarking. Any solutions must take into account both the problem that today's cachers have when they find a "worthy" location where they cannot place a physical cache (and where an offset cache is not practical), as well as the problems that exisited with the former system of virtuals. Most people are suggesting bringing things back the way they were before, perhaps with minor changes that don't address the underlying problems. Understand the problems with virtual caches on Geocaching.com before suggesting bringing them back, and then address these in your solutions.

 

for those who are interested in history.

[+Markwell]

Describing the history of this issue in exacting detail doesn't change the reality of the situation. Aside from the obvious technical problems that have been discussed to death, there's a serious culture difference between geocaching and Waymarking.

If you don't know and understand history (and learn from its mistakes), you are doomed to repeat it. Understanding WHY there were so many problems with virtual caches should help everyone that the argument of "bring them back with stricter guidelines" doesn't really help. There have been MANY posts with individuals indicating that when virtuals first started, they had NO guidelines. I remember a particularly NASTY topic in August of 2001 where someone posted a whole bunch of virtual caches called "Cup o' Joe" - you guessed it, coordinates to their favorite coffee shops. That brought about the reaction of the guidelines to have no advertising or commercial aspects to them. Jeremy didn't want this to become a Yellow Pages of coordinates. But that didn't stop people from marking every cemetery, pretty view, place where they first kissed their girlfriend - as well as rotting deer carcasses and old tennis shoes as virtual caches. Now we add the "wow" requirement, coupled with "show the reviewer how this couldn't be incorporated into a stage of a multi". Those "more strict requirements" were in place for around 3 years. Meanwhile Locationless Caches came and went. The forums were FULL of people saying that their favorite pretty post-card location was really special, but the mean old reviewer wouldn't publish their spot. So Jeremy and crew started trying to find a better way to list locations without containers.

 

If you really understand the history of WHY these locations are listed on Waymarking.com instead of geocaching.com, people wouldn't be saying "Bring them back with stricter guidelines." They HAD strict guidelines. In Illinois, there are 36 surviving geocaches.

2 were published in 2001

28 were published in 2002

2 were published in 2003

4 were published in 2004

None were published in 2005

The heavy restriction on virtuals went into affect in 2003. The ban on new virtual caches wasn't implemented until November of 2005. There were 6 virtual caches published in Illinois during the heavy restrictions. Care to guess how many people from Illinois complained about their virtual caches not being published?

 

I think a BETTER solution would be (as others have pointed out) to improve Waymarking, which has always seemed to be lacking in some of the Geocaching.com features. But then again, Geocaching.com memberships - not Waymarking.com memberships - pay the salaries of the developers.

[Earthdog Patrick]

Let's bring back virtuals. just limit each hider to hiding only 100 of them!