BRING BACK VIRTUAL CACHE

[+mertat]

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.

+1 (Excellent post!)

[+Markwell]

...In Illinois, there are 36 surviving geocaches.

Oops. Should read:

 

In Illinois, there are 36 surviving virtual geocaches.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

Those threads were far more frequent than the monthly Bring Back Virtuals threads. That is because it put the reviewers in the position of being the arbiters of cache quality, which is totally subjective.

 

So we can bring back virtuals with the "wow factor" as was implemented in 2003 and things won't change much if history holds true. Very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced and I doubt things would be any different. The only real change will be the return of weekly forum threads with someone whining about his virtual being turned down.

 

Or we can go back to the wild west days of virtuals where nearly anything went. And when the virtuals marking fence posts, flag poles, sewer grates and mail boxes start rolling in, we'll see the return of the lame virtual threads. You think there are a lot of complaints about "lame" micros? Wait until the "lame" virtual comes back.

 

Or simply leave them where they are on Waymarking and let the community judge the worthiness of a category.

 

Someone said that the culture of Waymarking leans toward listing them and that is probably correct..Why is that? Because a lot of people don't look for them. If you want to change the culture, visit them. Some people in my area have been lately and most of my listings are getting finds. Some of my waymarks are found more frequently than some of my geocaches.

 

Fact of the matter is that if you like virtuals for their "educational value" or "coolness" (as most "bring back virters" claim), Waymarking is indeed a substitute. If you are into virts for the quick, easy smiley, Waymarking is not a suitable alternative. If you are into the latter, great, but don't pretend that you want virtuals back for reasons other than the quick smiley.

Edited July 8, 2010 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

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.

Very well put!!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... 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.

 

That's true today but it does not have to stay that way. Fix Waymarking in the way that we're asking and it can become a profitable revenue stream.

 

Give me the ability to select waymark categories which show up in my geocaching.com PQs

and

Allow only one listing per location. It can belong to as many different categories as the owner desires, but just show one listing!

 

Then I would:

 

A) Pay more for the Premium Membership

or

2) Pay for a separate Waymarking membership

AND

#1 - I would hunt more Waymarks than geocaches, because I'm all about the location. If there's a cache there, great, but the place is the main thing.

Edited July 8, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Team Cotati]

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.

 

Those threads were far more frequent than the monthly Bring Back Virtuals threads. That is because it put the reviewers in the position of being the arbiters of cache quality, which is totally subjective.

 

So we can bring back virtuals with the "wow factor" as was implemented in 2003 and things won't change much if history holds true. Very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced and I doubt things would be any different. The only real change will be the return of weekly forum threads with someone whining about his virtual being turned down.

 

Or we can go back to the wild west days of virtuals where nearly anything went. And when the virtuals marking fence posts, flag poles, sewer grates and mail boxes start rolling in, we'll see the return of the lame virtual threads. You think there are a lot of complaints about "lame" micros? Wait until the "lame" virtual comes back.

 

Or simply leave them where they are on Waymarking and let the community judge the worthiness of a category.

 

Someone said that the culture of Waymarking leans toward listing them and that is probably correct..Why is that? Because a lot of people don't look for them. If you want to change the culture, visit them. Some people in my area have been lately and most of my listings are getting finds. Some of my waymarks are found more frequently than some of my geocaches.

 

Fact of the matter is that if you like virtuals for their "educational value" or "coolness" (as most "bring back virters" claim), Waymarking is indeed a substitute. If you are into virts for the quick, easy smiley, Waymarking is not a suitable alternative. If you are into the latter, great, but don't pretend that you want virtuals back for reasons other than the quick smiley.

 

Or we can have a reasonable and rational set of guidelines for the listing of virtual caches just as exists for caches in general.

 

Things do not always have to come down to choices between extremes. Extremes that in all liklihood do not appeal to responsible cachers. People that argue so strongly against virtual that, truth be told are enjoyed by lots and lots of cachers, whether or not they post in these forums are a continuing puzzlement to me.

 

Many of those same people will defend the near runaway proliferation of what I consider to essentially be garbage and embarrassing hides of urban micro/nano caches. It is like there is some personal bias against good virtual caches for reasons that are exceedingly unclear.

 

The approval and ongoing viability of fence post, telephone serial number and gas station bathroom virtuals is simply a cop out without merit. Poor implementation in the past is hardly predictive of the future.

 

Outside of these forums, I have yet to encounter a single geocacher who didn't totally enjoy the virtual cache experience, not one. And this thing about 'The Smiley' as if that were some deadly disease. So what if cache finders like to get 'credit' to their cache find counts? Must not be too bad since we have been getting those lovely 'smileys' since dirt was born.

 

Disallowing virtual cache hides was a mistake when it was done and remains a mistake to this day. This is not new news to anyone.

 

Have mercy that a judgment of the relative 'lameness' be applied to geocaches in general.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+geodarts]

If you are into the latter, great, but don't pretend that you want virtuals back for reasons other than the quick smiley.

 

Not necessarily a quick smiley (or cheap, considering what it cost me to do one last week). Some of the best have taken me on long hikes where physical caches are not permitted and asked me to think about what I have seen there or perform some task at the location. I had to make two trips to one virtual in Yosemite before I could count it as a find and almost dnf'd it; I spent long enough at another one in Yosemite to where my wife was beginning to wonder about me. Lamps posts, guard rails, and repetitive caching trails are much faster and require less thought. But I have done those for the even quicker smiley.

 

So, yes, the smiley is nice since the existing virtuals are a fun part of this particular game and have made my caching into something far richer than I would have otherwise experienced. There is nothing wrong with that. I am sure there are some very good navicaches, terracaches, or gowalla locations out there, I just have not done them because I don't get a smiley.

Edited July 9, 2010 by mulvaney

[+thedeadpirate]

Fact of the matter is that if you like virtuals for their "educational value" or "coolness" (as most "bring back virters" claim), Waymarking is indeed a substitute.

 

Perhaps, but not a suitable one.

 

If you are into virts for the quick, easy smiley, Waymarking is not a suitable alternative.

 

If you are into the latter, great, but don't pretend that you want virtuals back for reasons other than the quick smiley.

 

I'm in the group that doesn't believe Waymarking is a suitable alternative and I can assure you it is not because of a quick, easy smiley. In fact, I'm also in the group who wishes TPTB would do away with find counts altogether.

[+briansnat]

Or we can have a reasonable and rational set of guidelines for the listing of virtual caches just as exists for caches in general.

 

Things do not always have to come down to choices between extremes. Extremes that in all liklihood do not appeal to responsible cachers. People that argue so strongly against virtual that, truth be told are enjoyed by lots and lots of cachers, whether or not they post in these forums are a continuing puzzlement to me.

 

Many of those same people will defend the near runaway proliferation of what I consider to essentially be garbage and embarrassing hides of urban micro/nano caches. It is like there is some personal bias against good virtual caches for reasons that are exceedingly unclear.

 

The approval and ongoing viability of fence post, telephone serial number and gas station bathroom virtuals is simply a cop out without merit. Poor implementation in the past is hardly predictive of the future.

 

Outside of these forums, I have yet to encounter a single geocacher who didn't totally enjoy the virtual cache experience, not one. And this thing about 'The Smiley' as if that were some deadly disease. So what if cache finders like to get 'credit' to their cache find counts? Must not be too bad since we have been getting those lovely 'smileys' since dirt was born.

 

Disallowing virtual cache hides was a mistake when it was done and remains a mistake to this day. This is not new news to anyone.

 

Have mercy that a judgment of the relative 'lameness' be applied to geocaches in general..

 

We have no guidelines that deal with cache quality. If we allow virtuals again either the reviewers will be the judges of whether or not they are worthy, or it will be like regular caches with quality having no bearing on whether or not the cache is published.

 

Either way there are going to be unhappy people. In the first instance, it will be the thousands of cachers who have their virts denied because the reviewer didn't think it was good enough. In the latter, many cachers will get fed up with being taken to fence posts, manhole covers and flag poles. When that happens, virtuals won't be quite so popular. The idea of fence post, telephone serial number and gas station bathroom virtuals ia not a cop out. It would be a fact if there is no quality rule.

 

In their heyday there were many who didn't like virtuals because there were so many lame ones. Over the years it seems most of those have been weeded out through attrition and what is left is generally the cream. That won't be the case anymore.

 

That or make the reviewers arbiters of cache quality, but do you really want to open that can of clams again?

Edited July 9, 2010 by briansnat

[+geodarts]

We have no guidelines that deal with cache quality.

 

I love virtuals (including earthcaches) and they are always the first thing I look for when planning to visit a particular area. Especially if the area does not allow traditionals. But I don't think anyone wants to open up the floodgates where any parking lot can be marked as a virtual, or virtuals are placed every 528 feet along the highway, requiring only that you get out and take your picture in front of a road marker. If something like that were to happen in geocaching, the results would be . . . . well, what we already have, so what would be the point? Repetitive cachers would not even like them since the picture requirement would slow things down.

 

But even if quality cannot be dictated (the wow factor), then content can be focused. The earthcache model is interesting. It requires a particular educational focus. A defined task related to the focus. And permission from the appropriate agency. Not all earthcaches are quality placements -- some seem the equivalent of asking me to visit my friend's granite counters -- but in general there is a certain wow factor to most of the ones I have done. And most agencies I have worked with in developing earthcaches are interested in reviewing the content of the cache before it is approved to make sure that it is appropriate. Perhaps those kind of guidelines might keep the can of clams from spreading too far.

 

There are many things that do not fit within the geological focus of an earthcache. So if the decision were mine, I might consider certain saturation requirements (1 mile from an existing cache?) or simply make a new category of virtuals along the lines of a "heritage cache" that would focus on history, culture, or life sciences -- requiring the same permission from agency officials that is now applied to earthcaches; requiring the same type of educational focus and tasks. I might even limit them to particular areas, like national parks and monuments, world heritage sites, or designated places where traditional caching is not allowed. The resulting partnerships would benefit caching in general. And I would provide a separate forum so that people could complain if they are so inclined.

 

Anyway, I do not think its an "either/or" type of thing. There are ways to keep virtuals from becoming quick smileys that serve no other purpose . The game is big enough to accommodate virtuals, and I know that my caching experience has been far better for having them included as part of it. I may not have needed a virtual to have stood at Toroweap, but then again I might not have discovered the area without it, and I enjoyed being able to include it as part of caching. I definitely would not have discovered specific things in the national parks that I have visited. It will be sad when they simply disappear through attrition. We will have lost a lot, unless you want to terracache, waymark, or gowalla instead.

Edited July 9, 2010 by mulvaney

[+tozainamboku]

Virtuals were meant from the start to be used only in rare instances where a physical cache could not be placed. The reason so many people say they enjoy virtuals is that they are rare, and because of the "wow" requirement, they are mostly in places that geocachers find interesting. When I started out, there were still many virtuals around that predated the "wow" requirement. In addition, cachers still had the ability of changing the cache type after the cache was approved, and there were many times where a cache went missing and the owner got tired of replacing it, so then made it into a virtual. I even went to some virtuals in a National Park that were stinkers. One was the self serve kiosk for paying the entry fee for the park and the verification question was "how much did it cost for a tour bus with 40 or more passengers to enter the park?" Clearly it was in a place where a physical cache could not be placed, but not the most enjoyable virtual cache.

 

There are some controls now that may prevent the abuse of the early virtuals so we wouldn't need a "wow" requirement. Limiting virtuals to only properties that have an explicit virtuals only geocaching policy for instance. Or having a separate proximity guideline for virtual caches and physical cache, so that virtuals would not block the placement of physical cache, but you still couldn't make every sculpture in the sculpture garden a virtual. Of course you have some people complain that their virtual location is so cool it deserves an exception and you will have people complain that too many virtuals are like that kiosk at the National Park.

 

The main issue I see it that people don't see virtuals as substitute for physical caches in places where you can't hide a physical cache. Instead they want to use virtual caches to take people to neat places. Waymarking now exist for this purpose. It allows you to share interesting places with other people. Since not everyone finds the same places interesting, they can use Waymarking categories to select the places are interesting to them. There may be some interest in a way to find places that are so unique and special that they would interest people who aren't already interested in a particular category. Perhaps some see virtual caches in this way - a preselected set of locations that pass some "wowness" test. But to do this on Geocaching.com would require some group of people to make a judgment on wowness. Interestingly, it is not hard to create Waymarking categories to do this same thing. Get a group of people who agree on some definition of "wowness", select some officers to manage the category, and have them approve waymarks that are submitted to it. This is what I did with "Best Kept Secrets". One could even use the regular Waymarking categories and see what is local (filtering out the McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts - because you already know where they are or don't really expect to be surprised to find one in any particular place. You may find Best Kept Secrets with just a little research. If you are really interesting in finding cool places to visit you don't need Geocaching to do it. The only real reason for bringing back virtual caches is to be able to have a cache where a physical cache is not allowed. I'm not convinced that this is necessary, I can visit the kiosk and pay my entrance fee at the National Park without there being a virtual cache there.

[+briansnat]

Limiting virtuals to only properties that have an explicit virtuals only geocaching policy for instance

 

If virtuals were brought back I guarantee you that the number of those properties will increase dramatically

[+Cache O'Plenty]

IF (a really big IF here) virtuals, in some form or other, returned. The attribute system (not available back in the early days) could be used to identify whether the "category" of the virtual was historical, geological (i.e. similar to Earthcaches), lighthouses, battlegound, cemetary or some other limited categories. It could be a separate set of attributes from physical caches. Or not, as many of the current set would still apply. This would facilitate filtering.

 

I agree that we certainly do NOT want the Dunkin' Donut, McDonald's, Waffle House, Stucky's (remember them?) to become virtuals. The hard part is deciding who gets to decide.

[+geodarts]

If virtuals were brought back I guarantee you that the number of those properties will increase dramatically

 

Or not. The state parks where I live allow traditional caching (within three feet of a designated trail) but restrict some areas to "virtual caching," which they define as including Waymarking. If park managers wants to limit caching, they merely need point to Waymarking, earthcaches, terracaches, navicaches, gowalla points, and the like -- all of which allow you to use your gpsr (or iphone) to go on virtual hunts. Adding new virtuals into the equation as part of this game may not change things dramatically. It might even open up a door or two as relationships are built with park officials . Or at least it would allow people to learn more about caching (some National Parks, for instance, have featured earthcaches on their web site).

 

I have talked with NPS officials in my area, and I find it hard to believe that they will permit traditional caching under any circumstances. While one thought that earthcaches were "cool and educational," he also compared traditional caching to litter. Another commented about how the grandfathered caches (which had long since been removed by park officials) had hurt the environment. Although NPS park managers have the authority to permit geocaching, if anybody expects to see traditional caches in Yosemite, Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, the Olympics, Pt Reyes, Redwood NP, or Death Valley, I would love to know more. But again, provide a focus for virtuals and they probably would have no more of an impact than earthcaches or waymarks. Or designate certain areas for virtuals (national parks, monuments, world heritage sites, etc.) and properties outside of that would not be affected.

Edited July 9, 2010 by mulvaney

[+FireRef]

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.

 

Those threads were far more frequent than the monthly Bring Back Virtuals threads. That is because it put the reviewers in the position of being the arbiters of cache quality, which is totally subjective.

 

So we can bring back virtuals with the "wow factor" as was implemented in 2003 and things won't change much if history holds true. Very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced and I doubt things would be any different. The only real change will be the return of weekly forum threads with someone whining about his virtual being turned down.

 

Or we can go back to the wild west days of virtuals where nearly anything went. And when the virtuals marking fence posts, flag poles, sewer grates and mail boxes start rolling in, we'll see the return of the lame virtual threads. You think there are a lot of complaints about "lame" micros? Wait until the "lame" virtual comes back.

 

Or simply leave them where they are on Waymarking and let the community judge the worthiness of a category.

 

Someone said that the culture of Waymarking leans toward listing them and that is probably correct..Why is that? Because a lot of people don't look for them. If you want to change the culture, visit them. Some people in my area have been lately and most of my listings are getting finds. Some of my waymarks are found more frequently than some of my geocaches.

 

Fact of the matter is that if you like virtuals for their "educational value" or "coolness" (as most "bring back virters" claim), Waymarking is indeed a substitute. If you are into virts for the quick, easy smiley, Waymarking is not a suitable alternative. If you are into the latter, great, but don't pretend that you want virtuals back for reasons other than the quick smiley.

 

Or we can have a reasonable and rational set of guidelines for the listing of virtual caches just as exists for caches in general.

 

Things do not always have to come down to choices between extremes. Extremes that in all liklihood do not appeal to responsible cachers. People that argue so strongly against virtual that, truth be told are enjoyed by lots and lots of cachers, whether or not they post in these forums are a continuing puzzlement to me.

 

Many of those same people will defend the near runaway proliferation of what I consider to essentially be garbage and embarrassing hides of urban micro/nano caches. It is like there is some personal bias against good virtual caches for reasons that are exceedingly unclear.

 

The approval and ongoing viability of fence post, telephone serial number and gas station bathroom virtuals is simply a cop out without merit. Poor implementation in the past is hardly predictive of the future.

 

Outside of these forums, I have yet to encounter a single geocacher who didn't totally enjoy the virtual cache experience, not one. And this thing about 'The Smiley' as if that were some deadly disease. So what if cache finders like to get 'credit' to their cache find counts? Must not be too bad since we have been getting those lovely 'smileys' since dirt was born.

 

Disallowing virtual cache hides was a mistake when it was done and remains a mistake to this day. This is not new news to anyone.

 

Have mercy that a judgment of the relative 'lameness' be applied to geocaches in general.

 

+1

[+FireRef]

If virtuals were brought back I guarantee you that the number of those properties will increase dramatically

 

Or not. The state parks where I live allow traditional caching (within three feet of a designated trail) but restrict some areas to "virtual caching," which they define as including Waymarking. If park managers wants to limit caching, they merely need point to Waymarking, earthcaches, terracaches, navicaches, gowalla points, and the like -- all of which allow you to use your gpsr (or iphone) to go on virtual hunts. Adding new virtuals into the equation may not change things dramatically. It might even open up a door or two.

 

I have talked with NPS officials in my area, and I find it hard to believe that they will permit traditional caching under any circumstances. While one thought that earthcaches were "cool and educational," he also compared traditional caching to litter and commented about how the grandfathered caches (which had long since been removed by park officials) had hurt the environment. If anybody expects to see traditional caches in Yosemite, Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, the Olympics, Pt Reyes, Redwood NP, or Death Valley, I would love to know more. But again, designate certain areas for virtuals (national parks, monuments, world heritage sites, etc.), give them a focus to narrow their content, and the" problem" is solved.

 

Honestly, I don't understand how a place can restrict virtual caches or waymarks or any such type item in any way. "You can't list our site on your website, even if you don't put anything there."? That is a little silly.

 

My argument is simple. Yes, this website is a monopoly, and I have certainly done my share of arguing against that (and been punished for doing it overzealously), but it seems pretty simple - if there are as many people as there seem to be pushing for virtual caches to come back, take it into consideration. I doubt many people would leave the site if virtuals don't come back, but there certainly seem to be a number of people who would be more happy if they did.

 

Reviewers complaining that it is too much work/too difficult to sort through all of the virtual listing requests really doesn't hold much water for me. If it falls into these categories, add more reviewers to handle the load. They are volunteer - it doesn't cost the website anything to have more of them.

 

People who complain they are lame have a lot better option to filter them out than people who complain about micros or nanos or such. All you have to do is filter out virtuals if you don't like them. People who don't like the other ones don't have such an easy way to get around caches they don't like.

 

I say, bring 'em back. The arguments seem pretty similar to those for getting rid of micros, except from the other end - one group has something they don't want and wants to get rid of it, the other group doesn't have something it wants, and wants them brought back. People hunt what they want to and ignore what they don't - give everyone the ability to do this, rather than one group not have the ability to hunt them simply because they had problems with it in the past.

[Earthdog Patrick]

bring back virtuals , they were fun.

[+briansnat]

Honestly, I don't understand how a place can restrict virtual caches or waymarks or any such type item in any way. "You can't list our site on your website, even if you don't put anything there."? That is a little silly.

 

Actually they can't, though some like to think they can. We let them think so they are less likely to see us as bad guys.

 

I have talked with NPS officials in my area, and I find it hard to believe that they will permit traditional caching under any circumstances.

 

You never know. They are softening up in some areas..

 

But again, provide a focus for virtuals and they probably would have no more of an impact than earthcaches or waymarks.

 

Virtuals have often have a focus, more so than waymarks and earthcaches. With virtuals you often need to track down a specific object to verify your visit (which usually isn't the case with earth caches and waymarks, where a photo from a distance is usually sufficient verification of your visit). The search element in many virtuals (or flow as Packanack described it) is one of the factors that the anti waymarkers often complain that Waymarking lacks.

 

Does the earth underfoot really care whether you are there to look for a container or a virtual? One of my few caches where a visible geotrail has developed happens to be a virtual.

Edited July 9, 2010 by briansnat

[+vw_k]

 

There are many things that do not fit within the geological focus of an earthcache. So if the decision were mine, I might consider certain saturation requirements (1 mile from an existing cache?) or simply make a new category of virtuals along the lines of a "heritage cache" that would focus on history, culture, or life sciences -- requiring the same permission from agency officials that is now applied to earthcaches; requiring the same type of educational focus and tasks. I might even limit them to particular areas, like national parks and monuments, world heritage sites, or designated places where traditional caching is not allowed. The resulting partnerships would benefit caching in general. And I would provide a separate forum so that people could complain if they are so inclined.

 

This is something I have been suggesting for a while. There are caches here in the UK that have been placed by the National Trust (an organisation that manages open spaces and historic buildings) so the interest is there and there are organisations happy to use geocaching to enhance the experience of visitors to their properties.

 

If a virtual type cache can be placed to highlight and educate about geological features then why not historical, cultural and artistic? Would this be something UNESCO would be interested in to go with their list of world heritage sites perhaps?

[+Team Cotati]

Honestly, I don't understand how a place can restrict virtual caches or waymarks or any such type item in any way. "You can't list our site on your website, even if you don't put anything there."? That is a little silly.

 

Actually they can't, though some like to think they can. We let them think so they are less likely to see us as bad guys.

 

I have talked with NPS officials in my area, and I find it hard to believe that they will permit traditional caching under any circumstances.

 

You never know. They are softening up in some areas..

 

But again, provide a focus for virtuals and they probably would have no more of an impact than earthcaches or waymarks.

 

Virtuals have often have a focus, more so than waymarks and earthcaches. With virtuals you often need to track down a specific object to verify your visit (which usually isn't the case with earth caches and waymarks, where a photo from a distance is usually sufficient verification of your visit). The search element in many virtuals (or flow as Packanack described it) is one of the factors that the anti waymarkers often complain that Waymarking lacks.

 

Does the earth underfoot really care whether you are there to look for a container or a virtual? One of my few caches where a visible geotrail has developed happens to be a virtual.

 

I wouldn't sweat that too much. As with the rest of the geotrails out there, come next spring it will vanish.

 

And while we are on the subject of virtual caches....again, what was that WOW! Factor charade about? I think that it is fairly obvious that the fate of virtual caches was decided well in advance of that diversion.

 

Suppose, you know just as an experiment, let's see if we can discover a WOW! factor for caches hidden in urine soaked bus stop enclosures, under newspaper vending machines, jammed behind bronze memorial plaques, under the door steps of urban businesses, under a rock in a pile of 2,000 rocks, jammed into a crevasse of a hand crafted stone fence or wall. Yeah, like uh...WOWsers.

[+geodarts]

 

You never know. They are softening up in some areas..

 

But again, provide a focus for virtuals and they probably would have no more of an impact than earthcaches or waymarks.

 

Does the earth underfoot really care whether you are there to look for a container or a virtual? One of my few caches where a visible geotrail has developed happens to be a virtual.

 

I was not thinking of the impact on the environment so much as the impact of allowing new virtuals on the decisions that parks make to allow traditional caching, which was the subject of your previous post. But yes, geotrails could form with a virtual since (as your point out) they are different than waymarks. This is one reason why some parks want people to obtain permission before a virtual (or an earthcache) is listed on a web site.

 

But the Chesapeake Trail is great.. If we had more than a couple days in the area before a planned visit to DC in the fall, I would want to do all of it. History and caching make a great combination. I did not have time this morning to look at all the locations, but the NPS did allow a log to be placed in a visitor center (McHenry NP). And its always great to see them involved in geocaching activities, whether it be sponsorship of the photo contest, allowing the McHenry NP location to be used, or approval of an earthcache.

 

Although this is getting slightly off topic, the NPS guidelines are not totally inflexible, they suggest that letterboxes might be appropriate in places where the park sponsors registers. Still, they lean heavily toward virtuals. And expanding NPS approval from caches placed in a visitors center to a hike in the Yosemite wilderness or a cache 60 miles from nowhere on the edge of the Grand Canyon may present different issues. The more we can work with the parks on things like the geotrail, earthcaches, CITO events, and perhaps even other forms of virtuals, the more we have a chance to educate them about our game and build a working relationship.

Edited July 9, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Team Cotati]

 

You never know. They are softening up in some areas..

 

But again, provide a focus for virtuals and they probably would have no more of an impact than earthcaches or waymarks.

 

Does the earth underfoot really care whether you are there to look for a container or a virtual? One of my few caches where a visible geotrail has developed happens to be a virtual.

 

I was not thinking of the impact on the environment so much as the impact of allowing new virtuals on the decisions that parks make to allow traditional caching, which was the subject of your previous post. But yes, geotrails could form with a virtual since (as your point out) they are different than waymarks. This is one reason why some parks want people to obtain permission before a virtual (or an earthcache) is listed on a web site.

 

But the Chesapeake Trail is great.. If we had more than a couple days in the area before a planned visit to DC in the fall, I would want to do all of it. History and caching make a great combination. I did not have time this morning to look at all the locations, but the NPS did allow a log to be placed in a visitor center (McHenry NP). And its always great to see them involved in geocaching activities, whether it be sponsorship of the photo contest, allowing the McHenry NP location to be used, or approval of an earthcache.

 

Although this is getting slightly off topic, the NPS guidelines are not totally inflexible, they suggest that letterboxes might be appropriate in places where the park sponsors registers. Still, they lean heavily toward virtuals. And expanding NPS approval from caches placed in a visitors center to a hike in the Yosemite wilderness or a cache 60 miles from nowhere on the edge of the Grand Canyon may present different issues. The more we can work with the parks on things like the geotrail, earthcaches, CITO events, and perhaps even other forms of virtuals, the more we have a chance to educate them about our game and build a working relationship.

 

Do you have a link to more info wrt that Chesapeake Trail? Thanks.

[+Packanack]

THE LINK

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...6b-7c976531e3f6

 

Website Development called for Waymarking. Simply to further a business plan or model, virtuals gave way to Waymarking--or at least that is my theory. Not a bad plan, but one that left virtual harpies, junkiesaddictsobsessives, er , uh-fans saddened beyond measure. Thus the endless call for the return of Virtuals.

 

So I propose that each premium member be given license to hide one and only one VIRTUAL CACHE, but in order to use that license they must own 5 Waymarks, have hidden no less than 25 caches and must have a bare minimum of 300 finds, and must have been a member for 3 years. Those who choose to not use their license may assign it to another person who must specifically say where they obtained the

Virt License.

 

My goal today is to keep everybody happy. And or stir the pot somemore.

[+Team Cotati]

THE LINK

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...6b-7c976531e3f6

 

Website Development called for Waymarking. Simply to further a business plan or model, virtuals gave way to Waymarking--or at least that is my theory. Not a bad plan, but one that left virtual harpies, junkiesaddictsobsessives, er , uh-fans saddened beyond measure. Thus the endless call for the return of Virtuals.

 

So I propose that each premium member be given license to hide one and only one VIRTUAL CACHE, but in order to use that license they must own 5 Waymarks, have hidden no less than 25 caches and must have a bare minimum of 300 finds, and must have been a member for 3 years. Those who choose to not use their license may assign it to another person who must specifically say where they obtained the

Virt License.

 

My goal today is to keep everybody happy. And or stir the pot somemore.

 

That link points to a bookmark list named: Star-Spangled Banner Geotrail.

 

Is that the same as 'Chesapeake Trail'?

 

Thanks.

[+tozainamboku]

Suppose, you know just as an experiment, let's see if we can discover a WOW! factor for caches hidden in urine soaked bus stop enclosures, under newspaper vending machines, jammed behind bronze memorial plaques, under the door steps of urban businesses, under a rock in a pile of 2,000 rocks, jammed into a crevasse of a hand crafted stone fence or wall. Yeah, like uh...WOWsers.

I don't think a wow requirement would be required if people really only used a virtual because there was no way to hide a physical cache in the area. Geocaching is primarily about hiding a container for someone to find using a GPS unit. My impression was that virtuals came about because there were places where people wanted to leave a cache but could not do so. Virtuals allowed for geocaching to take place in these areas.

 

The issue that was a bigger problem than "wow", IMO, was determining when you could not hide a physical cache. Perhaps sometimes someone asked permission for a physical cache and was told "No you can't leave something there, but you could have someone come to see an existing object". But I think what really happened was that some people were just too lazy to get permission. They decided that you could hide a virtual cache because you didn't need to get permission for that. Or they decided that a physical cache would get muggled too easily so a virtual was easier to maintain. Until the guidelines were changed, many people hid virtual caches on vacations, since they couldn't be responsible to maintain a physical cache there. And before the code was fixed to prevent it, many people would change the type of their physical cache that got muggled to a virtual cache.

 

The other problem was that people began to use virtual geocaches because Waymarking hadn't be invented yet. Instead of seeing virtual caches as a substitute for physical caches they saw them as a easy way to share an interesting location. They didn't need to put together a container and hide it in order to bring someone to a cool place, they just listed it as a virtual cache. There is a bit of a dichotomy in the geocaching community over whether the primary purpose of hiding a geocache is to give some an opportunity to find a cache or to take them to an interesting place. Since people were hiding virtuals that failed to provide a target to find with a GPS and a way to verify that you found it, it became clear that for virtuals the primary purpose was to share interesting place. Hence the "wow" requirement and later the grandfathering of virtuals once a website was set up expressly to share locations that someone finds interesting.

[+DragonsWest]

I found 3 virtuals along the way home from GW8, one was quite moving. I've generally enjoyed virtuals. Some have moved me to buy books and study up more on subjects.

 

The limited scope of Earthcaches could only account for a small number of virtuals I have found.

 

Haven't tried Waymarking, mostly because Waymarks don't show up on the geocaching site. Secondly because, and this is only an early impression, Waymarking people seem to be a difficult lot.

 

I'll have to give Waymarking a try before I can state a truly informed opinion.

 

My understanding of why Virtuals were retired is that they were 'cheapening' the experience. The could show up anywhere and not have any redeemin quality, other than to take up a spot where a better cache could be place.

 

Well, I'm not impressed by that explanation since I've met many a geocache which had no redeeming quality other than to be Yet Another Hide. I've met some very excellent virtuals and would love to see them come back.

 

The only real question of quality is up to those who place them and the reviewers (as it oughta be), not some committee. Cachers themselves, by the feedback of their logs, can provide the assessment, whether any cache is worthy.

 

edit: Just took a quick look at Waymarking.com ... your kidding. McDonalds? Gas stations? Walmarts? WTF? OK, looks like a completely different game and not something I'm likely to participate in.

Edited July 9, 2010 by DragonsWest

[+roziecakes]

Pre's rock is one of our favorite virtuals in our area... I cried when we found it.

[+DragonsWest]

Pre's rock is one of our favorite virtuals in our area... I cried when we found it.

 

Another I was quite moved by was The Nose of El Capitan

 

I've since bought a few books on the climbers and the stories are fascinating. Warren "Batso" Harding instantly became one of my heroes - someone who went out and did something incredibly daring, purely for the love of it. I just don't think an ammo box or whether I saw climbers that day would have impacted me the same way this simple, well done Virtual did.

[+Team Cotati]

Suppose, you know just as an experiment, let's see if we can discover a WOW! factor for caches hidden in urine soaked bus stop enclosures, under newspaper vending machines, jammed behind bronze memorial plaques, under the door steps of urban businesses, under a rock in a pile of 2,000 rocks, jammed into a crevasse of a hand crafted stone fence or wall. Yeah, like uh...WOWsers.

I don't think a wow requirement would be required if people really only used a virtual because there was no way to hide a physical cache in the area. Geocaching is primarily about hiding a container for someone to find using a GPS unit. My impression was that virtuals came about because there were places where people wanted to leave a cache but could not do so. Virtuals allowed for geocaching to take place in these areas.

 

The issue that was a bigger problem than "wow", IMO, was determining when you could not hide a physical cache. Perhaps sometimes someone asked permission for a physical cache and was told "No you can't leave something there, but you could have someone come to see an existing object". But I think what really happened was that some people were just too lazy to get permission. They decided that you could hide a virtual cache because you didn't need to get permission for that. Or they decided that a physical cache would get muggled too easily so a virtual was easier to maintain. Until the guidelines were changed, many people hid virtual caches on vacations, since they couldn't be responsible to maintain a physical cache there. And before the code was fixed to prevent it, many people would change the type of their physical cache that got muggled to a virtual cache.

 

The other problem was that people began to use virtual geocaches because Waymarking hadn't be invented yet. Instead of seeing virtual caches as a substitute for physical caches they saw them as a easy way to share an interesting location. They didn't need to put together a container and hide it in order to bring someone to a cool place, they just listed it as a virtual cache. There is a bit of a dichotomy in the geocaching community over whether the primary purpose of hiding a geocache is to give some an opportunity to find a cache or to take them to an interesting place. Since people were hiding virtuals that failed to provide a target to find with a GPS and a way to verify that you found it, it became clear that for virtuals the primary purpose was to share interesting place. Hence the "wow" requirement and later the grandfathering of virtuals once a website was set up expressly to share locations that someone finds interesting.

 

"a wow requirement would be required".

 

Well let's just say for the record, it isn't whether or not a WOW would be required, it is that a WOW was required.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There is absolutely no defensible logic showing why virtuals should be judged any differently than any other geocache.

 

Banning virtuals made a mockery of the "Language of Location" slogan.

 

Micros in lamp posts behind McDonald's are routinely published, so there is no reason at all a virt at that location shouldn't be.

 

The WOW requirement was unmanageable but that's because it wasn't sensible to start with. We don't judge the location's worthiness for any other cache, we didn't need to for virts either.

 

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewer's didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

All this hoo-raw about the good or evil of virts is wasted time until and unless Groundspeak decides to revisit their decision, and I don't think we'll see that happen.

 

TPTB decided to invest in Waymarking and took it in a different direction that, apparently, most cachers choose not to participate in. Like the decision to ban virts, don't look for Groundspeak to admit that Waymarking is an EPIC FAIL.

 

I've never seen Groundspeak say "We were wrong, we'll change our minds and reverse our decision" and I don't expect to ever see such a reversal.

Edited July 9, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Team Cotati]

There is absolutely no defensible logic showing why virtuals should be judged any differently than any other geocache.

 

Banning virtuals made a mockery of the "Language of Location" slogan.

 

Micros in lamp posts behind McDonald's are routinely published, so there is no reason at all a virt at that location shouldn't be.

 

The WOW requirement was unmanageable but that's because it wasn't sensible to start with. We don't judge the location's worthiness for any other cache, we didn't need to for virts either.

 

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewer's didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

All this hoo-raw about the good or evil of virts is wasted time until and unless Groundspeak decides to revisit their decision, and I don't think we'll see that happen.

 

TPTB decided to invest in Waymarking and took it in a different direction that, apparently, most cachers choose not to participate in. Like the decision to ban virts, don't look for Groundspeak to admit that Waymarking is an EPIC FAIL.

 

I've never seen Groundspeak say "We were wrong, we'll change our minds and reverse our decision" and I don't expect to ever see such a reversal.

 

While I agree with most of what you have said, this one: "We don't judge the location's worthiness for any other cache, we didn't need to for virts either.", I don't. Other than for other cache types it is true.

 

Unless there is some effective way for virtual cache finders to report back to reviewers and reviewers to take corrective actions, then we might get right back to those old bad habits of the reviewers being tricked into approving gas station toilet, telephone pole serial number, old tires in the woods and tennis shoes in a tree as worthy virtual caches. Lordy, every time that I see or hear that 'logic?' I just cringe, it is so silly to me.

 

But maybe it is true, there is no interest in preventing or eliminating such POC hides whether they are virtuals or regular types. If that is really true, then let 'er rip and just accept those bus stop and the others that I mentioned, ride along with the telephone pole serial numbers and the other horrific old days virtual hides that are so popular to mention as examples of what was and is wrong with virtual caches.

[+Castle Mischief]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewers didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

Yes. For the same reasons there are no longer Additional Logging Requirements and the power-trail section of the guidelines were removed: Reviewer fatigue.

[+Team Cotati]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewers didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

Yes. For the same reasons there are no longer Additional Logging Requirements and the power-trail section of the guidelines were removed: Reviewer fatigue.

 

I didn't realize that Power Trails had been banned.

[+DragonsWest]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewers didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

Yes. For the same reasons there are no longer Additional Logging Requirements and the power-trail section of the guidelines were removed: Reviewer fatigue.

 

I didn't realize that Power Trails had been banned.

 

News to me. While Power Trails seem odd to me, I had one idea reinforced at GW8 - Geocaching is not the same thing to all geocachers. Some are there for the hunt, some for the trade it pathtags/sigitems/patches, some just for the fun of it.

 

Forcing Geocaching to be the same thing for all would kill the game.

[+lachupa]

It isn't coming back.

 

Crying won't help you and praying won't do you no good.

 

I have that stuck in my head now.

true story

[+Team Cotati]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewers didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

Yes. For the same reasons there are no longer Additional Logging Requirements and the power-trail section of the guidelines were removed: Reviewer fatigue.

 

I didn't realize that Power Trails had been banned.

 

News to me. While Power Trails seem odd to me, I had one idea reinforced at GW8 - Geocaching is not the same thing to all geocachers. Some are there for the hunt, some for the trade it pathtags/sigitems/patches, some just for the fun of it.

 

Forcing Geocaching to be the same thing for all would kill the game.

 

Is someone trying to do that? Don't reviewers have to review caches on power trails?

[+Prime Suspect]

Yes. For the same reasons there are no longer Additional Logging Requirements and the power-trail section of the guidelines were removed: Reviewer fatigue.

I didn't realize that Power Trails had been banned.

Removed != banned

[+briansnat]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewer's didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

I've heard that often, but never from a reviewer.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewer's didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

I've heard that often, but never from a reviewer.

I seriously doubt that you ever will. Since we have no facts I can only surmise based on what I see.

 

In fact if you want my completely unsupported guess it was the lead of just one key Reviewer who got them banned!

[+DragonsWest]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewer's didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

I've heard that often, but never from a reviewer.

 

If I had, I would suggest recruiting a few reviewers who didn't mind or even liked Virtuals to take it on, freeing up those with a dislike for other cache reviewing.

[+BlueDeuce]

There is absolutely no defensible logic showing why virtuals should be judged any differently than any other geocache.

 

Wouldn't you have to agree that virtual cache concept could be virtually anything. The serial number on a wind-up toy, the color of a cement post, the number of cracks in a sidewalk. There had to be a limitation on what could be listed as a virtual cache. The wow-factor tried to do that but wasn't successful

 

I think they could have set different guidelines such as art and artifact, but they didn't ask me.

[+briansnat]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewer's didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

I've heard that often, but never from a reviewer.

I seriously doubt that you ever will. Since we have no facts I can only surmise based on what I see.

 

In fact if you want my completely unsupported guess it was the lead of just one key Reviewer who got them banned!

 

Before the wow factor was introduced I don't see how reviewing a virtual was any different than reviewing a regular cache. So I can't imagine why any reviewer would be against them, other than a personal bias (a bias that was not uncommon in the general community at the time, akin to the current bias against so called pointless micros).

 

Once the wow factor was introduced it put reviewers in the awkward position of becoming cache judges, but I still don't recall any clamor from reviewers, or a reviewer at the time to put an end to them.

[+Team Cotati]

There is absolutely no defensible logic showing why virtuals should be judged any differently than any other geocache.

 

Wouldn't you have to agree that virtual cache concept could be virtually anything. The serial number on a wind-up toy, the color of a cement post, the number of cracks in a sidewalk. There had to be a limitation on what could be listed as a virtual cache. The wow-factor tried to do that but wasn't successful

 

I think they could have set different guidelines such as art and artifact, but they didn't ask me.

 

And why do you suppose that it was not successful?

[+Team Cotati]

This whole thing boils down to the Reviewer's didn't want to deal with them anymore, Groundspeak backed them up and agreed to ban rather than revise them, and good decision or bad they evidently aren't going to change their position.

 

I've heard that often, but never from a reviewer.

I seriously doubt that you ever will. Since we have no facts I can only surmise based on what I see.

 

In fact if you want my completely unsupported guess it was the lead of just one key Reviewer who got them banned!

 

Before the wow factor was introduced I don't see how reviewing a virtual was any different than reviewing a regular cache. So I can't imagine why any reviewer would be against them, other than a personal bias (a bias that was not uncommon in the general community at the time, akin to the current bias against so called pointless micros).

 

Once the wow factor was introduced it put reviewers in the awkward position of becoming cache judges, but I still don't recall any clamor from reviewers, or a reviewer at the time to put an end to them.

 

Nor do I recall any clamor from reviewers or a reviewer to ditch that so-called WOW factor, what ever that meant.

[Clan Riffster]

There is absolutely no defensible logic showing why virtuals should be judged any differently than any other geocache.

I suspect the only approach that has even a snowball's chance in Hades of getting virts back is one that demonstrates, to the company, that it would be a profitable venue, and would not cost them their greatest asset, the volunteer reviewer staff. With that in mind, I can't imagine virts coming back, with the previously incorporated "Wow" factor. Dealing with them was just too big a hassle for the troops in the field.

 

However, playing off what you mentioned above, perhaps they could make a return, sans any "Wow" factor. We could be back to the days of discarded tennis shoe virts, dead Bambi carcass virts, etc. Heck, just think how the number fanatics could benefit from such a return! I could create a virt power trail from Daytona to Tampa, showing off guardrail bolts and fence posts every 529 feet. If, (as the owner of the caches), I relaxed the requirements, dictating that finders only need to snap a picture of ground zero, folks would never even need to slow down! Since Interstate 4 is roughly 300 feet wide, from border to border, I could stagger them, covering both eastbound and westbound lanes. That'll be over 2,600 caches for a 5 hour round trip drive! I'm sure there are folks out there who would actually feel they accomplished something by making the run.

[+tozainamboku]

Micros in lamp posts behind McDonald's are routinely published, so there is no reason at all a virt at that location shouldn't be.

If you can hide a micro there then you shouldn't be hiding a virtual in that location. Virtuals were meant as a substitute for when a physical cache couldn't be hidden. They weren't meant to be the Wondert game that Dave Ulmer proposed when he became concerned that geocaching had too many problems, so instead of hiding caches he would share "places where just being there is the reward." Unfortunately that is how people wanted to use virtual caches. Groundspeak finally decided that Dave Ulmer's idea for a Wondert game wasn't so bad and created a website just for this new game - just point your browser to http://www.wondert.com

Edited July 10, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There is absolutely no defensible logic showing why virtuals should be judged any differently than any other geocache.

I suspect the only approach that has even a snowball's chance in Hades of getting virts back is one that demonstrates, to the company, that it would be a profitable venue, and would not cost them their greatest asset, the volunteer reviewer staff. With that in mind, I can't imagine virts coming back, with the previously incorporated "Wow" factor. Dealing with them was just too big a hassle for the troops in the field.

With the 'wow' factor eliminated virts are just like any other geocaches so far as the Review process.

 

However, playing off what you mentioned above, perhaps they could make a return, sans any "Wow" factor. We could be back to the days of discarded tennis shoe virts, dead Bambi carcass virts, etc. Heck, just think how the number fanatics could benefit from such a return! I could create a virt power trail from Daytona to Tampa, showing off guardrail bolts and fence posts every 529 feet. If, (as the owner of the caches), I relaxed the requirements, dictating that finders only need to snap a picture of ground zero, folks would never even need to slow down! Since Interstate 4 is roughly 300 feet wide, from border to border, I could stagger them, covering both eastbound and westbound lanes. That'll be over 2,600 caches for a 5 hour round trip drive! I'm sure there are folks out there who would actually feel they accomplished something by making the run.

Exactly like any other geocache. What you describe can be done with any cache, witness the relaxation of guidelines now allowing power trails which are popping up across the country. A trail of film cans, a trail of virts, what's the difference?

 

I think all of us who champion the return to listing virtuals agree that the wow factor was a bad idea and should never be revisited. Not for virtuals and not for any other type of geocache.

 

Are you saying that the Harry Potter cache near me which is a small lock-n-lock inside an old discarded shoe in the middle of an open field alongside a major road has value but a virtual does not? The shoe-cache should be listed because, what, it has a log sheet and a virtual doesn't?

 

The argument that there were too many crappy virts doesn't hold water when there is zero limitation on crappy containers or locations.

 

A keyholder on a guardrail or a virt showing off guardrail bolts, what's the difference?

 

Nay, as I said, this isn't and never has been an argument about cache type or proliferation or value or quality, it's strictly that TPTB made the arbitrary decision to ban virts and will not now be perceived as losing face by backing off on it.

 

They would have to admit that all the money and effort spent on Waymarking was a waste if they ever reinstated virtuals.

[+Team Cotati]

There is absolutely no defensible logic showing why virtuals should be judged any differently than any other geocache.

I suspect the only approach that has even a snowball's chance in Hades of getting virts back is one that demonstrates, to the company, that it would be a profitable venue, and would not cost them their greatest asset, the volunteer reviewer staff. With that in mind, I can't imagine virts coming back, with the previously incorporated "Wow" factor. Dealing with them was just too big a hassle for the troops in the field.

 

However, playing off what you mentioned above, perhaps they could make a return, sans any "Wow" factor. We could be back to the days of discarded tennis shoe virts, dead Bambi carcass virts, etc. Heck, just think how the number fanatics could benefit from such a return! I could create a virt power trail from Daytona to Tampa, showing off guardrail bolts and fence posts every 529 feet. If, (as the owner of the caches), I relaxed the requirements, dictating that finders only need to snap a picture of ground zero, folks would never even need to slow down! Since Interstate 4 is roughly 300 feet wide, from border to border, I could stagger them, covering both eastbound and westbound lanes. That'll be over 2,600 caches for a 5 hour round trip drive! I'm sure there are folks out there who would actually feel they accomplished something by making the run.

 

Customers.

[Clan Riffster]

A trail of film cans, a trail of virts, what's the difference?

One has a logsheet that most agree should be signed before claiming a find. The other does not.

 

Were I to create 2,600 film can caches along I-4, it would likely take a couple days, at least, to score all those finds. Plus, the seekers would need to stop their cars, get out, walk a few feet, open the film can, sign the log, put the cache back, walk back to their car and drive another 529 feet. 2,600 times. That's too much like work for today's number hounds.

 

With the trail of virts, folks wouldn't even need to take their feet off the gas pedal. Just drive east like a maniac for a couple hours, snapping pics every 529 feet, then turn around in Daytona and fly back west, doing the same thing. In roughly 4 or 5 hours, they'd have 2,600 more smileys.

[+briansnat]

A trail of film cans, a trail of virts, what's the difference?

One has a logsheet that most agree should be signed before claiming a find. The other does not.

 

Were I to create 2,600 film can caches along I-4, it would likely take a couple days, at least, to score all those finds. Plus, the seekers would need to stop their cars, get out, walk a few feet, open the film can, sign the log, put the cache back, walk back to their car and drive another 529 feet. 2,600 times. That's too much like work for today's number hounds.

 

With the trail of virts, folks wouldn't even need to take their feet off the gas pedal. Just drive east like a maniac for a couple hours, snapping pics every 529 feet, then turn around in Daytona and fly back west, doing the same thing. In roughly 4 or 5 hours, they'd have 2,600 more smileys.

 

And don't think the idea is so absurd that it won't happen. Make a virt of every 10th of a mile marker on route 80. It might be fun to rack those up, but it ain't geocaching.

Edited July 10, 2010 by briansnat