BRING BACK VIRTUAL CACHE

[+DonB]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Virtual Cache?

I agree with you. Waymarking isn't the same to me, and neither are earthcaches, which I think most of them are boring, like go to this rock and tell me how high the cliff is behind it, or go to this well and measure the water flow.

 

I used to do any virtual that I was near while traveling and thought the sites were not only interesting but in many cases were things that weren't in the tourist books. In fact we are planing a special trip to the Milwaukee area and do 14 virtuals that are still there

[+t4e]

in a nutshell, can someone tell me why exactly were they grandfathered?

 

/me goes perform CPR on that dead horse while waiting

 

[+catsnfish]

This topic needs an anthem!!

 

For The Cause

[+Walts Hunting]

This topic needs an anthem!!

 

Very nicely done.

 

<yawn> Now I remember why I don't come here very often. There's much less drama in actual caching.

 

And that's why i come here with my morning coffee. it's better than Arrested Development for drama and humor plus throw in a little naivety get me going in the morning. Even All My Children pales next to this forum.

[+Markwell]

Well both sides can play that game of lyrics:

 

To the tune of "I'm a Believer"

 

I thought geocaching was for finding things

Meant for getting out to find the place

Then there was a sneaker

"Tell me what's the size."

Not so much the cache but just the space.

 

Then we found a box, and used our receiver

There really was a cache, and something to find.

I'm in love, Somebody placed

A box in this place...a smile on my face.

 

I thought waymarks might be an alternative,

Seems the site just doesn't feel the same.

So they come a-cryin'

To the forums go.

Never mind the search, just post below:

 

"We should bring back virts, like a Golden Retriever

Don't care why they aren't any more.

I need points! I need a smiley!

My find count rides highly, and I need one more"

[+DonB]

I'm really glad that us less fortunate forum members can amuse the ones that have superior intelligence with our boring ideas and causes.

[+Walts Hunting]

I'm really glad that us less fortunate forum members can amuse the ones that have superior intelligence with our boring ideas and causes.

 

Your right without an audience we wouldn't have any fun.

[+Markwell]

OK - I'll post my take on what happened.

 

For those that tout that virtuals are usually extremely well done: There's a reason. There was a "Wow" component. Take a look at how the listing requirements looked in 2003

Virtual Caches

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a very unique and compelling nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there. Note, however, that new virtual cache proposals are only approved if they meet the all of conditions listed in the guidelines below. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page.

 

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep that in mind when submitting your cache report.

...

 

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report.

 

Virtual Caches

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of a permanent object at a location that was already there. Typically, the cache “hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

1. A virtual cache must be a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) generally do not qualify as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the Geocaching.com web site. (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle might be acceptable, but contact your local approver first before posting it as a virtual cache to work out the details.) If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day. A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

3. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

Virtual Cache Maintenance Guidelines

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries and periodically check the location. You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site. The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged “finds” for the virtual cache, and will agree to delete any “find” logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines

Logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the poster, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the poster, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

It's the part here that makes the surviving virtuals so good:

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

Before this was in place, people were quite literally submitting a tennis shoe that they dropped in the woods - and asked people to tell them the size of the shoe. Someone submitted a dead carcass of a deer as a virtual. Some virtuals were flagpoles.

 

Some of the virtuals I have logged as Found:

*The number on a pavilion in a forest preserve

*A road-side cemetery

*A place where charter buses are parked

*The underside of a bridge where the interstate goes over

 

I tried to place a virtual before they were disallowed. It was a confederate cemetery. That's rare up in Illinois, but not rare in general. I'm glad it was denied.

 

The point is that even the ones that survive from before the ban as grandfathered aren't always representative of "great" spots, but when the "Wow" clause was in effect, there were quite literally HUNDREDS of threads every month where someone wanted to post a virtual cache, and the reviewers had to apply the subjective "Wow" clause: is it special, noteworthy - "cache worthy". Of course everyone thought their special location was, but almost every time the reviewer said no, people came to the forums posting another new thread about "my virtual was denied by a mean reviewer". The reviewers were spending way too much time answering these questions and having to defend their decision not to publish a proposed virtual of the first place that someone did something in their lives.

 

So Groundspeak tried to come up with an alternative. They spent considerable time trying to find a way to incorporate Locationless Caches (another discussion) and virtuals by providing a warehouse of locations and the ability to fit categories to those locations. It didn't go over as well.

 

But - here's the whole point of any thread on this subject.

Groundspeak's CEO Jeremy Irish is on record as stating that unequivocally virtual caches are NOT coming back.

 

People can of course continue to state that they want virtuals to come back. My 10 year old son can repeatedly say that he really wants an (insert dream gaming system). I can repeatedly state that I would like to not have to go to work and still get paid double the salary that I get now.

 

But the answer is the same: It's not going to happen.

 

On a personal note, as I stated when the "History Cache" thread was posted June 9 (five days ago):

Since I'm not a moderator in this portion of the forum I will also express one of my own personal opinions: I believe Earthcaches are a huge mistake. People hang their hat on Earthcaches as a possibility that box-less locations might be listed on Geocaching.com. I also believe it's a mistake to increase people's find-counts for Events, Mega Events and CITO Events. While acquiescing to the masses, when they take a hard line stance on virtuals, people get all agnsty because there's really not that much difference.

[+BulldogBlitz]

 

Before this was in place, people were quite literally submitting a tennis shoe that they dropped in the woods - and asked people to tell them the size of the shoe. Someone submitted a dead carcass of a deer as a virtual. Some virtuals were flagpoles.

 

 

uh... yeah... and now we have 35 mm plastic cans near that same flagpole. is there really a difference?

 

if there is an old cemetery nearby, someone will hang a pill bottle on the fence... or under a stump.... log only, of course, with a little history bit or just a suggestion that we "check out the tombstones".

 

they can run the game how they please... but it is pretty silly that both sides are fighting over a few pixel smiley icon.... heh.

[+wimseyguy]

And Virtual is even a big enough word to work on the lousy search forum software too!

[+swfirefly]

I love science, I just don't like researching answers to stupid questions. I'll go back to ignoring you now.

 

Science (from Latin: scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories*

 

*Edward Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage, 1999.

 

I love history... I just don't like researching the past!

Bravo! You know how to look up definitions! You deserve a gold star!

 

To each his own. I choose not to do earthcaches, 'cause I prefer to keep my geocaching fun. I don't happen to find it fun to look up answers to silly questions. To me, virtuals are fun and easy. Just how I like my hobbies.

[+JL_HSTRE]

There are many people who like Virtual Caches but dislike Waymarking.

 

It would be if someone set up an alternative (virtualcaching.com?) and strikes for the inbetween: a site dedicated solely to Virtual Caches with a site design similiar to geocaching.com where you don't know exactly what you're going to see unless you go there (or cheat by looking at the photos in the logs). Categories might be good but with the extreme detail Waymarking wants. It would need to be moderated to ensure quality caches are being submitted. That would surely cause some controversy, but I think you want to cut out the junk Virtuals like shoes in woods and the underside of a random overpass.

 

Beyond my knowhow to create, but if someone set up such a site I would join.

 

But - here's the whole point of any thread on this subject.

Groundspeak's CEO Jeremy Irish is on record as stating that unequivocally virtual caches are NOT coming back.

 

A post to this effect needs to be stickied in this forum methinks.

Edited June 16, 2010 by joshism

[+narcissa]

 

Bravo! You know how to look up definitions! You deserve a gold star!

 

To each his own. I choose not to do earthcaches, 'cause I prefer to keep my geocaching fun. I don't happen to find it fun to look up answers to silly questions. To me, virtuals are fun and easy. Just how I like my hobbies.

 

Reading is hard. Let's go shopping!

[jholly]

But not... definitely not, a brass disk stuck in the ground.

 

That probably is because not all brass disks are stuck in the ground

[+tozainamboku]

 

Perhaps for those of us who are newer, you could explain their stance and reasoning?

 

Oh, Mr. T has a long famous (and very good) post which I'm sure he'll come along and post shortly.

 

Why new virtual caches are no longer allowed

[Clan Riffster]

But not... definitely not, a brass disk stuck in the ground.

 

That probably is because not all brass disks are stuck in the ground

I still can't grasp how some things, like sinkholes, webcams and nerd gatherings, rate the sacred "Geocache" label, while others do not.

There is probably some logic behind it, but being dumber than a bag of hammers, I don't get it.

I like Markwell's idea of not counting anything that doesn't end in a physical container.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Clan Riffster

[+narcissa]

There is an entire Facebook group devoted to this topic. Someone there claims to have Jeremy on record as saying that Virtuals are coming back. Oh, the lols.

[jholly]

But not... definitely not, a brass disk stuck in the ground.

 

That probably is because not all brass disks are stuck in the ground

I still can't grasp how some things, like sinkholes, webcams and nerd gatherings, rate the sacred "Geocache" label, while others do not.

I like Markwell's idea of not counting anything that doesn't end in a physical container.

 

Well all the events I have gone to had a log I could sign, so it meets the famous StarBrand definition of someplace and something. I can't think of one that did not have a building or some sort of structure you could be in so I guess you could call that a container. Actually some of the events I have gone to have a real container, it's what you sign. CITO's are a bit iffy.

[+t4e]

OK - I'll post my take on what happened.

 

For those that tout that virtuals are usually extremely well done: There's a reason. There was a "Wow" component. Take a look at how the listing requirements looked in 2003Virtual Caches

 

 

 

that is one very dead link

Edited June 16, 2010 by t4e

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

But - here's the whole point of any thread on this subject.

Groundspeak's CEO Jeremy Irish is on record as stating that unequivocally virtual caches are NOT coming back.

 

A post to this effect needs to be stickied in this forum methinks.

 

Well I can't sticky it but I can reference it.

 

Virtual Caches are NOT coming back

Edited June 16, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+Mosaic55]

There are many people who like Virtual Caches but dislike Waymarking.

 

It would be if someone set up an alternative (virtualcaching.com?) and strikes for the inbetween: a site dedicated solely to Virtual Caches with a site design similiar to geocaching.com where you don't know exactly what you're going to see unless you go there (or cheat by looking at the photos in the logs). Categories might be good but with the extreme detail Waymarking wants. It would need to be moderated to ensure quality caches are being submitted. That would surely cause some controversy, but I think you want to cut out the junk Virtuals like shoes in woods and the underside of a random overpass.

 

Beyond my knowhow to create, but if someone set up such a site I would join.

 

 

Geocaching is fun. Waymarking feels like I'm doing a homework assignment. Virtualcaching.com sounds like it could be fun.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think bringing back virts is a novel and worthy idea, I wonder why it hasn't been discussed before?

 

As the man said, BRING BACK VIRTUAL CACHE

 

I think you should post this topic every week until the frog palace bows to our demand.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think bringing back virts is a novel and worthy idea, I wonder why it hasn't been discussed before?

 

As the man said, BRING BACK VIRTUAL CACHE

 

I think you should post this topic every week until the frog palace bows to our demand.

 

Virtuals are scheduled to be brought back about a year after the new cache rating system is instituted, and a nano cache size is introduced. Just sit tight!

[+tozainamboku]

There are many people who like Virtual Caches but dislike Waymarking.

 

It would be if someone set up an alternative (virtualcaching.com?) and strikes for the inbetween: a site dedicated solely to Virtual Caches with a site design similiar to geocaching.com where you don't know exactly what you're going to see unless you go there (or cheat by looking at the photos in the logs). Categories might be good but with the extreme detail Waymarking wants. It would need to be moderated to ensure quality caches are being submitted. That would surely cause some controversy, but I think you want to cut out the junk Virtuals like shoes in woods and the underside of a random overpass.

 

Beyond my knowhow to create, but if someone set up such a site I would join.

The interesting thing about Waymarking is that premium members can suggest new catetories. They can form a group of a least three people and submit ideas. If the group does its homework, these ideas are usually accepted as new categories.

 

When Waymarking first came out, I though "Gee these categories don't seem to reflect what I like about virutal caches. They don't emphasize an object to find using the coordinates and my GPS. They don't provide an opportunity for a write-up that leaves some mystery so that visitors will be surprised at what they found. Visitors might miss some "Wow" location because there are not so interested in historic markers or shot towers. And only a few waymarks had a verification method beyond posting a picture. So I formed a group and we created a category called Best Kept Secrets that attempted to replicate what we liked most about Virtual caches. I fully expected others to follow, emphasizing their ideas of what made a good virtual cache. I also expected that we would get a lot of submissions from people who wanted to share interesting locations but didn't like the way this was handled in traditional Waymarking categories.

 

I have been disappointed that instead of seeing lots of new creative Waymaking categories that addressed people's vision of virtual caches and instead of getting tons of Best Kept Secret submissions, all I see are the same "Bring Back Virtuals" threads in the forums. While some of the complaints about Waymarking are valid - it can be confusing at first and it lacks anything comparable to Pocket Queries), there are many that show ignorance of the site. By getting invovled with Waymarking you can have the opportunity to share the locations you used to be able to share with virtual caches. For many people the traditional Waymarking categories will be more than sufficient. One problem with virtual caches was that people were trying to use them as waymarks before Waymarking existed. But if you enjoy certain aspects of virtual caching that are not available in the traditional Waymarking categories you can use Best Kept Secrets or create a new category that better describes what you like about virtual caches.

[+thedeadpirate]

There is an entire Facebook group devoted to this topic. Someone there claims to have Jeremy on record as saying that Virtuals are coming back. Oh, the lols.

 

There is this post that says there are no plans to bring them back.

 

Can the ones claiming to have Jeremy on record provide a link dated past that one?

[+Markwell]

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

[+thedeadpirate]

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

 

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

[+DonB]

I'm really glad that us less fortunate forum members can amuse the ones that have superior intelligence with our boring ideas and causes.

 

Your right without an audience we wouldn't have any fun.

You're right, without an audience we wouldn't have any fun

[+briansnat]

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

 

i know this topic has probably been brought up 100 times but i just wanna see if anyone agrees

 

No. They are not geocaches.

[+DonB]

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

 

i know this topic has probably been brought up 100 times but i just wanna see if anyone agrees

 

No. They are not geocaches.

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

[+geodarts]

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

 

i know this topic has probably been brought up 100 times but i just wanna see if anyone agrees

 

No. They are not geocaches.

 

The "grandfathered" ones are at least part of geocaching - like events, CITOing, visits to Groundspeak hq, and earthcaches. And they have taken me to places, with defined tasks (as opposed to Waymarking), where traditional caches are not allowed.

 

I realize that some hope that without virtuals traditional caching will be accepted by certain parks. But NPS officials in my area have been quite outspoken to me about how traditional caching will never be approved on their watch. And I know how hard it was for me to even get an earthcache approved at Grand Canyon. So perhaps in a generation that could change but in the meantime the ban on new virtuals in places where traditional caching is not allowed prevents us from working with park officials as part of this game - unless it involves geology - in a way that could help break down some of the barriers.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+StarBrand]

.....I realize that some hope that without virtuals traditional caching will be accepted by certain parks. But NPS officials in my area have been quite outspoken to me about how traditional caching will never be approved on their watch. And I know how hard it was for me to even get an earthcache approved at Grand Canyon. So perhaps in a generation that could change but in the meantime the ban on new virtuals in places where traditional caching is not allowed prevents us from working with park officials as part of this game - unless it involves geology - in a way that could help break down some of the barriers.

 

You see - that IS one of the problems.

 

Many land managers were 'using' virtuals as an excuse to not allow phyisical caches on thier lands. I know that from firsthand experience!! When vituals were removed as an option - the same land managers finally were willing to sit down and discuss some common sense guidelines for plaacing physical caches.

 

and....as pointed out before --> Geocaches have been defined as hiding something somewhere. Just the somewhere is now known as a waymark.

[+Semper Questio]

I'd just like some consistency one way or the other. Either bring back virts in some form or drop ALL other cache types that do not have at least a container and log. If container and log are the criteria for a cache, then stick to that across the board.

 

virts - new site or Waymarking

webcams - Waymarking

benchmarks - new site or Waymarking

events - stricter log criteria, new site, or drop counting them as finds

earthcaches - new site or Waymarking (I understand they may be contracturally obligated on this one.)

 

As a corollary issue, how do we address the same thing that has been happening with micros that happened to virts ? Ban those next?

[+geodarts]

 

You see - that IS one of the problems.

 

Many land managers were 'using' virtuals as an excuse to not allow phyisical caches on thier lands. I know that from firsthand experience!! When vituals were removed as an option - the same land managers finally were willing to sit down and discuss some common sense guidelines for plaacing physical caches.

 

and....as pointed out before --> Geocaches have been defined as hiding something somewhere. Just the somewhere is now known as a waymark.

 

I see, but my experience has been the opposite. NPS officials in my area have taken a different approach -- removing grandfathered traditionals. When I first approached the current management to get permission for an earthcache, they had not heard about either virtuals or earthcaches, but were adament that traditional caching would not be allowed. I spoke to them about their reasons and pointed out how various parks have adopted permit systems or guidelines that address their concerns, but somehow I don't expect to see traditional caching approved in their jurisdiction (or in places like Yosemite, Bryce, the Grand Canyon, Zion, Walnut Canyon or other Native American archeological sites) within my lifetime. Or at least theirs -- particularly given some of the internal correspondence I had a chance to read. Do you really think otherwise?

 

In the meantime, I have been glad that the remaining virtuals in these areas brought me to unique locations within this game, places that I never would have discovered otherwise. They have given me a focused task (which does make virtuals very distinct from Waymarking, just as earthcaches were not a good fit when they were moved to the other site). And for a number of reasons, I enjoy them being part of this game.

 

Our state parks have permitted traditional caching (within narrow guidelines) but designated some areas as allowing only virtual caching, which they define as including Waymarking. I don't expect that policy to change in the areas they have designated, and traditional caches that have been placed there have been archived.

 

So I think virtual caching -- and other things like CITO events -- does allow us to begin a dialogue and form a relationship with park officials that might give them reason to expand their policies. Or at least they provide a way to enjoy this game within certain areas that are otherwise inaccessible. And if park officials want to use virtuals as an excuse to ban caching, they will simply point to Waymarking -- as the state parks have done in certain areas here. In fact, in parks with cell phone reception, they could also point to other Waymarking-like games, such as Gowalla, as part of their policy regarding location-based activity.

 

Its too bad that the game does not seem big enough for both types of caching experiences, unless geology is involved. (I have used geology to bring people to a great location where a traditional cache previously was removed by park officials, but a historical virtual might have been better since I know more about that than earth science.) Although I think that virtuals should be defined to certain types of areas and experiences (as part of Groundspeak's stated commitment to the educational use of the gpsr), caching is big enough to encompass that --just as it is big enough for CITOing, earthcaching, events, and Groundspeak's HQ -- all of which serve a unique and important function within "caching." But it is Groundspeak's game and they make the rules so I don't expect that to change. They decided to spin off a separate site and call it Waymarking. So be it.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+JL_HSTRE]

When Waymarking first came out, I though "Gee these categories don't seem to reflect what I like about virutal caches. They don't emphasize an object to find using the coordinates and my GPS. They don't provide an opportunity for a write-up that leaves some mystery so that visitors will be surprised at what they found. Visitors might miss some "Wow" location because there are not so interested in historic markers or shot towers. And only a few waymarks had a verification method beyond posting a picture. So I formed a group and we created a category called Best Kept Secrets that attempted to replicate what we liked most about Virtual caches. I fully expected others to follow, emphasizing their ideas of what made a good virtual cache. I also expected that we would get a lot of submissions from people who wanted to share interesting locations but didn't like the way this was handled in traditional Waymarking categories.

 

I have been disappointed that instead of seeing lots of new creative Waymaking categories that addressed people's vision of virtual caches and instead of getting tons of Best Kept Secret submissions, all I see are the same "Bring Back Virtuals" threads in the forums. While some of the complaints about Waymarking are valid - it can be confusing at first and it lacks anything comparable to Pocket Queries), there are many that show ignorance of the site. By getting invovled with Waymarking you can have the opportunity to share the locations you used to be able to share with virtual caches.

 

I have been on Waymarking.com for about 2 months and was unaware of Best Kept Secrets. I'll have to take a look at that.

 

My biggest turnoff to Waymarking was not the less likeable interface, McDonalds locations having a category, the lack of GPX, the lack of apps, or even the cross-listing of the same thing in multiple categories (that last one got demoted to 2nd biggest gripe). It was when I went to veterans memorial park on Memorial Day, photographed the monuments, and waymarked the ones that had not yet been waymarked.

 

Several were rejected because my photos were not clear enough to read all the text on the monument and I had not reproduced all the text on the monument in my description.

 

So basically the memorial category mods want to encourage virtual Waymarking (virtual visits, even if not virtual logging)? WTF??? I thought we were encouraging people to get out and see neat things in person, not from the comfort of their house.

 

/rant

[+narcissa]

 

I have been on Waymarking.com for about 2 months and was unaware of Best Kept Secrets. I'll have to take a look at that.

 

My biggest turnoff to Waymarking was not the less likeable interface, McDonalds locations having a category, the lack of GPX, the lack of apps, or even the cross-listing of the same thing in multiple categories (that last one got demoted to 2nd biggest gripe). It was when I went to veterans memorial park on Memorial Day, photographed the monuments, and waymarked the ones that had not yet been waymarked.

 

Several were rejected because my photos were not clear enough to read all the text on the monument and I had not reproduced all the text on the monument in my description.

 

So basically the memorial category mods want to encourage virtual Waymarking (virtual visits, even if not virtual logging)? WTF??? I thought we were encouraging people to get out and see neat things in person, not from the comfort of their house.

 

/rant

 

You're not the first to encounter this kind of nonsense when submitting new Waymarks. There are so many barriers to new users that most people click around a bit and run. The ones who stay are the ones with the inclination to make sense of the horrible site design, and who aren't dissuaded by the fact that their Waypoints never get visited. It's not shocking that a lot of serious Waymarkers are tin dictators, obsessed with rules and categories.

 

So whatever. I'll keep logging grandfathered virtuals, and they'll just become rarer, and Waymarking will continue to suck, and people will keep posting this topic and the same people will keep writing the same tl;dr explanations of how great Waymarking could be if we all just took the time to figure it out and step in line with the self-appointed sheriffs who run things over there.

[+tozainamboku]

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 wasn't because Jeremy or anyone else hated virtuals. Virtuals were a good idea in the early development of geocaching to allow people the opportunity to hunt for a cache in a location where a physical cache could not be hidden. If people had submitted virtuals only where there was no way to hide a physical cache (including using an offset multi), AND these were specific targets that could be "found" using the coordinates and a GPS, AND there was a way to verify the finds in lieu of a logbook; then perhaps virtual caches would have remained. Instead, the virtual cache was often used to share a cool location. Often one could have hidden a cache there or made it part of a multi. Often there was nothing to find - the location itself was the target. Often there was no verification or there was on that could be answered by looking it up on the internet. The virtual cache was being used to list "waymarks". The guidelines were changed to attempt to correct the misuse of virtual caches. But this only got people upset that the reviewers wouldn't pulish their "waymarks" any more. Grounspeak then developed a whole new site just for locationless caches and waymarks. Since most people were using virtual caches to submit waymarks it was decided that no new virtual caches would be published. If you want to share a neat location use Waymarking.

 

This action certainly removed the option of using virtual caches for what they were originally intended - use an existing physical object as the target for a cache where a physical cache couldn't be placed and have a verification method to show that the cacher found the intended object. In "bring back virtuals" threads very few people seem to make this distinction. They all seem to want to bring back "waymarks" instead of "virtuals". Often you will have someone give an example of the idea they have for a virtual cache. Those familiar with the old guidelines for virtual caches can usually tell that it would not have been approved as a virtual cache when these were allowed. Those familiar with Waymarking can often find a category where this location could be published.

 

In may be nice to bring back virtuals if you could restrict them to the narrow situation they were intended for. But the experience indicates that writing a guideline that people would follow is extremely difficult.

 

As geocaching has grown, more and more physical caches have been placed in more areas. Land managers that previously did not allow caches, have begun to allow them. True, that a few places continue to ban physical caches and a few more have begun limiting physical placements in their areas. Some locations are restricted even in the Groundspeak guidelines. Other places may be restricted by local laws. We should accept that there will be places with no geocaches. Is there really a need for a virtual cache in the Grand Canyon? This is a wonderful place to visit and enjoy without earning a silly smiley for it. The argument to bring back virtuals so you can put a cache in a park that doesn't allow physical containers, has less weight than it had when Geocaching was trying to grow. Then the object was to get a cache in as many places as possible. Now the emphasis is often on maintaining caches and adding new ones in areas where geocaching is already established.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What? No more virtual caches? When did that happen? How did that happen?

 

BRING BACK VIRTUAL CACHE!

[+geodarts]

Is there really a need for a virtual cache in the Grand Canyon? This is a wonderful place to visit and enjoy without earning a silly smiley for it. The argument to bring back virtuals so you can put a cache in a park that doesn't allow physical containers, has less weight than it had when Geocaching was trying to grow. Then the object was to get a cache in as many places as possible. Now the emphasis is often on maintaining caches and adding new ones in areas where geocaching is already established.

 

For that matter, we do not "need" a physical cache anywhere. In fact, in many places where I have found traditional caches they are not "needed" by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I have enjoyed being able to take this game into those areas, just as I have enjoyed being able to take this game into some of the areas where I have found traditionals. The virtuals I have found in the Grand Canyon and other areas listed in my previous post added not only to this game, but my experience at the area in question. They often added something beyond Waymarking. I hiked to a virtual in Yosemite, for instance, that brought me to a location I had never discovered in any previous trip and required me to think about what I found there. I can say for certain that it was needed as much as any other thing that we did there.

 

So I did not need a virtual cache at the Canyon or any other National Park just to go there. (But the virtual at Toroweap certainly inspires me to get there on our next visit in a way that Waymarking does not.) Still, they were a fun part of the trips I have made, helped me to discover some things, and I think that geocaching is richer for having included them in the game. At least I know that my geocaching experience is richer for having done them.

 

When I found a traditional cache at the Roman Forum I similarly did not need to find it to have a great time there. But again, it was a fun part of the trip, which is all that I ask of caching.

 

Groundspeak had many reasons, including business reasons, for spinning off into Waymarking. In many ways, they were ahead of the curve with it, given the rise of Gowalla and other location based games that are similar to Waymarking. But the integration of earthcaches in this site certainly shows that it is possible to bring other types of experiences into this game and I have learned many things through them.

 

I probably did not "need" to find an earthcache in the Hoodoos of Bryce Canyon, but it brought me there and I learned something through it. For that matter, I did not "need" to place an earthcache after walking a mile down a beach to a unique location from which park officials had removed a traditional cache and forbidden containers. But it was more interesting to me than Waymarking it (or making a gowalla point) and I hope people will learn something special from coming there. The same could be said of other forms of virtuals -- or about how other forms of virtuals could be integrated into this site - but Groundspeak has made the call on them. So I agree that it is time to move on, study geology, and perhaps look back now and then with some regret for what might have been.

Edited June 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+DonB]

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 wasn't because Jeremy or anyone else hated virtuals. Virtuals were a good idea in the early development of geocaching to allow people the opportunity to hunt for a cache in a location where a physical cache could not be hidden. If people had submitted virtuals only where there was no way to hide a physical cache (including using an offset multi), AND these were specific targets that could be "found" using the coordinates and a GPS, AND there was a way to verify the finds in lieu of a logbook; then perhaps virtual caches would have remained. Instead, the virtual cache was often used to share a cool location. Often one could have hidden a cache there or made it part of a multi. Often there was nothing to find - the location itself was the target. Often there was no verification or there was on that could be answered by looking it up on the internet. The virtual cache was being used to list "waymarks". The guidelines were changed to attempt to correct the misuse of virtual caches. But this only got people upset that the reviewers wouldn't pulish their "waymarks" any more. Grounspeak then developed a whole new site just for locationless caches and waymarks. Since most people were using virtual caches to submit waymarks it was decided that no new virtual caches would be published. If you want to share a neat location use Waymarking.

 

This action certainly removed the option of using virtual caches for what they were originally intended - use an existing physical object as the target for a cache where a physical cache couldn't be placed and have a verification method to show that the cacher found the intended object. In "bring back virtuals" threads very few people seem to make this distinction. They all seem to want to bring back "waymarks" instead of "virtuals". Often you will have someone give an example of the idea they have for a virtual cache. Those familiar with the old guidelines for virtual caches can usually tell that it would not have been approved as a virtual cache when these were allowed. Those familiar with Waymarking can often find a category where this location could be published.

 

In may be nice to bring back virtuals if you could restrict them to the narrow situation they were intended for. But the experience indicates that writing a guideline that people would follow is extremely difficult.

 

As geocaching has grown, more and more physical caches have been placed in more areas. Land managers that previously did not allow caches, have begun to allow them. True, that a few places continue to ban physical caches and a few more have begun limiting physical placements in their areas. Some locations are restricted even in the Groundspeak guidelines. Other places may be restricted by local laws. We should accept that there will be places with no geocaches. Is there really a need for a virtual cache in the Grand Canyon? This is a wonderful place to visit and enjoy without earning a silly smiley for it. The argument to bring back virtuals so you can put a cache in a park that doesn't allow physical containers, has less weight than it had when Geocaching was trying to grow. Then the object was to get a cache in as many places as possible. Now the emphasis is often on maintaining caches and adding new ones in areas where geocaching is already established.

I didn't say anything about restricting micros because someone don't like them, but didn't they do away with virtuals because someone didn't like them and TPTB didn't want to put the effort into them to make sure they were of a decent quality? They could have been policed just like any other cache to make sure you weren't looking for someones tennis shoe in the woods. Most of the virtuals I have done while traveling were interesting, informative, and quite a few gave me a history lesson.

 

I may be wrong, but I thought the original idea behind physical caches was to put out caches that had trade items in them and would be able to hold TBs and geocoins so they could be moved from cache to cache. To me that's most of the fun of caching. I do micros but I'd rather be trading swag.

[Clan Riffster]

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

Just because you don't like some particular style of geocache doesn't make it less of a cache.

Don never suggested that he didn't like bison tubes in lamp posts. What he said, quite clearly, was it can be argued that they are not caches. I've made that same argument myself. Deep within the inner workings of my grey matter, I hold my own definitions regarding what is, and what is not, a cache. This definition gets applied to everything I hide, and greatly influences how I set up my pocket queries. An essential element to my inner definition is that the container be large enough to hold "stuff", as that was my first experience with caches, finding a hidden store of goods left by outdoorsman in my youth. When I inquired about the stash I found, I was told it was someones "cache". Hence, the definition was formed. To me, a scrap of paper just doesn't qualify as "stuff".

 

As such, in accordance with my inner definition, a bison tube in a lamp post is not a cache.

 

Thankfully, for those park & grab junkies who can't be bothered with walking more than 10' from their minivans, my definition is not the one that matters. Around here, Jeremy gets to decide what is, and what is not, a geocache. When I look at my profile, under the title, "Geocaches Found (All Geocache Finds)", I see that Jeremy's current definition of "geocache" includes hidden containers, regardless of size, plaques along the side of the road, webcams, gatherings at family diners, sinkholes and time spent picking up garbage. Judging by the profiles of some older players, Jeremy's definition used to include things like street signs that were reflective of the name of the person who found it. That tells me he is, on occasion, willing to change his definitions, as locationless caches were banned. Personally, I would like to see Jeremy change his definitions again, excluding virtuals, earthcaches, webcams, events and CITOs, allowing them to show up in your finds, but not count toward your total, kinda like benchmarks.

 

Heck, if Jeremy changed his definitions to exclude micros, that wouldn't hurt my feelings.

[+BruceS]

 

My biggest turnoff to Waymarking was not the less likeable interface, McDonalds locations having a category, the lack of GPX, the lack of apps, or even the cross-listing of the same thing in multiple categories (that last one got demoted to 2nd biggest gripe). It was when I went to veterans memorial park on Memorial Day, photographed the monuments, and waymarked the ones that had not yet been waymarked.

 

Several were rejected because my photos were not clear enough to read all the text on the monument and I had not reproduced all the text on the monument in my description.

 

So basically the memorial category mods want to encourage virtual Waymarking (virtual visits, even if not virtual logging)? WTF??? I thought we were encouraging people to get out and see neat things in person, not from the comfort of their house.

 

 

The people in those categories are not encouraging virtual Waymarking they are encouraging good quality. It is true many waymarks are visited more on line than in person but then Waymarking has some of largest collections of war memorials with quality photos on the the net. Contrary to the restrictions placed on geocache reviewers who have to hold their nose when they approve a low quality cache that meets the guidelines, category managers don't, as long as the requirements are specified in the category description they can hold you to the quality standards they specify.

Edited June 17, 2010 by BruceS

[+thedeadpirate]

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

 

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

[+BruceS]

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

 

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

 

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

Edited June 17, 2010 by BruceS

[+TheBeanTeam]

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

 

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

 

Virtual logging is generally frowned upon but not to the extent it is here. Waymarks are meant to be visited personally for a log but most are designed for a larger audience to enjoy or learn about the particular item/location on the web.

 

The category managers set up visit requirements for the category. The waymark creator then is the one who determines if the visit met the requirement. Many waymarkers will let a visit stand even if it doesn't meet all of the category requirements but when it becomes obvious that virtual logging is taking place the same thing that happens here happens there. A forum thread is started, torches are lighted, pitchforks retrieved from the barn and then mass log deletions follow.

[+tozainamboku]

I think people are getting to hung up on definitions of what a cache is or is not. Certainly one could impose the classic definition of a cache as in a cache of weapons or supplies and insist that it large enough to hold some stockpile of goods. But nowadays cache is more likely to refer to some files on your harddisk where your browser is storing recently visited webpages, or some memory on your CPU that has a copy of recently accessed RAM locations that is used to improve computer performance. It's kinda silly to look for old meanings of words when they have been borrowed for new things.

 

I have my definition of geocache, and suprisingly it does include virtual caches and earthcaches. If there is some object where I have coordinates and can use a GPS to find the object, then to me it is a geocache. Thats why I never did like the idea of locationless caches - where I found the object and then used my GPS to get coordinates. But then that's why they were sometimes called reverse caches. I'll even accept an event as a cache, though only once (at beach party event) did I ever use the coordinates to find an event.

 

But whatever definition of a geocache one uses, Geocaching.com can decide which geocaches it will list and which it won't. IMO, virtuals are no longer listed not because Jeremy hates virtuals and probably not because they don't fit his personal definition of a geocache. Instead there is some history as to the problems that listing virtuals caused reviewers.

 

I believe that many people submitted locations as virtuals that did not fit either my definition of a geocache or whatever definition TPTB have as well. What was submitted were cool locations that people wanted to share with others. There was nothing to find and, often as not, a GPS was not necessary. These locations are better called waymarks then virtual geocaches. What Groundspeak did, since people really wanted to share these locations, is to develop a whole new website for doing that. It may be that Waymarking.com has a confusing interface and lacks some features geocachers take for granted, though I believe that if your purpose is to share interesting locations, the Waymarking site actually has more features than would ever be available on Geocaching.com.

 

Geocaching.com should be for listing geocaches and Waymarking for sharing waymarks. At the time Waymarking was rolled out and TPTB were considering what to do about virtual caches, Jeremy asked for ideas on how to define virtual caches that would distinguish them from waymarks. Nobody was able to come up with one. It may be that Jeremy's mind was already made up. But when I created the Best Kept Secrets category on Waymarking I found just how hard it is to make guidelines for my definition of a virtual cache that would distinguish them from ordinary waymarks. As with many other guidelines, we lose a bit of creativity and the ability to create some really cool caches. Because people were not able to restrain themselve to a narrow defition of virtual cache, even with several iterations of guidelines changes, TPTB decided not to list any new virtual caches and to lump even those that might fit their definition of what an acceptable virtual cache would be, with the waymarks that clearly don't fit their definition of a geocache. Unless you have a physical container, qualify as an EarthCache, or a geocaching related event, your "cache" won't be listed on Geocaching.com

[+Pork King]

Ni!

 

Ni! +1

 

-1

-1(-1)

 

+√i

[+BelKen]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Does this count.

[+narcissa]

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

[+BruceS]

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

 

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