Virtual and earth caches

[+justwe2]

How do you "place" a virtual cache? I was told they were the same as a earthcache so I am now confused. Are they?

[+Sioneva]

How do you "place" a virtual cache? I was told they were the same as a earthcache so I am now confused. Are they?

 

Not at all. And you can't place a virtual. Not anymore.

[+DragonflyTotem]

How do you "place" a virtual cache? I was told they were the same as a earthcache so I am now confused. Are they?

 

Guidelines

 

"Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches or Webcam Caches. Caches which existed before November 2005 have been allowed to remain as grandfathered caches."

 

So the short answer is that you can no longer place any new virtual caches. And you can see EarthCaching for more details about those types of caches but they are all about providing opportunities for learning about Earth sciences.

[+Manville Possum]

I have not had a chance to log many Virtual caches, they are MUCH different than EC's. EarthCaches are Earth Science related caches. Virtuals are kinda like Waymarks, but the CO sets the logging requirements.

[+Touchstone]

Additional reading:

 

Grandfathered Caches

 

Earthcaches

[+dfx]

earthcaches are specially themed virtuals.

[+Manville Possum]

earthcaches are specially themed virtuals.

No. Virtuals are Waymarks with ALR's. I like Waymarking too.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+dfx]

No. Virtuals are Waymarks with ALR's. I like Waymarking too.

i'll let someone else pick that one apart

[+narcissa]

Don't some Waymarks have logging requirements too? I wouldn't know, I can't figure out how to get past the first page of the site.

 

All Earthcaches are virtual, but Virtual Geocaches are not Earthcaches.

[+Manville Possum]

Don't some Waymarks have logging requirements too? I wouldn't know, I can't figure out how to get past the first page of the site.

 

All Earthcaches are virtual, but Virtual Geocaches are not Earthcaches.

Yes, Waymarks have logging requirements too. But the logging requirements are determined by the sites guidelines and not the Waymarker like with a geocache. Most are just a photo of the site, some ask for a photo of a GPS unit at the site, some the nearst road name, ect. I have just got involved in Waymarking, I thought at first that the whole site had no interest to me, but some Waymarks ARE EarthCaches without the Earth science questions. Not all EarthCaches require photos to log as a find.

[+Lostby7]

Really Waymarks have logging questions? Another reason I can add to why I won't use that site.

[+dfx]

Not all EarthCaches require photos to log as a find.

and not all virtuals require photos to log a find.

 

some virtuals require you to collect information, answer questions and perform certain tasks. not all virtuals reference a specific object, some reference a larger general area. some virtuals have multiple stages and require you to visit several locations. some virtuals give a lot of background information about the site.

 

sounds familiar?

[+Manville Possum]

Not all EarthCaches require photos to log as a find.

and not all virtuals require photos to log a find.

 

some virtuals require you to collect information, answer questions and perform certain tasks. not all virtuals reference a specific object, some reference a larger general area. some virtuals have multiple stages and require you to visit several locations. some virtuals give a lot of background information about the site.

 

sounds familiar?

Sure does. I have not had oppertunity to log many Virtuals, just VERY few near our location. One in Rogersville, Tn. was quite interesting, and it is also listed as a Waymark. An EarthCache in Pennington Gap, Va. that we logged is also listed as a Waymark. Two Virtuals that we logged in Appalachia, Va. the CO left the game many years ago, kinda hard to send an answer when the feature is disabled. I did see some Virtuals listed in Great Smokey Mountains National Park near Gatlinburg, Tn. where geocaching is not allowed, and many places would make great EarthCaches there, so that leaves Waymarking as an option in Public areas that don't allow geocaching unless Virtuals are reinstated and then it is going to get even more confusing with the Vitrual/Waymark/EarthCache that you can log three different type finds at the same location. Is that a numbers hunters dream or what?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Aah... Hmmm.... EarthCaches can be similar, in some ways, to Virtuals. A point of interest, with no cache container, or log to sign. But, EarthCaches are geologically interesting and educational. 'Geologically educational' is required by the approver. That was the problem with Virtuals. (Or so it is claimed.) No one in a position of authority to ensure that they were ineresting/informative.

Whybothermarking, on the other fin, seems to be the dumpster for anything that doesn't work as a cache on Geocaching.com. Why bother?

[+Manville Possum]

Aah... Hmmm.... EarthCaches can be similar, in some ways, to Virtuals. A point of interest, with no cache container, or log to sign. But, EarthCaches are geologically interesting and educational. 'Geologically educational' is required by the approver. That was the problem with Virtuals. (Or so it is claimed.) No one in a position of authority to ensure that they were ineresting/informative.

Whybothermarking, on the other fin, seems to be the dumpster for anything that doesn't work as a cache on Geocaching.com. Why bother?

I understand what you are saying about the Waymarking site. I felt the same way until I looked at the site closer. It is about like anything else, it's what you put into it. As far as being a dumpster, IMO you are wrong. I hate lame Waymarks too.

[+Manville Possum]

Really Waymarks have logging questions? Another reason I can add to why I won't use that site.

Another good reason I like Waymarking. xoxoxoxoxo

[+dfx]

Whybothermarking, on the other fin, seems to be the dumpster for anything that doesn't work as a cache on Geocaching.com. Why bother?

it's a completely different kind of animal. it's not a game as geocaching is. think of Waymarking as a directory/collection of coordinates. are you looking for a place of historic interest? go look in the matching category. are you looking for a scenic lookout? go look in the matching category. are you looking for a mcdonalds? go look in the matching category. lather rinse repeat. and that's all there is to it. nobody ever claims that any waymark is particularly interesting.

[+Manville Possum]

Whybothermarking, on the other fin, seems to be the dumpster for anything that doesn't work as a cache on Geocaching.com. Why bother?

it's a completely different kind of animal. it's not a game as geocaching is. think of Waymarking as a directory/collection of coordinates. are you looking for a place of historic interest? go look in the matching category. are you looking for a scenic lookout? go look in the matching category. are you looking for a mcdonalds? go look in the matching category. lather rinse repeat. and that's all there is to it. nobody ever claims that any waymark is particularly interesting.

Yeah, it's kinda like that. There really are some lame Waymarks, but some that I find of interest. I would be shocked if anyone ever visited one of mine. But that don't keep me from Waymarking.

[+justwe2]

Thanks for the clarification.

[katowora]

I've found some earth caches which were basically just Virtuals by another name.

They had no scientific content whatsoever in the questions.

I presume they were edited after being approved.

One of them just involved reading details on a war memorial

 

 

 

(I am a Platinum EarthCache Master)

[+geodarts]

I've found some earth caches which were basically just Virtuals by another name.

 

I have found those as well. And I have found virtuals that were earthcaches by another name. At one point, when submitting earthcache proposals to a National Park, I was asked by park officials to clarify what was the relationship of earthcaches to the existing virtuals in the park. My answer was that earthcaches have a specific geological focus and serve an educational function with specific content and tasks relating to the geology of the area.

 

Not all earthcaches I have done fit into this. And some virtuals have done a good job with this. One of the virtuals I did in Yosemite easily have been called an earthcache had it not predated this category.

 

Now that Groundspeak has indicated that it is actively exploring a solution to new virtual caches that it hopes will satisfy everyone (a task that appears to be daunting indeed), it will be interesting to see if earthcaches will be affected, if at all.

Edited September 20, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Manville Possum]

I've found some earth caches which were basically just Virtuals by another name.

 

I have found those as well. And I have found virtuals that were earthcaches by another name. At one point, when submitting earthcache proposals to a National Park, I was asked by park officials to clarify what was the relationship of earthcaches to the existing virtuals in the park. My answer was that earthcaches have a specific geological focus and serve an educational function with specific content and tasks relating to the geology of the area.

 

Not all earthcaches I have done fit into this. And some virtuals have done a good job with this. One of the virtuals I did in Yosemite easily have been called an earthcache had it not predated this category.

 

Now that Groundspeak has indicated that it is actively exploring a solution to new virtual caches that it hopes will satisfy everyone (a task that appears to be daunting indeed), it will be interesting to see if earthcaches will be affected, if at all.

I think that it will be interesting whatever Groundspeak comes up with, I have no idea how they will be done but looks like enough people showed interest in getting virtuals reinstated. I got the chance to log another virtual a few days ago, to be honost I like them less than a good Waymark. I can avoid a lame waymark much easier.

[+Ambrosia]

Really Waymarks have logging questions? Another reason I can add to why I won't use that site.

 

Actually, a lot of waymarks don't have questions or tasks to log them. And even the ones that do, mostly don't enforce them. I dislike tasks and questions. On all the categories I own, I do not require anything for people to log the waymarks. I respectfully ask for pictures, if they are able to.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Ambrosia

[+Manville Possum]

Really Waymarks have logging questions? Another reason I can add to why I won't use that site.

 

Actually, a lot of waymarks don't have questions or tasks to log them. And even the ones that do, mostly don't enforce them. I dislike tasks and questions. On all the categories I own, I do not require anything for people to log the waymarks. I respectfully ask for pictures, if they are able to.

Many of the EC's that I log are waymarks also, the last EC that I logged was listed in 2 categorys on the Waymarking site. I enjoy the Waymarking site, EC's are just too much trouble some times, some CO's just try to be difficult, and EC's are not easy to develope.

[+tozainamboku]

I've found some earth caches which were basically just Virtuals by another name.

They had no scientific content whatsoever in the questions.

I presume they were edited after being approved.

One of them just involved reading details on a war memorial

Great example of why virtuals should not be brought back (and EarthCaches should be a Waymarking category).

 

Virtual caches were meant to be a substitute for physical caches in locations where a physical cache could not be hidden. There had to be a specific target that could be located using GPS coordinates and there had to a method to verify your visit (answering a question that could only be answered by going to the site or posting a picture). There were problems with defining what it meant that you couldn't place a physical cache and some people had problems understanding that there must be something you could find using a GPS. People were trying list places as virtual cache just to point out a nice view, an interesting building, or an historic site. They were trying to list waymarks as virtual caches - but Waymarking hadn't been invented yet.

Long before the advent of Waymarking - and even before the first EarthCaches - the problems with virtuals were evident. New guidelines like the "wow" guideline meant that most virtuals submitted to Geocaching.com were not being published.

 

The Geologic Society of America, propose to Groundspeak a new cache type - the EarthCache. The point of the EarthCache was to provide a educational experience where the visitor could see and learn about specific geologic phenomena. Unlike virtuals these didn't have to be where you could not place a physical cache. They didn't not have to be a specific target - the GPS coordinates could just take you the general area. And there wasn't really a verification question but more of a task that would educate the visitor about the geology they were seeing. The EarthCache definition seemed much clearer than the definition of a virtual - and the GSA through EarthCache.org would approve these caches before publication - so it was felt they would not have the problems of virtual caches.

 

However it does seem that some people try to submit locations that would be better suited as waymarks. The geological significance of the location is questionable, the EarthCache write up fails to educate the visitor about the geology, or the logging requirements are burdensome and have nothing to do with learning about the geology. Even worse are people who get their EarthCache listed then modify the writeup after the cache has been publish to emphasize the Waymark they really wanted to hide.

[+narcissa]

Waymarking proselytizers, can you please try to be on the same page?

 

Half of you claim that Waymarking isn't a game, it's just a site for listing coordinates, and Waymarkers aren't actually interested in getting visitors to their sites.

 

The other half of you argue ardently that Waymarking is and/or should be the replacement for non-physical geocaches.

 

Where does that leave people who enjoy the game aspect of non-physical geocaches? Figure this out, and let us know when you do. In the meantime, please stop trying to have our beloved Earthcaches relegated to that massive fail of a website that nobody uses.

 

P.S. If you do decide that you actually want people to visit sites in addition to listing them, please get pocket queries.

 

kthanx

[+geodarts]

Waymarking proselytizers, can you please try to be on the same page?

 

Half of you claim that Waymarking isn't a game, it's just a site for listing coordinates, and Waymarkers aren't actually interested in getting visitors to their sites.

 

The other half of you argue ardently that Waymarking is and/or should be the replacement for non-physical geocaches.

 

 

No wonder the agencies are confused. The National Parks cite earthcaching as a primary form of vituals, but excluded "wayfaring" from their policy review. My state park system focused on virtuals as being listed on Waymarking.com

[+Manville Possum]

Waymarking proselytizers, can you please try to be on the same page?

 

Half of you claim that Waymarking isn't a game, it's just a site for listing coordinates, and Waymarkers aren't actually interested in getting visitors to their sites.

 

The other half of you argue ardently that Waymarking is and/or should be the replacement for non-physical geocaches.

 

 

No wonder the agencies are confused. The National Parks cite earthcaching as a primary form of vituals, but excluded "wayfaring" from their policy review. My state park system focused on virtuals as being listed on Waymarking.com

I agree it is confusing. With some type of virtuals being reinstated according to Jeremy, I need to better educate myself on virtuals. I enjoy Waymarking, but the site is really unused in my area. I only waymark sites or things of historical interest, and list benchmarks that I recover. I just hope that some guidelines are created to keep these new virtuals from becoming PMO caches in our National and State Parks that are for everyone to enjoy, not just PM's. I'm not one of these people that like more rules, but some users lack common sense, these PMO EarthCaches in OUR public Parks really set me off.

[+popokiiti]

We have done very few EarthCaches, but love how much we learn when we do them. Not just the science side, but also the history of the area. We have done some virtuals, but no Waymarking....I am another who found the website a bit awkward. That is probably down to me though.

[+Manville Possum]

We have done very few EarthCaches, but love how much we learn when we do them. Not just the science side, but also the history of the area. We have done some virtuals, but no Waymarking....I am another who found the website a bit awkward. That is probably down to me though.

The Waymarking site is different, but not really that hard to navigate, it just looks complacated. What turned me away from it a few years ago was some of the categorys. Really some lame stuff like phone booths and resturants, ect. Then I stumbled upon the historical signs and markers, places of historic interest, Veteran memorials, and some other categorys that are of interest to me. Many of the EarthCaches that I log are also listed on the Waymark site. I understand why most pass the site up. This is one of my concerns about virtuals making a come back of a sort, what will they be like? Same junk as we already have on the unpopular Waymarking site? I hope not, but from looking at the virtuals that were developed before they were banned, most really just belong on the Waymarking site but there are not a category for some of them. I enjoy caches that are educational, but do not require emailing the CO any answers to log the find. If EarthCaches and other virtual caches remain to be allowed to be PMO, this really is misrepresenting about the educational aspect of them, and it is totally left up to Groundspeak whether virtuals can be PMO or not. I think that making a cache PMO just "cause you can" makes PM's like myself look like a geojerk to basic members and deters them from becoming a PM if they enjoy the sport.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+tozainamboku]

Waymarking proselytizers, can you please try to be on the same page?

 

Half of you claim that Waymarking isn't a game, it's just a site for listing coordinates, and Waymarkers aren't actually interested in getting visitors to their sites.

 

The other half of you argue ardently that Waymarking is and/or should be the replacement for non-physical geocaches.

 

Where does that leave people who enjoy the game aspect of non-physical geocaches? Figure this out, and let us know when you do. In the meantime, please stop trying to have our beloved Earthcaches relegated to that massive fail of a website that nobody uses.

 

P.S. If you do decide that you actually want people to visit sites in addition to listing them, please get pocket queries.

 

kthanx

Ah. The beauty of Waymarking is that it can be all of these things and more. Of course this probably adds to the confusion some people have when they look at the site. Flexiblity comes with a price.

[+narcissa]

Ah. The beauty of Waymarking is that it can be all of these things and more. Of course this probably adds to the confusion some people have when they look at the site. Flexiblity comes with a price.

 

So the beauty of Waymarking is that it's completely aimless?

 

Good to know. I'll stick with geocaching.