The Return Of Virtuals

[+rawkhopper]

Is that the plan? I didn't read that anywhere...

 

We all know that the Waymarking site is almost unsued and not very popular, neither are virtual caches. Some want to see the Waymarking site improved and used my more cachers, some cachers want virtuals reinstated, but only if they add numbers to their geocaching stats. It is all about the numbers, remove the numbers, lose the support of the virtual cachers. Most waymarkers are PM's. We have to be to PM's to vote in the peer review and manage our waymark categorys. Of course you did not read it any place, and what you have read that has been posted by TPTB is extreamly vauge. Wonder why? Because they know that Waymarking and virtuals are not popular with geocachers. It is all about the numbers for most geocachers, if they can't get a smiley, it's not worth their time to log.

I enjoy the flexibility of having virtuals at historical places but I am not a huge fan. I prefer an actual cache. Sheesh I even prefer webcams, bring those back! Anyway I do not think your assessment of virtuals is accurate. If you look in the DC area the most favorited caches are the virtuals by a long shot. Kind of bums me out. There are only a few actual caches that make it into the top list of favs in my area and some of them are simply there because they are old and not because they are anything special. Whether you or I like them and go bonkers for them or not they are very popular.

Edited January 13, 2011 by jameyp

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

If you look in the DC area the most favorited caches are the virtuals by a long shot. Kind of bums me out.

 

I believe the problem with DC is that mpost of it is Federal land, that would not allow the placement of a physical cache. I have a found a couple that made it to my favorite list, while all of the DC Virtusals did not.

[+The Weasel]

I'll throw my 2 cents out there....

 

1) Yes bring them back

 

2) Limit the amount that a person can place

 

3) Must be reviewd by a panal of no less than 2 people (An initial reviewer and a peer reviewer)

 

4) A picture of the virtual location must be sent in with the cache submission

 

I think as long as you submit a picture of the location with your submission, the review staff could easily see the location and deem if it is worthy of being a vitural. Heck, I have been around around a while so I would be more than happy to review submissions for IA if they ever had a review panal by state.

[+hzoi]

Abandoned virtuals - Zigeunerschnitzel

 

I read this as a reference to the fact that ill-maintained virtuals tend to be frequented by armchair cachers from Deutschland and other locales. Otherwise, I don't get what my beloved "Gypsy sauce" has to do with virtual caches.

 

Man, what I wouldn't do for a tasty Zigeunerschnitzel right now. Especially one from Der Waldgeist near Wiesbaden, or maybe Eichbaum Tresen in Darmstadt...not much good German food 'round these parts. But I digress.

[+Dr. Who and K-9]

Great idea to bring them back as it opens up areas for caching that is not allowed for physical caches. I don't agree with the assesment that a virtual is placed by someone too lazy to maintain a cache. As far as how to bring them back, I am for the idea that makes them more of historical in nature and have guidelines like earthcaches are to geology. I have NEVER liked Waymarking so that is out for me. As far as the suggestion not to add them to the geocaching finds counts, why not? If you visit it, it should be put in with the finds. Not counting them serves no purpose.

 

I have always thought that certain guidelines should be in place to prevent armchair logging of virtuals. I personally have written obvious armchair virtual loggers and some have deleted their finds but most don't bother to answer.

[+The Weasel]

Great idea to bring them back as it opens up areas for caching that is not allowed for physical caches. I don't agree with the assesment that a virtual is placed by someone too lazy to maintain a cache. As far as how to bring them back, I am for the idea that makes them more of historical in nature and have guidelines like earthcaches are to geology. I have NEVER liked Waymarking so that is out for me. As far as the suggestion not to add them to the geocaching finds counts, why not? If you visit it, it should be put in with the finds. Not counting them serves no purpose.

 

I have always thought that certain guidelines should be in place to prevent armchair logging of virtuals. I personally have written obvious armchair virtual loggers and some have deleted their finds but most don't bother to answer.

 

The way I look at it, if people want to armchair finds, let them. They are only hurting themselves. These are the ones who usually bow out of the game early or people already know that they do this. If people are going to cheat they are going to find a way.

[+bflentje]

HOW would you bring them back?

I wouldn't. Too much angst for too little gain. That being said, if I suddenly found myself working at Groundspeak, and Jeremy directed me to come up with a way to make it happen, I would first find a set of folks who loved virtuals, probably through stalking profile pages. I would recruit these folks as a volunteer virtual reviewer staff, and ask for their opinions.

 

There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines.

 

First, I would remove all virtuals, new and old, from the total find count. While locating a plaque on the side of the road can be pretty kewl, a plaque is not, by my own, inner, biased definition, a geocache. In this, they would show up like benchmarks. I know this would cause the numbers cachers to squawk, but it's how I feel. I would further suggest to Jeremy that all Earth Caches, events, CITOs, locationless, mega-events, 10-10-10 events and webcam caches, (basically anything without a container and logbook), be removed from the total cache find count. The site would still tally them, it just wouldn't up your find count.

 

I would suggest not placing any rigid proximity rules, other than one dictating that the same object/building/etc could not get more than one GC number. If BillyBobNosePicker can articulate why one way kewl spot, which happens to be close to an existing virtual, should be listed, it will be listed.

 

The burden of proof would be on the submitter to show why a spot deserved to be a virtual. This would be made clear in the guidelines, in the hopes of reducing the amount of angst heaped upon the reviewers when BillyBob's favorite McDonalds got rejected.

 

Once a virtual was submitted, it would enter a queue established specifically for the virtual reviewers, so they would not clog up the primary reviewer queue. Once in the queue, it would undergo scrutiny. At least three reviewers would need to check off on the virtual, acknowledging that it does meet the guidelines.

 

The types of locations that could qualify as a virtual cache would likely be the greatest source of angst. To qualify as a virtual location, a spot must have substantial historical significance. While that definition sounds like it could be highly subjective, I think if three reviewers, who are all on the same sheet of music, can agree on a spot, that would be good enough for me. If a spot is so questionable that three reviewers can't be found who are willing to sign off on it, that also is good enough for me.

 

The owners of existing virtuals would be notified, and given the opportunity to demonstrate why their virtual should remain active. Any virtual not demonstrably in compliance with the new guideline would be archived eventually. In an exception to the current status quo, if a virtual owner has left the game, and as such, does not respond to the aforementioned notification, their virtual would not automatically be archived. Instead, it would go under further scrutiny, to see if it could be brought into compliance. The reviewer staff would be given the opportunity to adopt it or kill it, according to how they felt about it. That way, really kewl virtuals with long histories, could survive.

 

Finally, I would suggest that Jeremy fully support the decisions of the virtual reviewer staff. If a virtual was denied by the group, it would stay denied.

 

Just one ole fat crippled guys thoughts on the matter. I seriously doubt any of them will be implemented.

 

I am not sure where I stand on virtuals but one thing is for sure, I am glad you don't work on the virtual project at Groundspeak. Some of your ideas make sense but most of it, such as suggesting that your list shouldn't part of counts, is in my opinion, unacceptable.

 

I don't know if virtuals should be put back into play but if they are, not adding them to your count would be a wasted effort. LOVE the idea of a virtual review process though not sure how you'd keep it consistent and fair across the world.

[+addisonbr]

LOVE the idea of a virtual review process though not sure how you'd keep it consistent and fair across the world.

I get the sense that the Earthcache team is reasonably consistent.

[+bflentje]

LOVE the idea of a virtual review process though not sure how you'd keep it consistent and fair across the world.

I get the sense that the Earthcache team is reasonably consistent.

 

I would not disagree although earth science is a bit more practical to enforce than all of the virtual possibilities. I admit I do not have an answer.

 

I am on the fence about virtuals and here's why.. I LOVE finding virtuals. I seek them out and use them to find cool places around the country. But I think as soon as they are again allowed and the map gets saturdated with them, however legit or not legit the virtuals are, they will lose their luster for me. Once they are no longer rare, I will probably not put as much effort into finding them. Regardless of what happens, they should count against the numbers.

Edited January 13, 2011 by bflentje

[+rawkhopper]

If you look in the DC area the most favorited caches are the virtuals by a long shot. Kind of bums me out.

 

I believe the problem with DC is that mpost of it is Federal land, that would not allow the placement of a physical cache. I have a found a couple that made it to my favorite list, while all of the DC Virtusals did not.

That may be the case but those virtuals have more votes than what I consider the top notch caches in my neck of the woods. I live outside DC in Virginia near Mount Vernon. The virtual there has more votes than any of the many caches in my 15 mile radius. So they are popular whether I care for them or not.

[+bflentje]

If you look in the DC area the most favorited caches are the virtuals by a long shot. Kind of bums me out.

 

I believe the problem with DC is that mpost of it is Federal land, that would not allow the placement of a physical cache. I have a found a couple that made it to my favorite list, while all of the DC Virtusals did not.

That may be the case but those virtuals have more votes than what I consider the top notch caches in my neck of the woods. I live outside DC in Virginia near Mount Vernon. The virtual there has more votes than any of the many caches in my 15 mile radius. So they are popular whether I care for them or not.

 

I've found and logged Washington's Tomb. Loved Mount Vernon.

[+hzoi]

The way I look at it, if people want to armchair finds, let them. They are only hurting themselves. These are the ones who usually bow out of the game early or people already know that they do this. If people are going to cheat they are going to find a way.

 

When we started caching in Germany, we were one of the few cachers in our area that didn't do armchair caches. Good friends of mine, who have been active for years and have thousands of finds, have dozens of armchair logs under their belt. Most of them did it their first year, but none of them have deleted their logs. (And a few of them are now volunteer reviewers.)

[+dfx]

a good way to prevent armchair logging of virtuals would be to require them to make an entry in a visitor's log, which could be inside a small container that's hidden somewhere at the location.

 

sounds like a good idea? no?

[+addisonbr]

That may be the case but those virtuals have more votes than what I consider the top notch caches in my neck of the woods. I live outside DC in Virginia near Mount Vernon. The virtual there has more votes than any of the many caches in my 15 mile radius. So they are popular whether I care for them or not.

Virtuals in DC are a bit of a unique situation.

 

1) It's very difficult to place physical caches in DC. Not impossible, but difficult to find available, permissionable land.

2) It's also difficult to maintain physical caches. If there's a place in this country where there are eyes on suspicious activity, DC is it.

3) By contrast it's generally easy to maintain a Virtual cache. For the most part you have to drop out of the game, and for the listing to become known as a couch potato cache, for it to be considered unmaintained and possibly archived.

4) DC gets an absolute ton of visitors, for whom Virtuals are just about the only game in town.

5) Almost by definition, any active Virtual has been in place for several years (as new ones haven't been allowed for quite some time). That's a lot of added time to rack up finds.

 

As a result, those DC Virtuals have racked up thousands of finds in the 5-10 years they've been active and are going to get their fair share of Favorites votes by virtue of that volume. I'm in no way saying that they're not good caches or that the Favorites votes they've received don't reflect great experiences from the visitors. But in every case I've identified the totals are large in the aggregate but less than 5% of the visitors (and in many cases, well below 5%). The totals here seem driven by some quirks of how Virtuals work in a city with a lot of tourism.

[+rawkhopper]

That may be the case but those virtuals have more votes than what I consider the top notch caches in my neck of the woods. I live outside DC in Virginia near Mount Vernon. The virtual there has more votes than any of the many caches in my 15 mile radius. So they are popular whether I care for them or not.

Virtuals in DC are a bit of a unique situation.

 

1) It's very difficult to place physical caches in DC. Not impossible, but difficult to find available, permissionable land.

2) It's also difficult to maintain physical caches. If there's a place in this country where there are eyes on suspicious activity, DC is it.

3) By contrast it's generally easy to maintain a Virtual cache. For the most part you have to drop out of the game, and for the listing to become known as a couch potato cache, for it to be considered unmaintained and possibly archived.

4) DC gets an absolute ton of visitors, for whom Virtuals are just about the only game in town.

5) Almost by definition, any active Virtual has been in place for several years (as new ones haven't been allowed for quite some time). That's a lot of added time to rack up finds.

 

As a result, those DC Virtuals have racked up thousands of finds in the 5-10 years they've been active and are going to get their fair share of Favorites votes by virtue of that volume. I'm in no way saying that they're not good caches or that the Favorites votes they've received don't reflect great experiences from the visitors. But in every case I've identified the totals are large in the aggregate but less than 5% of the visitors (and in many cases, well below 5%). The totals here seem driven by some quirks of how Virtuals work in a city with a lot of tourism.

Hopefully they will follow through with the percentage of finds/favorite votes deal. That will help sort the good from the old and popular. Just because a lot of people visit don't make it good. So heres looking to the update for favs.

[+Manville Possum]

Is that the plan? I didn't read that anywhere...

 

We all know that the Waymarking site is almost unsued and not very popular, neither are virtual caches. Some want to see the Waymarking site improved and used my more cachers, some cachers want virtuals reinstated, but only if they add numbers to their geocaching stats. It is all about the numbers, remove the numbers, lose the support of the virtual cachers. Most waymarkers are PM's. We have to be to PM's to vote in the peer review and manage our waymark categorys. Of course you did not read it any place, and what you have read that has been posted by TPTB is extreamly vauge. Wonder why? Because they know that Waymarking and virtuals are not popular with geocachers. It is all about the numbers for most geocachers, if they can't get a smiley, it's not worth their time to log.

I'm pretty sure that the bolded bit is incorrect.

You are correct, what I mean is that Waymarking and virtual caches are not popular. Sorry for the mix up. I was just how I incorrectly worded it. I really enjoy Waymarking, but I am about 1 of 3 in our area in SW Virginia.

[+Manville Possum]

I am not sure where I stand on virtuals but one thing is for sure, I am glad you don't work on the virtual project at Groundspeak. Some of your ideas make sense but most of it, such as suggesting that your list shouldn't part of counts, is in my opinion, unacceptable.

 

I don't know if virtuals should be put back into play but if they are, not adding them to your count would be a wasted effort. LOVE the idea of a virtual review process though not sure how you'd keep it consistent and fair across the world.

 

It is all about the numbers, list virtuals, Earthcaches, and waymarks on the same site and the problem will go away. It is all about the numbers, or there would be more waymarkers. Bringing back virtuals only got about 1350 votes in a system that only allows yes votes. Go figure.

[+sbell111]

I am not sure where I stand on virtuals but one thing is for sure, I am glad you don't work on the virtual project at Groundspeak. Some of your ideas make sense but most of it, such as suggesting that your list shouldn't part of counts, is in my opinion, unacceptable.

 

I don't know if virtuals should be put back into play but if they are, not adding them to your count would be a wasted effort. LOVE the idea of a virtual review process though not sure how you'd keep it consistent and fair across the world.

It is all about the numbers, list virtuals, Earthcaches, and waymarks on the same site and the problem will go away. It is all about the numbers, or there would be more waymarkers. Bringing back virtuals only got about 1350 votes in a system that only allows yes votes. Go figure.

You make this statement as if 1350 votes is small potatoes and therefore the project shouldn't be considered. In fact, the 1347 votes received for bringing back virts is the fourth largest number of votes received for any idea. It should also be noted that even ideas with few votes will be likely be implemented by TPTB if they are good ideas and move teh company in the desired direction.

[+tozainamboku]

3) By contrast it's generally easy to maintain a Virtual cache. For the most part you have to drop out of the game, and for the listing to become known as a couch potato cache, for it to be considered unmaintained and possibly archived.

I agree with you on the reasons why the virtuals in DC (and for that matter virtuals at many "touristy" sites) have so many favorite votes.

 

It is probably true that defacto you don't need to do much maintenance on a virtual except delete couch potato logs. However the virtual cache and webcam cache maintenance guidelines say:

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

So conceivably, TPTB could just run a query on the virtual cache owners who have not logged on in over a month and archive these caches.

 

If virtual caches are brought back this maintenance rule should be strictly enforced. Placing a virtual ought to be limited to people who accept the responsibility of verifying logs and who will do so in a timely fashion. Perhaps, as I suggested above, the find logs would have to be approved by the cache owner before they are published on the cache page. If the owner doesn't approve the log in a reasonable time the cache would be disabled and a needs archive automatically posted. Reviewers could archive the cache if the owner doesn't respond.

 

Cleary some cache owners would click approved on all logs without looking at the verification information. I suppose that if a cache owner is accepting obvious couch potato logs, someone could post a needs archive and the reviewer could archive the cache if the owner still doesn't delete the bogus finds. I believe though that simply knowing that cache owners review all logs will stop many couch potato loggers. (IMO, should a cache owner want to accept couch potato logs I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed. But if Groundspeak wants to take the position that couch potato logs should never be allowed, then the threat of cache archival should be enough to get cache owners to review logs and reject the ones that appear to be bogus).

[Clan Riffster]

As far as the suggestion not to add them to the geocaching finds counts, why not?

I figured that would be my least popular suggestion.

It is based upon my entirely biased caching aesthetic. When I close my eyes and imagine a "cache", what comes to mind is an ammo can, tethered to a cypress tree, way back in a swamp. As my mental process relaxes, and becomes more tolerant, my brain imagines other containers, in other settings, to include a Lock & Lock in a quaint little park, a preform along a bike trail, a bison tube hung from a fence. Heck, I even imagine such atrocities as a film can in some Burger King shrubbery.

What is consistent with all of these images is that they each include a container. For me, (again, entirely biased), a container is a critical part of what makes up a geocache. When I first became aware of how Groundspeak handles benchmarks, I thought it was a perfect solution, because, to me, a brass disk set into the ground is not a geocache. On your profile page, Groundspeak includes how many benchmarks you have located, without including them in your total cache finds count. I like that the website keeps track of how many I've found, as statistics matter to me. But since a disk is not a cache, (in my eyes), I like that it keeps that number separate from my cache finds.

 

By that same logic, (again highly biased), a plaque is not a cache. Neither is a webcam. Neither is a sinkhole. Neither is a group of nerds eating hotwings. Neither is a bunch of nerds cleaning up trash. All of these are fun things to find and do, but to me, they are not caches because they don't incorporate a container with a logbook.

 

No worries though. Groundspeak doesn't follow my rather quirky logic process. If virts come back, I'm certain they will still count toward your total.

[+narcissa]

Bringing back virtuals only got about 1350 votes in a system that only allows yes votes.

 

Why did you choose the word "only" in this statement?

 

Here are the top three feedback threads:

 

The "Update Wherigo" thread has 1715 votes. Planned.

API for 3rd party applications? 1504 votes. Started.

The thread about solved mystery coordinates has 1455. Under Review.

 

And in 4th place is "Bring Back Virtuals" with 1347.

 

It is entirely disingenuous to undermine the significance of the feedback thread in this manner. In the feedback system, 1347 votes is quite substantial.

 

Yes, it's unfortunate that the system doesn't quantify opposing opinions with no votes, but it does allow open discussion and Groundspeak is clearly paying attention to the comments as well as the number.

[+addisonbr]

Yes, it's unfortunate that the system doesn't quantify opposing opinions with no votes, but it does allow open discussion and Groundspeak is clearly paying attention to the comments as well as the number.

As a side note, after the original "bring back virtuals" suggestion had received about 100 votes, a "do not bring back virtuals" suggestion was created. For the next couple of weeks both ideas were getting about equal support (although the "pro" suggestion maintained a rough 50-100 vote lead). Then Groundspeak posted that Virtuals were coming back, and support for "con" dried up almost instantaneously. Since the company announcement that Virtuals were coming back, "bring back virtuals" has outscored "do not bring back virtuals" about 10-1.

[+dfx]

As a side note, after the original "bring back virtuals" suggestion had received about 100 votes, a "do not bring back virtuals" suggestion was created. For the next couple of weeks both ideas were getting about equal support (although the "pro" suggestion maintained a rough 50-100 vote lead). Then Groundspeak posted that Virtuals were coming back, and support for "con" dried up almost instantaneously. Since the company announcement that Virtuals were coming back, "bring back virtuals" has outscored "do not bring back virtuals" about 10-1.

 

interesting observation there. i'm not surprised at all.

[+Castle Mischief]

Is that the plan? I didn't read that anywhere...

 

We all know that the Waymarking site is almost unsued and not very popular, neither are virtual caches. Some want to see the Waymarking site improved and used my more cachers, some cachers want virtuals reinstated, but only if they add numbers to their geocaching stats. It is all about the numbers, remove the numbers, lose the support of the virtual cachers. Most waymarkers are PM's. We have to be to PM's to vote in the peer review and manage our waymark categorys. Of course you did not read it any place, and what you have read that has been posted by TPTB is extreamly vauge. Wonder why? Because they know that Waymarking and virtuals are not popular with geocachers. It is all about the numbers for most geocachers, if they can't get a smiley, it's not worth their time to log.

I'm pretty sure that the bolded bit is incorrect.

You are correct, what I mean is that Waymarking and virtual caches are not popular.

 

Compared to what? Looks to me like the virtuals that exist are getting a pretty hefty level of activity.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Many places that only allow virtual caches are Parks and other public places. I support land managers that will not allow PMO caches of any type on public land.

 

I think the poster's idea was that only Premium Members could CREATE Virtuals; any member could find them. I think that's a very good method of quality control. Not perfect, but it would help alot.

[+Manville Possum]

I am not sure where I stand on virtuals but one thing is for sure, I am glad you don't work on the virtual project at Groundspeak. Some of your ideas make sense but most of it, such as suggesting that your list shouldn't part of counts, is in my opinion, unacceptable.

 

I don't know if virtuals should be put back into play but if they are, not adding them to your count would be a wasted effort. LOVE the idea of a virtual review process though not sure how you'd keep it consistent and fair across the world.

It is all about the numbers, list virtuals, Earthcaches, and waymarks on the same site and the problem will go away. It is all about the numbers, or there would be more waymarkers. Bringing back virtuals only got about 1350 votes in a system that only allows yes votes. Go figure.

You make this statement as if 1350 votes is small potatoes and therefore the project shouldn't be considered. In fact, the 1347 votes received for bringing back virts is the fourth largest number of votes received for any idea. It should also be noted that even ideas with few votes will be likely be implemented by TPTB if they are good ideas and move teh company in the desired direction.

Only if we were allowed to vote against a idea...........

I thought that virtuals might be fun, now I am just unsure. Maybe if we had a better idea of how they will be implemented, I just don't understand what I am trying to support here anymore. Check out xxxxxxxxxxx. (Reference to competitive site removed by moderator.

 

Sorry, I did not know that we are not allowed to reference other geocache listing services in Groudspeaks forums. I take part in forums on other listing services and it is not Taboo to compare sites in the other geocaching site forums.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters
Disallowed content

[+narcissa]

Yes, it's unfortunate that the system doesn't quantify opposing opinions with no votes, but it does allow open discussion and Groundspeak is clearly paying attention to the comments as well as the number.

As a side note, after the original "bring back virtuals" suggestion had received about 100 votes, a "do not bring back virtuals" suggestion was created. For the next couple of weeks both ideas were getting about equal support (although the "pro" suggestion maintained a rough 50-100 vote lead). Then Groundspeak posted that Virtuals were coming back, and support for "con" dried up almost instantaneously. Since the company announcement that Virtuals were coming back, "bring back virtuals" has outscored "do not bring back virtuals" about 10-1.

 

Yes, I remember this. I do think that Groundspeak should listen to the naysayers, because they have some important points when it comes to the details of implementing this cache type.

 

On the other hand, virtual geocaches don't pose any kind of threat to physical caches as far as proximity is concerned, and can easily be ignore in searches and PQs. A good deal of the sentiment against them comes down to "everything without a container should be a waymark" which just opens up a whole other can of worms that Groundspeak has yet to address in any meaningful way.

 

But I do wish the feedback site allowed us to give a certain amount of no votes just as we can give yes votes.

[+rawkhopper]

As far as the suggestion not to add them to the geocaching finds counts, why not?

I figured that would be my least popular suggestion.

It is based upon my entirely biased caching aesthetic. When I close my eyes and imagine a "cache", what comes to mind is an ammo can, tethered to a cypress tree, way back in a swamp. As my mental process relaxes, and becomes more tolerant, my brain imagines other containers, in other settings, to include a Lock & Lock in a quaint little park, a preform along a bike trail, a bison tube hung from a fence. Heck, I even imagine such atrocities as a film can in some Burger King shrubbery.

What is consistent with all of these images is that they each include a container. For me, (again, entirely biased), a container is a critical part of what makes up a geocache. When I first became aware of how Groundspeak handles benchmarks, I thought it was a perfect solution, because, to me, a brass disk set into the ground is not a geocache. On your profile page, Groundspeak includes how many benchmarks you have located, without including them in your total cache finds count. I like that the website keeps track of how many I've found, as statistics matter to me. But since a disk is not a cache, (in my eyes), I like that it keeps that number separate from my cache finds.

 

By that same logic, (again highly biased), a plaque is not a cache. Neither is a webcam. Neither is a sinkhole. Neither is a group of nerds eating hotwings. Neither is a bunch of nerds cleaning up trash. All of these are fun things to find and do, but to me, they are not caches because they don't incorporate a container with a logbook.

 

No worries though. Groundspeak doesn't follow my rather quirky logic process. If virts come back, I'm certain they will still count toward your total.

I totally agree with you here. I don't do Waymarking, why? Because it is another website. If Waymarking and geocaching all had one place to keep track of stuff I might actually try it. I don't mind it not showing up as a cache just like benchmarks. So far I have only found 2 benchmarks but since Groundspeak does keep track of them I will continue to find them when I am up to it.

 

I do hope whatever they do it is integrated into the stats page. I am fine with maintaining my own stats but sure would be nice if groundpseak's got good enough to replace my current stats.

[+Lime Candy]

I'd welcome the return of virtuals. The few I have done have all taken me to interesting locations.

 

That said, it's simple enough to bring cachers to a great location that can't accommodate a cache, by using it as the first stage of a multi-cache. E.g. at a monument, use some information from a plaque or count something, and thus derive the final co-ords where the actual cache is hidden.

[+Manville Possum]

How many virtual caches are within 25 miles of your home? We have 4, and 2 of them do not have owners.

[+JL_HSTRE]

How many virtual caches are within 25 miles of your home? We have 4, and 2 of them do not have owners.

 

6 Virtuals within 25 miles of me: 2 historical buildings, 1 historical display/monument, 1 museum, 1 statue, and 1 scenic view. 5 COs owning the 6 Virtuals, only 1 of which has logged onto the site in since 2008 (but none of their emails are bouncing at least). Interestingly, all 6 require emailed answers NOT a photo.

 

The only one that doesn't really belong as a Virtual is the scenic view (if anything it might be a good spot for an Earthcache...hmmm...), which doesn't really take you to a tangible object and doesn't even have defined logging requirements. Shame since it's the oldest cache in the county...

[+G & C]

17 within 25 miles of me. Not sure about which have active owners though.

[+Castle Mischief]

I really hope this doesn't turn into "hey look at these specific Virtuals that have been abandoned by their owners". That usually results in archived and locked Virtuals.

[+Manville Possum]

I have only logged 6, and only 1 required a photo. It was in Damascus, Virginia near the Creeper Trail. There are only 10 virtuals listed within 50 miles of that virtual. Plenty of nice waymarks, EC's, and traditional caches. The Creeper Trail is a rails to trails bike route, it is really cool!

[+Manville Possum]

I really hope this doesn't turn into "hey look at these specific Virtuals that have been abandoned by their owners". That usually results in archived and locked Virtuals.

Well, these 2 without owners are being logged by users from Germany. Their logs sure look bogus to me, the user logged virtuals in Virginia, Alaska, Mo, La, Australia, and China in the same day. But they are not my caches or my concern. Armchair logging seems to have it's supporters, I just don't see the point. Is it kinda like taking a trip and never leaving the farm?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Manville Possum]

Many places that only allow virtual caches are Parks and other public places. I support land managers that will not allow PMO caches of any type on public land.

 

I think the poster's idea was that only Premium Members could CREATE Virtuals; any member could find them. I think that's a very good method of quality control. Not perfect, but it would help alot.

I understood the posters idea. I have moved more into Waymarking, we do not have PMO waymarks, but to be able to vote in the peer reviews and manage our categorys we have to be PM's. I just don't like PMO caches in Parks and other public places.

[+narcissa]

How many virtual caches are within 25 miles of your home? We have 4, and 2 of them do not have owners.

 

Is there a point to this question? If it's some measure of how "popular" virtual geocaches are, it would make more sense to look at how often a virtual is visited and how many people selected it as a favourite.

[+BlueDeuce]

Abandoned virtuals - Zigeunerschnitzel

 

I read this as a reference to the fact that ill-maintained virtuals tend to be frequented by armchair cachers from Deutschland and other locales. Otherwise, I don't get what my beloved "Gypsy sauce" has to do with virtual caches.

 

Man, what I wouldn't do for a tasty Zigeunerschnitzel right now. Especially one from Der Waldgeist near Wiesbaden, or maybe Eichbaum Tresen in Darmstadt...not much good German food 'round these parts. But I digress.

 

If I have slandered or besmirched Gypsy sauce, I apologize.

[+CdAGeoGeeks]

You make this statement as if 1350 votes is small potatoes and therefore the project shouldn't be considered. In fact, the 1347 votes received for bringing back virts is the fourth largest number of votes received for any idea.

There was a vote? We would have liked to know about that. When was it and where did it occur?

[+Manville Possum]

How many virtual caches are within 25 miles of your home? We have 4, and 2 of them do not have owners.

 

Is there a point to this question? If it's some measure of how "popular" virtual geocaches are, it would make more sense to look at how often a virtual is visited and how many people selected it as a favourite.

No point really, I am just trying to get a feel for these type caches. They are new to me, and I find them interesting. I want to try and list a few myself, or so I think. I have enjoyed the few that I have found, the one in a tourist area has about 25 favotite points, it was a really cool virtual. I just belive that geocaching in general has not caught on in the area in which I live as it has in other areas. It seems to have started out on the West side of the US and slowely moved East?

[+Manville Possum]

You make this statement as if 1350 votes is small potatoes and therefore the project shouldn't be considered. In fact, the 1347 votes received for bringing back virts is the fourth largest number of votes received for any idea.

There was a vote? We would have liked to know about that. When was it and where did it occur?

It is on the feedback site with the 1100 plus and growing other ideas.

[+Don_J]

* A reviewer should be able to archive a virtual if someone is able to place a physical at the location sometime in the future.

This is a wonderful idea. It gets rid of the "too lazy to maintain a real cache" crowd from taking over with virtuals on every corner.

 

 

So, I put out a Virtual that is popular, meets the "Wow" factor, and is being properly monitored/maintained, you can steal my location by putting an Altoids tin under a rock?

 

I do think that I can support that at all.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Don_J

[+Team GPSaxophone]

* A reviewer should be able to archive a virtual if someone is able to place a physical at the location sometime in the future.

This is a wonderful idea. It gets rid of the "too lazy to maintain a real cache" crowd from taking over with virtuals on every corner.

 

 

So, I put out a Virtual that is popular, meets the "Wow" factor, and is being properly monitored/maintained, you can steal my location by putting an Altoids tin under a rock?

 

I do think that I can support that at all.

So what makes a cache great is the write-up on the cache page? Sorry, I only read the cache page if I can't find the cache.

[+Don_J]

* A reviewer should be able to archive a virtual if someone is able to place a physical at the location sometime in the future.

This is a wonderful idea. It gets rid of the "too lazy to maintain a real cache" crowd from taking over with virtuals on every corner.

 

 

So, I put out a Virtual that is popular, meets the "Wow" factor, and is being properly monitored/maintained, you can steal my location by putting an Altoids tin under a rock?

 

I do think that I can support that at all.

So what makes a cache great is the write-up on the cache page? Sorry, I only read the cache page if I can't find the cache.

 

I really don't understand what your response has to do with my comment.

[+Ambrosia]

The closest virt to me is 35 miles away.

 

I have found about 120 virts, but I don't go out of my way to find them. The biggest reason I like them (and Earthcaches), is for traveling to tourist places. My husband isn't that into caching, so if we're at a place like D.C., I can easily get caches right where we already are. I don't need to bug him very much, and there's no stress of stopping and trying to find a cache container. I suspect that's why some of these tourist virts are so popular.

 

One of the virts that I own is the most favorited cache in Montana. Does that mean it's the best cache in Montana? Hardly. If there was a container at that location, would it be that popular? I doubt it. Doesn't mean that the virt is better, just that it's at a great touristy spot, and easy to log.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ambrosia

[+Manville Possum]

The closest virt to me is 35 miles away.

 

I have found about 120 virts, but I don't go out of my way to find them. The biggest reason I like them (and Earthcaches), is for traveling to tourist places. My husband isn't that into caching, so if we're at a place like D.C., I can easily get caches right where we already are. I don't need to bug him very much, and there's no stress of stopping and trying to find a cache container. I suspect that's why some of these tourist virts are so popular.

 

One of the virts that I own is the most favorited cache in Montana. Does that mean it's the best cache in Montana? Hardly. If there was a cache at the location, would it be that popular? I doubt it. Doesn't mean that the virt is better, just that it's at a great touristy spot, and easy to log.

This makes me think that I am on the right track. Most of the sites that I would be interested in developing as virtual caches I already have them listed on the Waymarking site. They are tourist attractions and many are listed on the National Registery of Historic Places. Many of these sites already have geocaches located at the sites. I just wonder how the new virtuals will effect waymarks?

[+Don_J]

The closest virt to me is 35 miles away.

 

I have found about 120 virts, but I don't go out of my way to find them. The biggest reason I like them (and Earthcaches), is for traveling to tourist places. My husband isn't that into caching, so if we're at a place like D.C., I can easily get caches right where we already are. I don't need to bug him very much, and there's no stress of stopping and trying to find a cache container. I suspect that's why some of these tourist virts are so popular.

 

One of the virts that I own is the most favorited cache in Montana. Does that mean it's the best cache in Montana? Hardly. If there was a cache at the location, would it be that popular? I doubt it. Doesn't mean that the virt is better, just that it's at a great touristy spot, and easy to log.

 

56 within 25 miles. I figure you are talking about "Top of the Pass", I enjoyed this one, but GC593A is my favorite in Montana, only because I came across bear tracks in the mud, and I have absolutely no experience with bears. To make it worse, I was walking next a very load raging stream, so I couldn't hear what was around me. I'm used to rattlesnakes, coyotes, and bobcats, not bears.

[+Ambrosia]

The closest virt to me is 35 miles away.

 

I have found about 120 virts, but I don't go out of my way to find them. The biggest reason I like them (and Earthcaches), is for traveling to tourist places. My husband isn't that into caching, so if we're at a place like D.C., I can easily get caches right where we already are. I don't need to bug him very much, and there's no stress of stopping and trying to find a cache container. I suspect that's why some of these tourist virts are so popular.

 

One of the virts that I own is the most favorited cache in Montana. Does that mean it's the best cache in Montana? Hardly. If there was a cache at the location, would it be that popular? I doubt it. Doesn't mean that the virt is better, just that it's at a great touristy spot, and easy to log.

This makes me think that I am on the right track. Most of the sites that I would be interested in developing as virtual caches I already have them listed on the Waymarking site. They are tourist attractions and many are listed on the National Registery of Historic Places. Many of these sites already have geocaches located at the sites. I just wonder how the new virtuals will effect waymarks?

I'm trying not to think about it too hard, I don't want to be disapointed. I do know that Waymarking has been a great thing, no matter what some people say about it. A lot of waymarks show at the top of google searches for different places and subjects. I know that I, and many other waymark owners, have been contacted by non waymarker/geocachers who thank us for creating certain waymarks. It's a very humbling experience. I've never had a non geocacher contact me and thank me for a virtual.

[+Ambrosia]

The closest virt to me is 35 miles away.

 

I have found about 120 virts, but I don't go out of my way to find them. The biggest reason I like them (and Earthcaches), is for traveling to tourist places. My husband isn't that into caching, so if we're at a place like D.C., I can easily get caches right where we already are. I don't need to bug him very much, and there's no stress of stopping and trying to find a cache container. I suspect that's why some of these tourist virts are so popular.

 

One of the virts that I own is the most favorited cache in Montana. Does that mean it's the best cache in Montana? Hardly. If there was a cache at the location, would it be that popular? I doubt it. Doesn't mean that the virt is better, just that it's at a great touristy spot, and easy to log.

 

56 within 25 miles. I figure you are talking about "Top of the Pass", I enjoyed this one, but GC593A is my favorite in Montana, only because I came across bear tracks in the mud, and I have absolutely no experience with bears. To make it worse, I was walking next a very load raging stream, so I couldn't hear what was around me. I'm used to rattlesnakes, coyotes, and bobcats, not bears.

Yes, "Top o' the Pass". My other one nearby, "Sun Point", has 7 less favorites, but I think the area's much prettier. One of the prettiest views I've seen. But it is a bit more remote, and hasn't been found as many times.

 

Bears make me nervous, but I have this weird phobia about mountain lions. It doesn't help that we have mountains lions near our home. I get scared going out at dusk/dark (but I do it anyway, just to spite 'em).

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ambrosia

[+Manville Possum]

I'm trying not to think about it too hard, I don't want to be disapointed. I do know that Waymarking has been a great thing, no matter what some people say about it. A lot of waymarks show at the top of google searches for different places and subjects. I know that I, and many other waymark owners, have been contacted by non waymarker/geocachers who thank us for creating certain waymarks. It's a very humbling experience. I've never had a non geocacher contact me and thank me for a virtual

 

I have noted the same thing with google search. I have had a few Earthcachers thank me for bringing them to places that they would otherwise not known about, and I have visited some nice EC's also likewise. Waymarkers are few in my area, not waymarks though, the lame categorys are rampent. When I first viewed the site I was at a loss for words, who or what kind of person would take a photo of a phone booth and call it a waymark? Most of the waymarks in my area have never been logged, but let them count toward a geocachers numbers, and I'm sure all that will change. I know that the new virtuals will surely get dumped on the Waymarking site, and I have almost gave up geocaching for Waymarking. Maybe it will be a change for the better? I have been unable to upload photos of EC's on the geocaching site for the last few weeks now, but the same photos will upload on the Waymarking site. Has anyone else ran into this issue or know how to report it?