The Return Of Virtuals

[GOF and Bacall]

"Personally I see no need to bring them back."

 

And again another personal preference stated that carries no more weight than my personal preference that they do come back. And given the overwhelming feedback desire for their return.............

 

People like them , people enjoy them, it brings enjoyment to my game, there is no reason that my enjoyment should bother anyone else.

 

You are right about one thing. Your personal opinion ain't worth more than anyone elses. If you don't want to hear from others then don't read the forums.

 

Somebody has a burr in his britches. It is your ignore button use it, if you don't like my pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument.

 

What flaw? I stated right up front that it was MY opinion. You are the one who pulled it out of the context of the whole post. Learn to use your own ignore button.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but I would like to share my waymarks with other users to view. I think that many would make good virtuals on the geocaching site.

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&uid=396af141-83cf-43c7-8433-feaaaff08e16&st=126&wft=2

 

I just picked one of your waymarks at random and checked for closest waymarks. There were 16 of them all at the same place. I really hope we don't end up with that when virtuals come back.

I'm not sure why geocachers have this anathema towards the fact that a waymark can be listed in multiple categories. The Waymarking categorization is one thing that makes Waymarking very powerful - but it also makes it confusing to navigate. You can select just the categories you find interesting and ignore those you find lame. For those people who are more interested in using Waymarking as a database of similar locations instead of visiting waymarks to earn visit "points", each category can collect information specific to that category that may be of little interest to someone looking at the same location in other categories.

 

If my idea for listing waymarks on the geocaching.com site were to be implented, it would only be for a select number of categories. Waymarks that appear in multiple categories would only show up once as a virtual cache (so as to not offend geocachers sensibilities that someone might log the same location twice.)

 

My solution would be to make some selected Waymarking categories visible as "virtual caches" to people using the geocaching website.

No thanks. Visiting waymarks is boring. Snap a picture and you're done. There are places where I can stand in one spot, take 3 or 4 photos and "visit" dozens of waymarks.

 

With the grandfathered Virtuals I've visited you had to actually find something at the coordinates and answer a few questions about it. Earthcaches have gone too far. I want to have fun, not take a night course in geology.

 

Also Virtuals tend to have more variety. The category system, which is good for posting new waymarks, makes things a bit repetative when finding waymarks after you've hit enough categories.

 

Waymarking is a great replacement for Locationless. It's a poor replacement for Virtuals.

Good points. My suggestiong is to do this for only a few select categories. I'd also like to see these categories have requirements more like virtual caches for logging: preferably to answer a question, but also photos when appropriate.

 

One way to get greater variety, is to have categories that use a broad definition of "wowness". You don't need to have categories that are narrow where you know what the item because of the category. See the Best Kept Secrets category for an example of a category that allows variety and requires a verification of visit method.

"Those in favor of bringing back virtual would be wise to consider the real reasons some are opposed to bringing them back at least without addressing some of the issues they caused"

 

What exactly are the "real reasons"some are opposed ?

 

What were "some of the issues" they caused?

 

Are you opposed because you have a personal preference--if that is your reason it has no greater validity than my personal preference that they return.

 

I never had an issue with a virtual cache. For that matter I don't have issues with other types , with the only exception being one evil Harry Dolphin Puzzle.

 

What should it matter to anyone else, it is my game too.

I made a

that explains the many problems with virtuals and the reasons why Waymarking was proposed as a replacement. I don't think there is anything wrong with recognizing that many geocachers enjoy "finding" virtuals and looking for solutions that work better for them than Waymarking. I do think that any solution needs to address the issues that resulted in their being grandfathered in the first place.

[GOF and Bacall]

Yes, you can bet your cache that the new virtuals will be the same.

 

You really think Groundspeak's reviewers will allow 16 different people to publish a virtual geocache at the same site? That's an interesting theory.

 

It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with. By the guidelines now in place there is nothing to stop 16 caches from using the same coordinates, as long as they are for non-physical stages. What is a virtual if not non-physical?

[+Avernar]

How do we stop people from submitting things like fence posts, a sneaker left in the woods and rotting carcasses?

I can not tell if you are asking a new question attempting to respond to my questions.

Both actually.

 

If the latter, you have not responded properly. For you have not identified issues, nor a real reason for opposition.

Seriously? You don't think listing a rotting carcass is an issue?

 

Again if it is your personal preference, then it rises no higher than my personal preference.

And that's why there is strong opposition to bringing back virtuals. Some peoples "personal preference" is to see how badly they can abuse the system and get away with it.

 

If the former, I will answer by saying what business is it of anyone else, if they met guidelines .

Here's where you're contradicting yourself. Having guidelines means that some things are to "crappy" to list.

[GOF and Bacall]

Tozainamboku, you hit it. It is confusing to have all those multiple listings at one site. It would be easier is a single waymark listing was cross-linked to the different categories it fit into. At least I think so. As it stands with the geocaching site when I look at the nearest caches I know that I am not going to get pages of the same thing.

[+Avernar]

Who are these popular people who just want to make horrible caches?

They need not be popular. It depends on what the vote threshold would be.

 

I don't know how it is where you are, but around here, junking up the place with lame hides is a fast track to no friends.

Same here. And I'm not naming names.

[+addisonbr]

That's the key point. How do we create a system that will filter the junk, keep the rejection wars from happening, and not be too complicated.

The system for reviewing Earthcaches seems to work well.

[+Avernar]

I'm not sure why geocachers have this anathema towards the fact that a waymark can be listed in multiple categories.

It's weird, but I like the multiple category thing when posting waymarks but hate it when finding waymarks. Maybe it's because it's too similar to multiple finds on a single physical cache?

 

My suggestiong is to do this for only a few select categories. I'd also like to see these categories have requirements more like virtual caches for logging: preferably to answer a question, but also photos when appropriate.

 

One way to get greater variety, is to have categories that use a broad definition of "wowness". You don't need to have categories that are narrow where you know what the item because of the category. See the Best Kept Secrets category for an example of a category that allows variety and requires a verification of visit method.

Having a few broad categories might be the way to go. The specific logging requirements shouldn't be in the category but in the listing like you mentioned. The Best Kept Secrets category is one of the few that would work as Virtuals, mainly because it's trying to reproduce the Vritual cache experience.

[+Avernar]

It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with. By the guidelines now in place there is nothing to stop 16 caches from using the same coordinates, as long as they are for non-physical stages. What is a virtual if not non-physical?

The difference is you then have to go to a final that is a minimum distance from other finals.

[+Manville Possum]

Yes, you can bet your cache that the new virtuals will be the same.

 

You really think Groundspeak's reviewers will allow 16 different people to publish a virtual geocache at the same site? That's an interesting theory.

Yes. But the text that you are taking this from is 15 caches from one person listed in different categorys. Not all the same feature, but many waymarks are listed in 3-4 different categorys. Neatherland Inn for example near my Flatboat or Boone's cabin for example. And that favorite cache within 50 miles a Disney World? 313 listed waymarks in the general area. You either missed the point or changed the subject. New virtual guidelines are too vauge at this time, but this topic is getting alot of attention.

[+Avernar]

The system for reviewing Earthcaches seems to work well.

Yes, but Earthcaching is very specific to one type of subject, geology. That makes it easy for them to make things black and white. Either it's about geology or it's not.

[GOF and Bacall]

It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with. By the guidelines now in place there is nothing to stop 16 caches from using the same coordinates, as long as they are for non-physical stages. What is a virtual if not non-physical?

The difference is you then have to go to a final that is a minimum distance from other finals.

 

Yes, but are we to expect virtuals to be stacked up at one location because they are non-physical in nature? Or is there going to be some limit to this? Look at it like this. There is a nice little fireman's memorial not far from here. It has a flagpole, a bench, a couple of monuments and it sits in a small park. Are we going to see a virtual cache listing for each of the four elements or is there going to be some way to limit them to one virtual at the location?

[+Avernar]

Yes, but are we to expect virtuals to be stacked up at one location because they are non-physical in nature? Or is there going to be some limit to this?

I hope not. I'd like to see some limit or restriction.

 

Look at it like this. There is a nice little fireman's memorial not far from here. It has a flagpole, a bench, a couple of monuments and it sits in a small park. Are we going to see a virtual cache listing for each of the four elements or is there going to be some way to limit them to one virtual at the location?

Related items shouldn't be listed as separate virtuals. The question is, how do we determine if things are related or not?

 

The category thing may be a way to impose this limit. Instead of being the "rules" for the listing as they are in Waymarking, maybe they can be used for proximity. So a Natural Feature can be next to a History one but two history ones need to be a minimum distance apart.

[+Manville Possum]

The system for reviewing Earthcaches seems to work well.

Yes, but Earthcaching is very specific to one type of subject, geology. That makes it easy for them to make things black and white. Either it's about geology or it's not.

Earthcaches used to include more types of listings, but you are correct. It is all about geology now. But Waymarking still has listings for all the type listings that GSA will no longer approve,

[+Sioneva]

The system for reviewing Earthcaches seems to work well.

Yes, but Earthcaching is very specific to one type of subject, geology. That makes it easy for them to make things black and white. Either it's about geology or it's not.

Earthcaches used to include more types of listings, but you are correct. It is all about geology now. But Waymarking still has listings for all the type listings that GSA will no longer approve,

 

Um, I hope I'm not triggering your paranoia meter by disagreeing with you, but earthcaches were always about geology. That's why they're called "earth"caches...

[GOF and Bacall]

Yes, but are we to expect virtuals to be stacked up at one location because they are non-physical in nature? Or is there going to be some limit to this?

I hope not. I'd like to see some limit or restriction.

 

Look at it like this. There is a nice little fireman's memorial not far from here. It has a flagpole, a bench, a couple of monuments and it sits in a small park. Are we going to see a virtual cache listing for each of the four elements or is there going to be some way to limit them to one virtual at the location?

Related items shouldn't be listed as separate virtuals. The question is, how do we determine if things are related or not?

 

The category thing may be a way to impose this limit. Instead of being the "rules" for the listing as they are in Waymarking, maybe they can be used for proximity. So a Natural Feature can be next to a History one but two history ones need to be a minimum distance apart.

 

It'll be interesting to see how TPTB deal with this, if they do.

 

What do you think the chance are someone will post a virtual power trail? I can see it now "455 of 2500 today. This one was a power transmission tower, just like the rest. It's taking longer to cut-n-paste these logs than it did to drive by visit them all."

[+tozainamboku]

The category thing may be a way to impose this limit. Instead of being the "rules" for the listing as they are in Waymarking, maybe they can be used for proximity. So a Natural Feature can be next to a History one but two history ones need to be a minimum distance apart.

The cityscape Waymarking category has a proximity limit. Cityscapes must be at least .5 miles from the nearest Cityscape.

[Clan Riffster]

Their anal fixation on the existence of a box and log is laughably simplistic.

not quite as idiotically simplistic as your anal fixation on the myth that gifts went away simply because of user preferences. As a free thinking individual, you certainly have the right to close off all potential, educational input, ramming your fingers in your ears, scrunching your eyes shut, whilst yelling, "La la la la... I can't hear you!", however, such a course of action tends to lead to posting flagrantly foolish notions.

 

If you really want virts to return, and stick around, your efforts would be greater spent promoting solutions to the very real problems which virts brought to the game, rather than bleating about how those who are bright enough to recognize those problems must be "fixated".

[+addisonbr]

The system for reviewing Earthcaches seems to work well.

Yes, but Earthcaching is very specific to one type of subject, geology. That makes it easy for them to make things black and white. Either it's about geology or it's not.

It goes much further than that. The guidelines also say that the caches must be educational / provide a lesson and they must highlight factors unique to other earthcaches, among other requirements. They are all reviewed by a team to determine if the cache meets all of the 10-or-so Earthcache guidelines adequately - if not, back to the cacher for revisions.

 

Of all of that, I think what makes the process "work" the most is not the black-and-white determination of whether or not the cache is geological... but the fact that there is a seemingly outside party reviewing the caches for what appears to be at least a bit of a "wow" factor. The Earthcaches that make it through that process have a general standard of quality that I think most can live with, and having the "wow" factor technically judged by the Geological Society of America rather than technically by volunteer Groundspeak reviewers helps ease the angst.

[Clan Riffster]

What do you think the chance are someone will post a virtual power trail?

I've already started work on one, gathering coordinates along the Interstate 4 corridor between Daytona and Tampa.

The width of the corridor is roughly 300', which, if I have these virts on both lanes, will mean over 2000 caches.

If the guidelines don't include some kind of "wow" factor, I'll start submitting them. Maybe call them the "Irony" series?

Roughly 2000 finds, doable in a 4 hour round trip. I'm sure some folks will love them.

[+narcissa]

Earthcaches used to include more types of listings...

 

No. No they didn't.

[+narcissa]

They are all reviewed by a team to determine if the cache meets all of the 10-or-so Earthcache guidelines adequately - if not, back to the cacher for revisions.

 

They're reviewed by individual reviewers, much like other geocaches. The Earthcache reviewers are specific to Earthcaches and cover much larger geographic regions than regular reviewers do.

[+Manville Possum]

Earthcaches used to include more types of listings...

 

No. No they didn't.

Yes. Yes they did.

 

1. EarthCache sites must provide Earth Science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions. EarthCaches can also help reveal scientists' understanding our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.) Please note that sites with a major focus on biological, ecological, or archeological features, will not be published.

 

Many of my favorites were Indian mounds and ones related to natural springs where the magnitude of water had to be estimated, these are no longer accepted.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0f650fc8-44f3-49c7-9c8f-948da7f10a03

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=895d9f28-6fc0-42e4-b187-afbe8a382488

Edited January 19, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[GOF and Bacall]

What do you think the chance are someone will post a virtual power trail?

I've already started work on one, gathering coordinates along the Interstate 4 corridor between Daytona and Tampa.

The width of the corridor is roughly 300', which, if I have these virts on both lanes, will mean over 2000 caches.

If the guidelines don't include some kind of "wow" factor, I'll start submitting them. Maybe call them the "Irony" series?

Roughly 2000 finds, doable in a 4 hour round trip. I'm sure some folks will love them.

 

You been snorting Tink's fairy dust again?

[+narcissa]

Earthcaches used to include more types of listings...

 

No. No they didn't.

Yes. Yes they did.

 

1. EarthCache sites must provide Earth Science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions. EarthCaches can also help reveal scientists' understanding our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.) Please note that sites with a major focus on biological, ecological, or archeological features, will not be published.

 

Many of my favorites were Indian mounds and ones related to natural springs where the magnitude of water had to be estimated, these are no longer accepted.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0f650fc8-44f3-49c7-9c8f-948da7f10a03

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=895d9f28-6fc0-42e4-b187-afbe8a382488

 

Both of the Earthcaches you linked to are active, and contain comprehensive information about their formation. These links fail to support your statement in any way.

 

Some features are no longer accepted because they were overdone, and were too often the subject of low quality Earthcaches without good logging tasks. Watershed caches, waterfalls, and erratic rocks are some examples of features that probably won't get approved now.

 

Your characterization of Earthcaches as being "all about geology" is simply incorrect, and your insinuation that Earthcaching has changed direction from its original goals has no basis in fact.

[+Manville Possum]

Earthcaches used to include more types of listings...

 

No. No they didn't.

Yes. Yes they did.

 

1. EarthCache sites must provide Earth Science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions. EarthCaches can also help reveal scientists' understanding our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.) Please note that sites with a major focus on biological, ecological, or archeological features, will not be published.

 

Many of my favorites were Indian mounds and ones related to natural springs where the magnitude of water had to be estimated, these are no longer accepted.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0f650fc8-44f3-49c7-9c8f-948da7f10a03

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=895d9f28-6fc0-42e4-b187-afbe8a382488

 

Both of the Earthcaches you linked to are active, and contain comprehensive information about their formation. These links fail to support your statement in any way.

 

Some features are no longer accepted because they were overdone, and were too often the subject of low quality Earthcaches without good logging tasks. Watershed caches, waterfalls, and erratic rocks are some examples of features that probably won't get approved now.

 

Your characterization of Earthcaches as being "all about geology" is simply incorrect, and your insinuation that Earthcaching has changed direction from its original goals has no basis in fact.

I tryed to submit similar ones and they were rejected until I added more geology to them. These EC's are grandfathered, just ask geoaware if they could be approved under the currant guidelines. But I suspect that you would still not be convienced, as only you are ever correct. I am sure that you would agree. I still enjoy EC's and we are currantly working on developing a new listing. I do however find that the new virtual cache listings will be easier to develope, and I will enjoy them.

 

BTW: Where did you get "your insinuation that Earthcaching has changed direction from its original goals has no basis in fact" that from?.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+narcissa]

I tryed to submit similar ones and they were rejected until I added more geology to them. These EC's are grandfathered, just ask geoaware if they could be approved under the currant guidelines.

 

Your claims that you were given a chance to alter them to include more earth science directly contradicts your claim that Earthcaching used to encompass these types but doesn't anymore.

 

There are many kinds of features that you'd have a hard time getting published today, because of the reasons I mentioned in a previous comment.

 

The guidelines have been tightened over the years and it is now more difficult to publish Earthcaches (in part because there are more reviewers), but Earthcaches have always required a focus on the earth's formation. They were never intended to be a replacement for virtual geocaches.

[Clan Riffster]

You been snorting Tink's fairy dust again?

Just imagine the forum threads! Someone will rush in here, all atwitter, boasting about a " New World Record!!! 2318 caches found in four hours,!!" Then folks will whine that these aren't real caches, so they shouldn't count. Then someone will risk speeding tickets to claim the same number in a shorter time, and folks will whine about that. Then someone will notice that the pics on the logs are blurred, and whine because the owner is allowing drive by logging... The list goes on and on, but should prove to be enormously entertaining.

 

And at the end of the day, the folks who added 2300 smileys to their found column will still think they actually accomplished something.

[+narcissa]

You been snorting Tink's fairy dust again?

Just imagine the forum threads! Someone will rush in here, all atwitter, boasting about a " New World Record!!! 2318 caches found in four hours,!!" Then folks will whine that these aren't real caches, so they shouldn't count. Then someone will risk speeding tickets to claim the same number in a shorter time, and folks will whine about that. Then someone will notice that the pics on the logs are blurred, and whine because the owner is allowing drive by logging... The list goes on and on, but should prove to be enormously entertaining.

 

And at the end of the day, the folks who added 2300 smileys to their found column will still think they actually accomplished something.

 

At least there won't be thousands of throw-down films cans littering the trail.

[+Manville Possum]

I tryed to submit similar ones and they were rejected until I added more geology to them. These EC's are grandfathered, just ask geoaware if they could be approved under the currant guidelines.

 

Your claims that you were given a chance to alter them to include more earth science directly contradicts your claim that Earthcaching used to encompass these types but doesn't anymore.

 

There are many kinds of features that you'd have a hard time getting published today, because of the reasons I mentioned in a previous comment.

 

The guidelines have been tightened over the years and it is now more difficult to publish Earthcaches (in part because there are more reviewers), but Earthcaches have always required a focus on the earth's formation. They were never intended to be a replacement for virtual geocaches.

Not sure if it is you or just my Med's kicking in but you are absoulty correct whatever you said that I said or so you say I said. Anyway, I still have this EC to research and I am working on a project about virtual caching ammo cans with possums to upload to YouTube. But thanks for the complement. I go now to virtual happy place inside my head.

[+The Blorenges]

You been snorting Tink's fairy dust again?

Just imagine the forum threads! Someone will rush in here, all atwitter, boasting about a " New World Record!!! 2318 caches found in four hours,!!" Then folks will whine that these aren't real caches, so they shouldn't count. Then someone will risk speeding tickets to claim the same number in a shorter time, and folks will whine about that. Then someone will notice that the pics on the logs are blurred, and whine because the owner is allowing drive by logging... The list goes on and on, but should prove to be enormously entertaining.

 

And at the end of the day, the folks who added 2300 smileys to their found column will still think they actually accomplished something.

 

As long as swamps and alligators are involved somewhere then it'll be great...

 

MrsB

[+sbell111]

I don't think we need to worry about such things any more than we need to stop people from submitting non-wow traditional caches.

One major difference is that physical caches need to be maintained by by the CO. If they're not serious about it eventually the container/log will go missing or be damaged and the NM/NA mechanism will get rid of them.

You are mistaken in your assumption that virts do not require maintenance. In some ways, my virt has required more maintenance than many traditional caches. It's my responsibility and I'm happy to do it, but the maintenance need does exist.

The other difference is that you can't tell if a physical cache is crappy until you visit it. You know right away if a Virtual is bad because the description will say exactly what it is.

Wouldn't your argument that with virts, you know exactly what you are looking for allow less 'wow' controls on virts than traditional caches, since people would more easily be able to avoid bad virts?

I know, I know. You don't have to go find them. But what would other people think when they read the listings and see stuff like carcasses and a piles of poop (real poop) listed as a cache?

I think that many of those people will think that they will not wish to find those caches. Strangely, some of those people will think it's cool and run out and find those caches.

 

It should also be noted that the 'permanence' guideline would not allow either hypothetical cache to be listed.

[+sbell111]

I made a

that explains the many problems with virtuals and the reasons why Waymarking was proposed as a replacement. I don't think there is anything wrong with recognizing that many geocachers enjoy "finding" virtuals and looking for solutions that work better for them than Waymarking. I do think that any solution needs to address the issues that resulted in their being grandfathered in the first place.

Wow. That video was long. It was so long that having watched it just now, I still cannot remember any of the reasons that you gave.I probably should have taken notes; maybe drawn out an outline. Instead, I got bogged down in the blah blah blah of it.

 

Cool way to make a video, however. I'm going to have to play around with that.

Edited January 19, 2011 by sbell111

[+Avernar]

What do you think the chance are someone will post a virtual power trail? I can see it now "455 of 2500 today. This one was a power transmission tower, just like the rest. It's taking longer to cut-n-paste these logs than it did to drive by visit them all."

I'd get a group of 10 people together and we'll send the answer to each verification question one per email per person.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Avernar

[+sbell111]

It will be interesting to see how this is dealt with. By the guidelines now in place there is nothing to stop 16 caches from using the same coordinates, as long as they are for non-physical stages. What is a virtual if not non-physical?

The difference is you then have to go to a final that is a minimum distance from other finals.

Agreed. All they have to do is ensure that the final location of any cache is .1 mile away from the physical stages or final of any other cache.

[+sbell111]

The system for reviewing Earthcaches seems to work well.

Yes, but Earthcaching is very specific to one type of subject, geology. That makes it easy for them to make things black and white. Either it's about geology or it's not.

It goes much further than that. The guidelines also say that the caches must be educational / provide a lesson and they must highlight factors unique to other earthcaches, among other requirements. They are all reviewed by a team to determine if the cache meets all of the 10-or-so Earthcache guidelines adequately - if not, back to the cacher for revisions.

 

Of all of that, I think what makes the process "work" the most is not the black-and-white determination of whether or not the cache is geological... but the fact that there is a seemingly outside party reviewing the caches for what appears to be at least a bit of a "wow" factor. The Earthcaches that make it through that process have a general standard of quality that I think most can live with, and having the "wow" factor technically judged by the Geological Society of America rather than technically by volunteer Groundspeak reviewers helps ease the angst.

There's the rub. If you were to change the scenario from a geological review by an outside party to a 'wow' review by insiders (reviewers, fellow cachers, whatever) the process no longer works well because you now have a group trying to decide what is good enough with no real qualifiers and using insiders would set the system up for fail as these people would not be able to remain impartial for various reasons.

[+Ike 13]

But who said they wouldn't limit virtuals to one subject (history). This thread is suppossed to be about suggestions. Hopefully they read this thread (because there are some really great points between the fuss) and take all this into consideration.

[+Avernar]

You are mistaken in your assumption that virts do not require maintenance. In some ways, my virt has required more maintenance than many traditional caches. It's my responsibility and I'm happy to do it, but the maintenance need does exist.

I wouldn't call it maintenance as the CO does not have to maintain anything. They just need to make sure the thing their questions are based on is still there. Pick something more permanent in nature and all they have to do is reply to emails.

 

My point was that physical caches have a greater chance of being destroyed or go missing and that a bad virtual can potentially linger for a while.

 

Wouldn't your argument that with virts, you know exactly what you are looking for allow less 'wow' controls on virts than traditional caches, since people would more easily be able to avoid bad virts?

Yes. I already mentioned that.

 

I know, I know. You don't have to go find them. But what would other people think when they read the listings and see stuff like carcasses and a piles of poop (real poop) listed as a cache?

I think that many of those people will think that they will not wish to find those caches. Strangely, some of those people will think it's cool and run out and find those caches.

Yes, but I don't want to be associated with a hobby/game that people think is associated with that sort of thing.

 

Me: I'm a Geocacher

Muggle: Oh, that game where you find poop in the woods?

Me:

 

It should also be noted that the 'permanence' guideline would not allow either hypothetical cache to be listed.

I don't know. Someone will train their dog to go in that one spot each time they take them for a walk. That way it will be moist and fresh for each finder.

 

But seriously, the fact that you mentioned the permanence guideline just proves my point that guidelines will be necessary to keep people from listing undesirable virtuals.

[+Avernar]

But who said they wouldn't limit virtuals to one subject (history).

Boring. I want variety. That's why I haven't bothered with the Historic Places iPhone app.

[+sbell111]

It should also be noted that the 'permanence' guideline would not allow either hypothetical cache to be listed.

I don't know. Someone will train their dog to go in that one spot each time they take them for a walk. That way it will be moist and fresh for each finder.

 

But seriously, the fact that you mentioned the permanence guideline just proves my point that guidelines will be necessary to keep people from listing undesirable virtuals.

No one is suggesting that virtual caches would not be subject to the listing guidelines or that the guidelines won't need to be tweaked to allow for the return of virts. I do think that some of the controls that were needed when virts were previously listed are no longer needed simply because users are now better equipped to seek out quality caches than they previously were. Since we can more easily determine for ourselves whether a cache is worth visiting, we no longer require tptb to do it for us.

[+JL_HSTRE]

But who said they wouldn't limit virtuals to one subject (history).

Boring. I want variety. That's why I haven't bothered with the Historic Places iPhone app.

 

One option might be to ease in implementation of Virtuals one category at a time. Start with Historical then after a few months open them up to something else. I think it's better to start things possibly too narrow and broaden the scope later based on geocacher feedback rather than make it wide open and let people try to break the system.

[+Manville Possum]

But who said they wouldn't limit virtuals to one subject (history).

Boring. I want variety. That's why I haven't bothered with the Historic Places iPhone app.

I don't know much about phones or apps, but I enjoy history, and this subject I would base my virtuals on. What kind of history app are you talking about, and how does it work?

[+Avernar]

I don't know much about phones or apps, but I enjoy history, and this subject I would base my virtuals on. What kind of history app are you talking about, and how does it work?

It's an iPhone app by Groundspeak called Historic Places that gives you accesses to the Waymarking database of Historic Places. That's all I know.

[+Manville Possum]

I don't know much about phones or apps, but I enjoy history, and this subject I would base my virtuals on. What kind of history app are you talking about, and how does it work?

It's an iPhone app by Groundspeak called Historic Places that gives you accesses to the Waymarking database of Historic Places. That's all I know.

Thanks for your reply.

MPH.

[+cx1]

Going back to the original topic, the guidelines I would propose would be simple.

 

Each premium account gets to list one virtual cache per year of continual premium membership. The logging of these caches would be open to all members.

If you have been paying for premium membership for 3 years you can list a total of 3 virtual caches as an example. Currently owned and active virtual caches would not count against this maximum owned total. They would remain grandfathered. However if a grandfathered cache were archived it would not add an additional opening to an individual's maximum amount.

 

If your premium membership expires and no one is willing to adopt your virtual caches then the caches will be archived after 90 days.

 

All rules that apply to traditional caches regarding trespassing and other illegal activity will also be enforced for virtual caches.

 

This would be a simple way to eliminate the potential of virtual power trails. It would also help ensure that the few virtual caches a person lists are of a high quality since the number of them they can post would be small and most members would not want to 'waste' them.

It also adds value to premium membership. Anything that entices more paying members is good for the bottom line. It also entices current members to not let their membership expire so they don't loose their virtual caches.

 

Each virtual cache placed must be within a 50 mile radius of the listing cacher's home coordinates.

 

Logging requirements:

I purpose what I would call a personal avatar token (PAT) as one possible form of verification. A PAT can be the member themselves, their GPS unit or an item they use to represent themselves like a small stuffed toy, a business card or favorite trinket. Each member will have this PAT on their profile page for easy reference by a cache owner doing log verification. A virtual cache can include a PAT staging location or PSL. This is a specific spot for use of a PAT for use in logging. A PSL would require the cache hunter would need to be at the posted location in order to place and photograph their PAT. It would be something such as a specific bench or unique item to the spot to photograph with a PAT for verification. It would not need to be the focus of the virtual cache if the cache is designed to be a surprise. The photo would not have be a spoiler for the location. The PSL must be within a 20 foot radius of the posted location, be the same terrain rating or lower of the cache and require no additional equipment or skill to get to then what was used to get to the cache. For example if climbing was not required to get to the cache location then climbing cannot be required to get to the PSL.

 

Another possible verification for those against the use of a PAT would be what I would call a simple heading verification or SHV. A SHV is simply e-mailing the cache owner a description of what is visible at a given heading while at the posted coordinates. The cache hunter stands at the posted coordinates turns to the heading given on the cache page and emails the cache owner what they see for verification. A photo could be used instead of a written description but could not be required by the cache owner. For example, the cache hunter gets to the location, turns to a heading 270 degrees and emails the cache owner "I see a flagpole with a small bush next to it." Simple and easy verification.

 

There are no perfect systems for stopping all arm-chair logging. I would be willing to bet, based on the condition of traditional cache logs I have found that many of the caches I have found I could have logged on-line without being near the cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Logging requirements:

I purpose what I would call a personal avatar token (PAT) as one possible form of verification. A PAT can be the member themselves, their GPS unit or an item they use to represent themselves like a small stuffed toy, a business card or favorite trinket. Each member will have this PAT on their profile page for easy reference by a cache owner doing log verification.

 

I kinda like the idea of a PAT. It seems like it would be easy to do as long as one doesn't forget to bring along their PAT everytime they might find a virtual cache.

 

Another possible verification for those against the use of a PAT would be what I would call a simple heading verification or SHV. A SHV is simply e-mailing the cache owner a description of what is visible at a given heading while at the posted coordinates. The cache hunter stands at the posted coordinates turns to the heading given on the cache page and emails the cache owner what they see for verification. A photo could be used instead of a written description but could not be required by the cache owner. For example, the cache hunter gets to the location, turns to a heading 270 degrees and emails the cache owner "I see a flagpole with a small bush next to it." Simple and easy verification.

 

Unfortunately this one could easily be defeated. From what I've heard there are some that use phone-a-friend networks to obtain answers to virtual/earth caches. Of course, the CO could change the bearing and answer occasionally to prevent someone from just calling up a friend and asking, "I saw that you found the top of the mountain virtual, what's the object you saw at 270 degrees?"

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Going back to the original topic, the guidelines I would propose would be simple.

 

Each premium account gets to list one virtual cache per year of continual premium membership. The logging of these caches would be open to all members.

If you have been paying for premium membership for 3 years you can list a total of 3 virtual caches as an example. Currently owned and active virtual caches would not count against this maximum owned total. They would remain grandfathered. However if a grandfathered cache were archived it would not add an additional opening to an individual's maximum amount.

 

If your premium membership expires and no one is willing to adopt your virtual caches then the caches will be archived after 90 days.

 

All rules that apply to traditional caches regarding trespassing and other illegal activity will also be enforced for virtual caches.

 

This would be a simple way to eliminate the potential of virtual power trails. It would also help ensure that the few virtual caches a person lists are of a high quality since the number of them they can post would be small and most members would not want to 'waste' them.

It also adds value to premium membership. Anything that entices more paying members is good for the bottom line. It also entices current members to not let their membership expire so they don't loose their virtual caches.

 

Each virtual cache placed must be within a 50 mile radius of the listing cacher's home coordinates.

 

Logging requirements:

I purpose what I would call a personal avatar token (PAT) as one possible form of verification. A PAT can be the member themselves, their GPS unit or an item they use to represent themselves like a small stuffed toy, a business card or favorite trinket. Each member will have this PAT on their profile page for easy reference by a cache owner doing log verification. A virtual cache can include a PAT staging location or PSL. This is a specific spot for use of a PAT for use in logging. A PSL would require the cache hunter would need to be at the posted location in order to place and photograph their PAT. It would be something such as a specific bench or unique item to the spot to photograph with a PAT for verification. It would not need to be the focus of the virtual cache if the cache is designed to be a surprise. The photo would not have be a spoiler for the location. The PSL must be within a 20 foot radius of the posted location, be the same terrain rating or lower of the cache and require no additional equipment or skill to get to then what was used to get to the cache. For example if climbing was not required to get to the cache location then climbing cannot be required to get to the PSL.

 

Another possible verification for those against the use of a PAT would be what I would call a simple heading verification or SHV. A SHV is simply e-mailing the cache owner a description of what is visible at a given heading while at the posted coordinates. The cache hunter stands at the posted coordinates turns to the heading given on the cache page and emails the cache owner what they see for verification. A photo could be used instead of a written description but could not be required by the cache owner. For example, the cache hunter gets to the location, turns to a heading 270 degrees and emails the cache owner "I see a flagpole with a small bush next to it." Simple and easy verification.

 

There are no perfect systems for stopping all arm-chair logging. I would be willing to bet, based on the condition of traditional cache logs I have found that many of the caches I have found I could have logged on-line without being near the cache.

 

 

Why limit the number of virtual caches that can be placed? We don't do that for regular caches and there are people who live in areas where a lot of good virtuals could be done.

 

Should we also limit placing regular caches to only premium members? That should really draw in the money or drive people away to other sites.

 

How about we archive anyone's caches who has not signed on to the site for 28 days? Or maybe just archive all the caches a person has when their premium membership expires.

 

Drop the 50 mile radius and use the distance from home that a cacher finds caches. We cache within a 250 mile to 500 mile distance from home, so 50 miles is a joke for us.

 

PAT is just a fancy way of requiring a photo to prove that you were at the cache site, but it is still requiring a photo. What is the difference between asking what is seen looking 270 degrees and asking what is on a plaque or sign. These are typical of how virtuals are logged now. Requiring a photo stops the phone a friend network, since you need to be at the cache site to get the photo. And for those that object to having the picture taken at the cache site, unless it is specified that you must face forward, have your face turned away from the camera.

 

John

[+cx1]

 

Why limit the number of virtual caches that can be placed? We don't do that for regular caches and there are people who live in areas where a lot of good virtuals could be done.

 

As stated to prevent the occurrence of virtual power trails and to prevent saturation of poor virtual caches in an area. There are probably other cacher's in these areas where good virtual caches could be done who would also like the opportunity to place some.

 

Should we also limit placing regular caches to only premium members? That should really draw in the money or drive people away to other sites.

 

TPTB have stated several times that basic geocaching will always be free. Having a specific subset of caches that require premium membership to place does not violate that tenant. It would be similar to the current premium member only caches of any type. One would not need to be a premium member to find the virtual caches.

 

How about we archive anyone's caches who has not signed on to the site for 28 days? Or maybe just archive all the caches a person has when their premium membership expires.

 

If it requires premium membership to place a specific type of cache then it would be logical that it also be required to maintain that premium membership to keep the cache active. A person does not get to keep making pocket queries after their premium membership expires do they?

 

Drop the 50 mile radius and use the distance from home that a cacher finds caches. We cache within a 250 mile to 500 mile distance from home, so 50 miles is a joke for us.

 

The radius is not about finding caches but for placing and maintaining them. How many caches have you placed and currently maintain that are 250-500 miles away from your home coordinates?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

 

Drop the 50 mile radius and use the distance from home that a cacher finds caches. We cache within a 250 mile to 500 mile distance from home, so 50 miles is a joke for us.

 

The radius is not about finding caches but for placing and maintaining them. How many caches have you placed and currently maintain that are 250-500 miles away from your home coordinates?

 

But finding and placing/maintaining caches are related. When I first started almost all of my finds were just a few miles from home, but as I gradually cleared out a local radius I was spending more and more time cache 20-30 miles from home. If someone is spending much of their time geocaching 50-100 miles from home it makes sense that they would have little trouble maintaining a cache that far from home.

[+sbell111]

 

Why limit the number of virtual caches that can be placed? We don't do that for regular caches and there are people who live in areas where a lot of good virtuals could be done.

 

As stated to prevent the occurrence of virtual power trails and to prevent saturation of poor virtual caches in an area. There are probably other cacher's in these areas where good virtual caches could be done who would also like the opportunity to place some.

What have these cachers been doing for the last decade?