The Return Of Virtuals

[+Castle Mischief]

It is this "Wow" requirement...

 

Hold up a sec. Is there any reasonable expectation that the return of Virtuals will mean a return of the "Wow Factor"? So far I haven't seen anything that indicates anything else regarding what the requirements will be. I'll I've seen is "we think we have a way".

[+Manville Possum]

I enjoy Waymarking more than searching for a Altoids tin with a wet log in it, and listing the new Virtuals along with the waymarks only makes sense to me. I think that the new virtuals should count toward a geocachers stats, it would give users interested in their numbers more reason to seek them. But don't think that the Waymarking site is going away because it is used little in the US and Canada.

 

Ignoring the fact that not all Geocaches are Altoids tins with wet logs... how would you differentiate between a Virtual listed on the Waymarking site and a Waymark listed on the Waymarking site. I don't think that all the Waymarks would qualify for listings as Virtuals (fast food locations, as an example) and wouldn't it be redundant to have a Virtual listed on Waymarking that might reside in the same place as a Waymark listed on Waymarking?

 

Seems like it would make sense just to put what you're going to call a "Virtual Cache" on the geocaching site and be done with it, hypothetical new listing requirements and all.

 

I'm not trying to be critical, I just don't understand where you're going with this.

Let me try to help you better understand where I am going with my ideas for the new virtuals. First let me say that I hate 90% of Waymarking categorys worse than a wet log in a Altoids tin. You may have to visit the waymark site and view my new waymark listing WMAH75, it is a well house in a historic district. To waymark it, just upload a photo and a short comment about it. Nice or Cool would be good enough for me. Now, this same well house is also one of my planned new Virtual cache listings. The well house has a memorial plaque on it, I would ask you to email me the answer as to who dedicated it to who, and what year. This is my idea of how the new virtuals should work. If you visit the waymark site, check out some of the other neat waymarks. I also have a replica of a old Flatboat like they made there in the Boatyard, and a reconsrtucted cabin that Daniel Boone and his wife Rebecca once lived in from 1773 - 1775 that has been relocated from along the Wilderness Road. Keep in mind that I waymark things of historic interest, and not phone booths and McD's. I have my standards as to what I will log as a waymark find also. I hope this gives you a better idea of what I am trying to do with waymarks and the new Virtuals.

 

Thanks.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[Clan Riffster]

Is there any reasonable expectation that the return of Virtuals will mean a return of the "Wow Factor"?

While I really hope so, I must concur with your observations. I haven't seen anything official from the Lily Pad suggesting that, when Virtuals return, there will be a "Wow!" factor. Unless I missed it? There was a time when I believed that Groundspeak, as a company, valued scenic locations over mundane ones, but I've come to realize that was naught but a naive pipe dream. By relaxing the guideline interpretation regarding power trails, and by refusing to require explicit permission for hides on private property, (think Wally World LPC), Groundspeak has demonstrated that their biggest commitment is to company growth. (No, I'm not disparaging Corporate America, just making observations) The game has gone so mainstream that the majority of newly published hides seem to be of the park & grab variety. (Again, not a complaint, just an observation) If Groundspeak follows this same business model with regard to virtuals, we'll likely see them popping up at every Wally World, Burger King and McDonalds on the planet, and Virtual Power Trails where folks can "find" a few thousand "caches" in a day without ever leaving the confines of their air conditioned minivans.

 

No complaints, as I'll still be hunting the types of hides I enjoy.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

My responses are in Blue

 

1) Differentiate new 'virtuals' from the old virtuals.

 

Why?

 

2) I don't see anyway they're going to require photo verification after removing it from the Earthcaches.

3) Most everyone agrees there needs to be verification questions. Just like Earthcaches these questions should make you think and learn rather than just find a word or spot something.

 

Again, why? I don't do this to learn about something, I do it for enjoyment and relaxation, and maybe see some interesting sites. I don't do earthcaches and see no reason to jump through hoops just so I can go enjoy an area. I do rockhound now and then, though.

 

Now what makes a virtual. This is where GS has to be wracking their brains. Nothing was successful with the classic virtuals and this led to their demise. The WOW factor led to way too much drama.

 

1) Law out strict guidelines similar to Earthcaches. A large majority of virtuals are at places of historic interest. So take this and make it the foundation of the guidelines. The places that new virtuals are placed at should be very relevant to the history of the region.

 

Like an 8 foot in diameter petrified log that is approximately 50 feet long. Or maybe a sinkhole with sheer walls that drop 300 feet to the floor. Or a waterfall that comes out the wall of a canyon. None of these have anything to do with history in the area, but they are surely remarkable in their own way. I suppose they all could be done as earthcaches, but there is no real need to educate the people about the beauty and grandeur of nature, just show them. An 8 foot petrified log is awesome in and of itself, which is a good reason to make it a virtual.

 

2) The hider must lay out specifics about the importance of this location. The cache page must educate cachers on the importance and push them to learn about the history of the area.

 

Why must we educate others. Why not allow them the opportunity to appreciate something for what it is and not because there needs to be a reason to learn something. Somethings can be awesome without needing to be tied to the history of the area.

 

3) Again like Earthcaches there should be a review board comprised mainly of regional members. It's easy to complain about one person denying your cache, but not so much when a group agrees.

Use the current review process and perhaps something along the lines of the voting that I posted earlier in this thread. After 10 or 15 finders, tally the votes and determine if it stays or goes. The virtual itself determine if it lives or dies.

4) Previously there was no saturation guideline for virts. They should be a minimum of .1 miles (I would be in favor of a larger distance) away from any physical waypoint AND any virtual (question to answer) waypoint to a multi/puzzle.

5) If the owner has not signed into Geocaching.com for x number of months the virtual is a)Put up for adoption (b ) archived

 

Would this apply to all listings on GC.com?

 

One more crazy idea...

If GS is worried about quality and the number of virtuals they can create an additional area of the feedback site. Each state/region gets 1 virtual per month(time can be extended/shortened). The top rated virtual is sent to the reviewer so (s)he can double check that it meets all guidelines before it is published.

 

So, Rhode Island is equal to Texas in how many are allowed? Boy, It would be good to live in Rhode Island as your chances of getting a virtual approved would definitely be better than living in Texas or California.

I enjoy a virtual cache now and then, but hate to try and navigate Waymarking. I have tried searching for specific items on that site and finally gave up searching and left. Have not been back since.

 

 

John

[+narcissa]

I am hoping that the new Virtual caches will be listed on the Waymarking site.

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

[+Manville Possum]

I am hoping that the new Virtual caches will be listed on the Waymarking site.

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

It does the way I see it, more users will use the Waymarking site. Waymarks, Earthcaches, and virtuals are all, well.... Virtuals. But I guess to count them as a geocache find that will add to a cachers numbers they will have to be listed on the geocaching site. Then we waymarkers can flood that site with bunk junk virtuals too. Sure you don't want them listed on the Waymarking site? I just want to see the Waymarking site grow, but I will still contribute what I find interesting virtual caches that people will get a "WoW" from visiting the site, no matter where Groundspeak chooses to list them.

[+narcissa]

It does the way I see it, more users will use the Waymarking site. Waymarks, Earthcaches, and virtuals are all, well.... Virtuals. But I guess to count them as a geocache find that will add to a cachers numbers they will have to be listed on the geocaching site. Then we waymarkers can flood that site with bunk junk virtuals too. Sure you don't want them listed on the Waymarking site? I just want to see the Waymarking site grow, but I will still contribute what I find interesting virtual caches that people will get a "WoW" from visiting the site, no matter where Groundspeak chooses to list them.

 

The way you see it, if someone creates a Waymarking category called "virtual geocaches," we'll suddenly be willing to deal with a separate site with a poor layout and no pocket queries? Um, I don't think so.

 

And now you're threatening to deliberately create junk virtual geocaches to punish people for not using the Waymarking site? Yikes.

[+Don_J]

It does the way I see it, more users will use the Waymarking site. Waymarks, Earthcaches, and virtuals are all, well.... Virtuals. But I guess to count them as a geocache find that will add to a cachers numbers they will have to be listed on the geocaching site. Then we waymarkers can flood that site with bunk junk virtuals too. Sure you don't want them listed on the Waymarking site? I just want to see the Waymarking site grow, but I will still contribute what I find interesting virtual caches that people will get a "WoW" from visiting the site, no matter where Groundspeak chooses to list them.

 

The way you see it, if someone creates a Waymarking category called "virtual geocaches," we'll suddenly be willing to deal with a separate site with a poor layout and no pocket queries? Um, I don't think so.

 

And now you're threatening to deliberately create junk virtual geocaches to punish people for not using the Waymarking site? Yikes.

 

Yep, I'd edit that post and throw in a couple smileys before some at the lily pad takes you seriously.

[+Manville Possum]

It does the way I see it, more users will use the Waymarking site. Waymarks, Earthcaches, and virtuals are all, well.... Virtuals. But I guess to count them as a geocache find that will add to a cachers numbers they will have to be listed on the geocaching site. Then we waymarkers can flood that site with bunk junk virtuals too. Sure you don't want them listed on the Waymarking site? I just want to see the Waymarking site grow, but I will still contribute what I find interesting virtual caches that people will get a "WoW" from visiting the site, no matter where Groundspeak chooses to list them.

 

The way you see it, if someone creates a Waymarking category called "virtual geocaches," we'll suddenly be willing to deal with a separate site with a poor layout and no pocket queries? Um, I don't think so.

 

And now you're threatening to deliberately create junk virtual geocaches to punish people for not using the Waymarking site? Yikes.

 

Yep, I'd edit that post and throw in a couple smileys before some at the lily pad takes you seriously.

 

Sorry, I have high standards as to what I will waymark, but most don't. I would not list any bunk junk. Really? Phone booths and resturants? This I why I would like to see the new virtuals on the Waymarking site. I have learned to ignore the junk on that site. But truthfully, we all know that there are going to be some real junk virtuals out there when they are reinstated. Maybe the can be rebanned again?

 

And this "now you're threatening to deliberately create junk virtual geocaches to punish people for not using the Waymarking site". I did not say that, you just twisted my words to make them look that way.

[+narcissa]

Sorry, I have high standards as to what I will waymark, but most don't. I would not list any bunk junk. Really? Phone booths and resturants? This I why I would like to see the new virtuals on the Waymarking site. I have learned to ignore the junk on that site. But truthfully, we all know that there are going to be some real junk virtuals out there when they are reinstated. Maybe the can be rebanned again?

 

And this "now you're threatening to deliberately create junk virtual geocaches to punish people for not using the Waymarking site". I did not say that, you just twisted my words to make them look that way.

 

Your comments are getting more and more bizarre. I think there's something fundamental about this discussion that you're failing to understand. You keep talking about virtual geocaches at the Waymarking site, which makes absolutely no sense.

 

What we're talking about here is reinstating virtual geocaches at Geocaching.com. Virtual geocaches that we can include in pocket queries, virtual geocaches that we can log the same way we log other geocaches, virtual geocaches that will show up along with our other finds, virtual geocaches that aren't relegated to an entirely different site.

 

Those of us who have ignored the Waymarking site for years aren't suddenly going to flock over there because there's a mixed bag category called "virtual geocaches." We aren't going to suffer the poor site design and the lack of pocket queries just because there's something called "virtual geocaches."

 

Note your own words:

 

"Then we waymarkers can flood that site with bunk junk virtuals too. Sure you don't want them listed on the Waymarking site?"

[+tozainamboku]

One thing that bothers me is that people still can't differentiate between a waymark and a virtual cache. It seems the only difference is that waymarks are listed on Waymarking and virtual caches are listed on geocaching.com. Both seem to be "Here are the coordinates for some place I'd like you to visit".

 

To me that is not geocaching. And it is only part of what Waymarking is. I think what people are describing is more like FourSquare or Gowalla. Just turn on your smart phone app and see what's around here and check-in when you get there to earn a badge. Let's face it, if that is what virtual caches are who needs them on Geocaching.com or on Waymarking.com. Let's all just get smartphones and get the app and go crazy sharing coordinates for places to visit.

 

Many people (not just newbies who weren't around then) don't seem to recall the requirements for listing a virtual cache. They may reference the "Wow" requirement, but I bet many don't know what it actually says. Just to remind people, here are the guidelines for placing virtual caches as they were just before virtuals were grandfathered.

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

 

Virtual Caches

 

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

 

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

 

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

 

1. A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail, beach, or view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Virtual Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

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

If you read the guidelines you should know:

 

Physical cache are preferred and virtual caches exist to allow geocaching in areas that discourage physical caches. You should consider hiding a micro or multi-stage cache that uses information from the virtual to find a physical cache.

 

Virtual caches are specific and unique physical objects that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. They are not places like a beach, a mountain top, or a scenic view.

 

There should be one or more questions or a photo requirement to verify that the cache was found.

 

There are maintenance requirements for virtual caches just as there are for physical caches. Not only must you be able to return to check the location in case things have changed, but you assume the responsibility for quality control of the logs and will delete logs that appear to be bogus, ounterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Oh, and the location should "Wow" prospective finders.

 

While we hear most about the "wow" requirement, I believe that most virtuals got rejected because they didn't meet the other requirements. People were posting coordinates for beaches, mountain tops, and scenic views rather than a specific object to find. They didn't have verification questions or they had questions that could be answered by Internet research. Owners quickly abandoned virtual caches. They had no intention of returning to check on conditions or for that matter monitoring the quality of the logs. Virtuals were commonly placed in locations where a micro could be hidden nearby or where the location could be used as a stage in a multi-cache.

 

Virtual caches were a fail because people didn't follow the guidelines; more so than with physical caches.

 

So now we have people saying that solution is to relax the guidelines. No "wow", no logging requirements, no object to find, no need to monitor the quality of posts to the page. If you've got some place you want someone to visit just call it a virtual caches.

 

One of the things Waymarking does is allow you to share the coordinates of an interesting place. The difference is that you must determine what category this place is. With over 1000 categories that is not an easy task. Even thought the categories are arranged in a hierarchy it is often difficult to find a particular category. And many time the location fits in more than one category. What to do then?

 

Waymarking allows the same location to be listed more than once. It can be listed in each applicable category. Sometime people feel a little ownership of a location and get upset if someone else lists their waymark in another category. Some geocachers, for whom every number seems significant, don't approve of waymarkers getting credit for visiting the same waymark 5 times - once for each category it is listed in.

 

Because Waymarking uses categories it is much more than just sharing the coordinates for an interesting place. Category managers can ask for specific information to be includes about the waymarks in their category (category variables). The categories become repositories of information about similar locations. These lists of waymarks are valuable in and of themselves. People doing research on some category of places find the text, pictures, and category variables valuable even if they never visit the waymarks. Waymarking categories can also be used to setup other location based games. They can have you find locations whose coordinates themselves are interesting, or they can have you draw art with your GPS, or take a picture from the same vantage as a famous photograph or painting. For people who just want to share the coordinates of a location, Waymarking may be a bit too much.

 

So the problem we have is that people just want to share the coordinates of a place they want you to visit. It's not what the old virtuals were (or at least not what they were intended to be). It's not exactly a waymark either. I don't know what can be done to satisfy these people other than tell them to go to another site.

[+Manville Possum]

Thanks for posting those guidelines. I belive that I can develope some good virtuals for the geocaching site. I'm just bored with geocaching, but I still enjoy Earthcaches. Maybe these new virtuals are what I'm looking for. I really enjoy Waymarking, and it will be interesting to see what the new virtuals will be like.

Are there many other users out there that are planning on developing some new virtuals for the geocaching site? I do hope that it is not like the Waymarking site with just a few users developing these new virtuals.

[+sbell111]

... I have looked at the ones listed on the other site, but some you have to go inside of a muesum for the answers. I would really like to visit the NRA mueseum, but this is just not my idea of a virtual cache is you have to pay to go inside for the answers. We have a Earthcache in the area that involves paying and going on a cave tour to log the find.

If that bugs you, you'd hate my triple-grandfathered virt. The current charge to visit it's location starts at $76.

Do you think that the Waymarking site is the proper place to list the new virtuals, or the geocaching site.

The geocaching site. No question.

I would like to see more users on the Waymarking site, and listing the new virtuals there may help the site, maybe not. Any input on how YOU would develope a virtual?

Honestly, I would list them just as they were prior to the 'wow' guideline. In my opinion, now that we have 'favorites', TPTB don't need to try to manage quality on the front end. Edited January 18, 2011 by sbell111

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Virtual caches were a fail because people didn't follow the guidelines; more so than with physical caches.

Virtual caches failed because people used the type as a way around maintaining a real cache. "Hey, I can get people to visit this spot and never have to go out and replace a log or container!" It wasn't really geocaching, it was point-of-interesting, except less and less interesting places were submitted.

 

Land managers saw virtuals as a way of getting us into their parks ($$$) without having to deal with the potential litter issues, or worse, buried containers. They didn't fully understand what geocaching was at that point, so they didn't know caches weren't allowed to be buried anyway.

[+Castle Mischief]

I am hoping that the new Virtual caches will be listed on the Waymarking site.

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

It does the way I see it, more users will use the Waymarking site. Waymarks, Earthcaches, and virtuals are all, well.... Virtuals. But I guess to count them as a geocache find that will add to a cachers numbers they will have to be listed on the geocaching site. Then we waymarkers can flood that site with bunk junk virtuals too. Sure you don't want them listed on the Waymarking site? I just want to see the Waymarking site grow, but I will still contribute what I find interesting virtual caches that people will get a "WoW" from visiting the site, no matter where Groundspeak chooses to list them.

 

The whole reason Virts were done away with on the geocaching side was because of the "bunk" you speak of (and reviewer fatigue caused by determining "wow", at least as I see it). I don't think the return of the Virts would be implemented in such a way to foster the return of the "abandoned shoe" and "dear carcass" virtuals. I have at least that much faith in Groundspeak.

[GOF and Bacall]

I am hoping that the new Virtual caches will be listed on the Waymarking site.

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

It does the way I see it, more users will use the Waymarking site. Waymarks, Earthcaches, and virtuals are all, well.... Virtuals. But I guess to count them as a geocache find that will add to a cachers numbers they will have to be listed on the geocaching site. Then we waymarkers can flood that site with bunk junk virtuals too. Sure you don't want them listed on the Waymarking site? I just want to see the Waymarking site grow, but I will still contribute what I find interesting virtual caches that people will get a "WoW" from visiting the site, no matter where Groundspeak chooses to list them.

 

The whole reason Virts were done away with on the geocaching side was because of the "bunk" you speak of (and reviewer fatigue caused by determining "wow", at least as I see it). I don't think the return of the Virts would be implemented in such a way to foster the return of the "abandoned shoe" and "dear carcass" virtuals. I have at least that much faith in Groundspeak.

 

I don't.

[+Manville Possum]

... I have looked at the ones listed on the other site, but some you have to go inside of a muesum for the answers. I would really like to visit the NRA mueseum, but this is just not my idea of a virtual cache is you have to pay to go inside for the answers. We have a Earthcache in the area that involves paying and going on a cave tour to log the find.

If that bugs you, you'd hate my triple-grandfathered virt. The current charge to visit it's location starts at $76.

Do you think that the Waymarking site is the proper place to list the new virtuals, or the geocaching site.

The geocaching site. No question.

I would like to see more users on the Waymarking site, and listing the new virtuals there may help the site, maybe not. Any input on how YOU would develope a virtual?

Honestly, I would list them just as they were prior to the 'wow' guideline. In my opinion, now that we have 'favorites', TPTB don't need to try to manage quality on the front end.

Sounds like some good helpful advise. I don't understand much about the favorites feature yet, but you are correct that I would hate a cache that cost $76 to log. I would rather log 76 phone booth caches and 50 McD's. As far as me creating "bunk" caches, I would not. I do agree that the geocaching site is the best site to list the new virtuals on. I got to thinking that they may conflict with my waymarks. Users could post information about my waymarks that could be used on my virtuals, and Waymarking is little used. Some of my multi caches start at historical markers, a good waymarker could bypass the first two stages from their computer and go straight to the final. I look forward to listing some nice virtuals, and mine will be historic virtuals. I love history, and I want to show users some nice places that I enjoy, and they are free to the public? $76? Please send me a PM if you do not want to post the code to this cache, I just want to view it.

 

Thank you.

[+sbell111]

Please send me a PM if you do not want to post the code to this cache, I just want to view it.

 

Thank you.

It's the only virt that I own. You should be able to track it down without too much trouble. I'll give you a hint to it's location. It's in Anaheim. Edited January 18, 2011 by sbell111

[GOF and Bacall]

I'll bet that Manville Possum Hunters would enjoy that virtual more than a bunch of crappy phone booths and McD's. You get a whole lot more for the money than a chance to log a virtual cache.

Edited January 18, 2011 by GOF and Bacall

[+Manville Possum]

I'll bet that Manville Possum Hunters would enjoy that virtual more than a bunch of crappy phone booths and McD's. You get a whole lot more for the money than a chance to log a virtual cache.

I'm sure my kids would enjoy it, but I have personal issues with that big rat Micky. Besides, we have DollyWood down here in the Smokies, it is a nice overpriced amusement park. Also just a short drive through Gatlinburg, Tn and across the mountain to the Easteran Band of the Cherokee Indians Reservation to the Harris Casino and Tribal bingo. That area has alot to offer. I had a great time last year rafting in the Nantahala Gorge a few miles below Pattons Run, except for the almost drowning part. I think that this spring I will just ride the train through the gorge from Bryson City and play bingo with the old women. That is a really beautiful area with plenty of geocaches. There are some old virtials, waymarks, and a few EC's in the area. Maybe I can develop some new virtuals there?

[+bflentje]

Yawn... everyone still off topic.

[GOF and Bacall]

Oh dear Lord! The conversation has evolved!

[+Packanack]

Make me the sole arbiter of Virtual Listings and you won't be disappointed.

 

My dear old Dad used to say: Every once in awhile you will be going one way and the entire world (every last person on the world) is going the other way. That is the time to consider, even for an instant that you may be wrong. You may not be, but chance are you are.

 

On this one,I submit that those who are agains Virtuals have never taken the time to even consider that they may be wrong. I suggest they are wrong because they would deny me an enjoyment of an aspect of the game that I have enjoyed from the inception and my enjoyment does them no foul. Their anal fixation on the existence of a box and log is laughably simplistic.

[+Packanack]

Did a virtual the other day 250 miles from home, and it gave me pleasure. I don't see a need to adjust the settings. I never had a problem with virtuals as they were.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Packanack

[+Castle Mischief]

Oh dear Lord! The conversation has devolved!

 

Fixed it for ya, nuk nuk nuk.

[GOF and Bacall]

Oh dear Lord! The conversation has devolved!

 

mucked it for ya, nuk nuk nuk.

[+tozainamboku]

On this one,I submit that those who are agains Virtuals have never taken the time to even consider that they may be wrong. I suggest they are wrong because they would deny me an enjoyment of an aspect of the game that I have enjoyed from the inception and my enjoyment does them no foul. Their anal fixation on the existence of a box and log is laughably simplistic.

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. True, there are a few people who like the idea of a physical box and log to sign as it then is clear that geocaching is about finding something.

 

This is the real crux. There are some people who think that geocaching is about bringing you to a location that is special in some way - a nice view, natural solitude, historic locale, natural wonder, man-made marvel - in other words "Wow". There are many more that believe geocaching is about using your GPS to find an object hidden at some geographic coordinates. Virtual caches were first proposed to allow that second definition in areas where a physical cache could not be hidden. Unfortunately, some of the people who think the location is more important than the hide, used virtual caches to share interesting locations where there was no object to find (or where a physical cache could have been hidden or where an existing object could be used as stage in a multi-cache).

 

Waymarking was developed as a site where such locations could be shared. It also provided something similar for the concept of locationless caches - where you were asked to find something and then post its coordinates.

 

For various reasons, while locationless caches were removed entirely from Geocaching.com, virtuals and webcams were grandfathered. New virtual caches would no longer be published but the existing ones remained for geocachers to "find". Some new geocachers who never saw the problems caused by virtuals, have discovered that they enjoy being taken to interesting places via these grandfathered caches.

 

Many have not even looked at Waymarking to see how they can use that site to share interesting places. Some have and find that the category system is confusing. There are some categories that don't seem very wow. It's often a chore to find the category for the location you want to share and then you discover that that category wants you to provide specific information about the location. "I just want to share the coordinates so others can discover this place themselves. What's with all these variables I need to provide?"

 

Of course some people like to visit virtual caches while they are looking for physical geocaches. Since virtual caches show up in the same PQ as other caches, and in a format that can be used with various paperless solutions, it's easy to do this. Trying to combine visiting waymarks with geocaching and you have to download all sorts of third party tools to combine your PQ with the Waymarking download. And the Waymarking download doesn't have all the information you need to know if there are requirements for logging your visit, so it's hard to go paperless. And then there is the issue of Waymarking visits counting in your geoaching stats.

 

My solution would be to make some selected Waymarking categories visible as "virtual caches" to people using the geocaching website. They would show up in searches and be downloadable as part of the geocaching pocket query. You could log a "find" through the Geocaching.com website but it would actually be recorded on the Waymarking site, though it could still count in your statistics, or, if not, at lease have a tab with your Waymarking visits on your profile page. If you had a nice location to share, however, you would need to create a waymark and comply with the rules for that Waymarking category. The Waymarking category officers decide whether a virtual cache/waymark meets the requirements to be published, instead of the volunteer geocache reviewers.

[+Manville Possum]

On this one,I submit that those who are agains Virtuals have never taken the time to even consider that they may be wrong. I suggest they are wrong because they would deny me an enjoyment of an aspect of the game that I have enjoyed from the inception and my enjoyment does them no foul. Their anal fixation on the existence of a box and log is laughably simplistic.

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. True, there are a few people who like the idea of a physical box and log to sign as it then is clear that geocaching is about finding something.

 

This is the real crux. There are some people who think that geocaching is about bringing you to a location that is special in some way - a nice view, natural solitude, historic locale, natural wonder, man-made marvel - in other words "Wow". There are many more that believe geocaching is about using your GPS to find an object hidden at some geographic coordinates. Virtual caches were first proposed to allow that second definition in areas where a physical cache could not be hidden. Unfortunately, some of the people who think the location is more important than the hide, used virtual caches to share interesting locations where there was no object to find (or where a physical cache could have been hidden or where an existing object could be used as stage in a multi-cache).

 

Waymarking was developed as a site where such locations could be shared. It also provided something similar for the concept of locationless caches - where you were asked to find something and then post its coordinates.

 

For various reasons, while locationless caches were removed entirely from Geocaching.com, virtuals and webcams were grandfathered. New virtual caches would no longer be published but the existing ones remained for geocachers to "find". Some new geocachers who never saw the problems caused by virtuals, have discovered that they enjoy being taken to interesting places via these grandfathered caches.

 

Many have not even looked at Waymarking to see how they can use that site to share interesting places. Some have and find that the category system is confusing. There are some categories that don't seem very wow. It's often a chore to find the category for the location you want to share and then you discover that that category wants you to provide specific information about the location. "I just want to share the coordinates so others can discover this place themselves. What's with all these variables I need to provide?"

 

Of course some people like to visit virtual caches while they are looking for physical geocaches. Since virtual caches show up in the same PQ as other caches, and in a format that can be used with various paperless solutions, it's easy to do this. Trying to combine visiting waymarks with geocaching and you have to download all sorts of third party tools to combine your PQ with the Waymarking download. And the Waymarking download doesn't have all the information you need to know if there are requirements for logging your visit, so it's hard to go paperless. And then there is the issue of Waymarking visits counting in your geoaching stats.

 

My solution would be to make some selected Waymarking categories visible as "virtual caches" to people using the geocaching website. They would show up in searches and be downloadable as part of the geocaching pocket query. You could log a "find" through the Geocaching.com website but it would actually be recorded on the Waymarking site, though it could still count in your statistics, or, if not, at lease have a tab with your Waymarking visits on your profile page. If you had a nice location to share, however, you would need to create a waymark and comply with the rules for that Waymarking category. The Waymarking category officers decide whether a virtual cache/waymark meets the requirements to be published, instead of the volunteer geocache reviewers.

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

[GOF and Bacall]

On this one,I submit that those who are agains Virtuals have never taken the time to even consider that they may be wrong. I suggest they are wrong because they would deny me an enjoyment of an aspect of the game that I have enjoyed from the inception and my enjoyment does them no foul. Their anal fixation on the existence of a box and log is laughably simplistic.

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. True, there are a few people who like the idea of a physical box and log to sign as it then is clear that geocaching is about finding something.

 

This is the real crux. There are some people who think that geocaching is about bringing you to a location that is special in some way - a nice view, natural solitude, historic locale, natural wonder, man-made marvel - in other words "Wow". There are many more that believe geocaching is about using your GPS to find an object hidden at some geographic coordinates. Virtual caches were first proposed to allow that second definition in areas where a physical cache could not be hidden. Unfortunately, some of the people who think the location is more important than the hide, used virtual caches to share interesting locations where there was no object to find (or where a physical cache could have been hidden or where an existing object could be used as stage in a multi-cache).

 

Waymarking was developed as a site where such locations could be shared. It also provided something similar for the concept of locationless caches - where you were asked to find something and then post its coordinates.

 

For various reasons, while locationless caches were removed entirely from Geocaching.com, virtuals and webcams were grandfathered. New virtual caches would no longer be published but the existing ones remained for geocachers to "find". Some new geocachers who never saw the problems caused by virtuals, have discovered that they enjoy being taken to interesting places via these grandfathered caches.

 

Many have not even looked at Waymarking to see how they can use that site to share interesting places. Some have and find that the category system is confusing. There are some categories that don't seem very wow. It's often a chore to find the category for the location you want to share and then you discover that that category wants you to provide specific information about the location. "I just want to share the coordinates so others can discover this place themselves. What's with all these variables I need to provide?"

 

Of course some people like to visit virtual caches while they are looking for physical geocaches. Since virtual caches show up in the same PQ as other caches, and in a format that can be used with various paperless solutions, it's easy to do this. Trying to combine visiting waymarks with geocaching and you have to download all sorts of third party tools to combine your PQ with the Waymarking download. And the Waymarking download doesn't have all the information you need to know if there are requirements for logging your visit, so it's hard to go paperless. And then there is the issue of Waymarking visits counting in your geoaching stats.

 

My solution would be to make some selected Waymarking categories visible as "virtual caches" to people using the geocaching website. They would show up in searches and be downloadable as part of the geocaching pocket query. You could log a "find" through the Geocaching.com website but it would actually be recorded on the Waymarking site, though it could still count in your statistics, or, if not, at lease have a tab with your Waymarking visits on your profile page. If you had a nice location to share, however, you would need to create a waymark and comply with the rules for that Waymarking category. The Waymarking category officers decide whether a virtual cache/waymark meets the requirements to be published, instead of the volunteer geocache reviewers.

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.

[+Avernar]

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.

[+Packanack]

"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.

[+Don_J]

Thanks for posting those guidelines. I belive that I can develope some good virtuals for the geocaching site. I'm just bored with geocaching, but I still enjoy Earthcaches. Maybe these new virtuals are what I'm looking for. I really enjoy Waymarking, and it will be interesting to see what the new virtuals will be like.

Are there many other users out there that are planning on developing some new virtuals for the geocaching site? I do hope that it is not like the Waymarking site with just a few users developing these new virtuals.

 

The answer to that depends on the guidelines. Something that none of know a moment.

[+Don_J]

Please send me a PM if you do not want to post the code to this cache, I just want to view it.

 

Thank you.

It's the only virt that I own. You should be able to track it down without too much trouble. I'll give you a hint to it's location. It's in Anaheim.

 

It also has the most favorite votes in my 50 mile radius.

[+Manville Possum]

On this one,I submit that those who are agains Virtuals have never taken the time to even consider that they may be wrong. I suggest they are wrong because they would deny me an enjoyment of an aspect of the game that I have enjoyed from the inception and my enjoyment does them no foul. Their anal fixation on the existence of a box and log is laughably simplistic.

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. True, there are a few people who like the idea of a physical box and log to sign as it then is clear that geocaching is about finding something.

 

This is the real crux. There are some people who think that geocaching is about bringing you to a location that is special in some way - a nice view, natural solitude, historic locale, natural wonder, man-made marvel - in other words "Wow". There are many more that believe geocaching is about using your GPS to find an object hidden at some geographic coordinates. Virtual caches were first proposed to allow that second definition in areas where a physical cache could not be hidden. Unfortunately, some of the people who think the location is more important than the hide, used virtual caches to share interesting locations where there was no object to find (or where a physical cache could have been hidden or where an existing object could be used as stage in a multi-cache).

 

Waymarking was developed as a site where such locations could be shared. It also provided something similar for the concept of locationless caches - where you were asked to find something and then post its coordinates.

 

For various reasons, while locationless caches were removed entirely from Geocaching.com, virtuals and webcams were grandfathered. New virtual caches would no longer be published but the existing ones remained for geocachers to "find". Some new geocachers who never saw the problems caused by virtuals, have discovered that they enjoy being taken to interesting places via these grandfathered caches.

 

Many have not even looked at Waymarking to see how they can use that site to share interesting places. Some have and find that the category system is confusing. There are some categories that don't seem very wow. It's often a chore to find the category for the location you want to share and then you discover that that category wants you to provide specific information about the location. "I just want to share the coordinates so others can discover this place themselves. What's with all these variables I need to provide?"

 

Of course some people like to visit virtual caches while they are looking for physical geocaches. Since virtual caches show up in the same PQ as other caches, and in a format that can be used with various paperless solutions, it's easy to do this. Trying to combine visiting waymarks with geocaching and you have to download all sorts of third party tools to combine your PQ with the Waymarking download. And the Waymarking download doesn't have all the information you need to know if there are requirements for logging your visit, so it's hard to go paperless. And then there is the issue of Waymarking visits counting in your geoaching stats.

 

My solution would be to make some selected Waymarking categories visible as "virtual caches" to people using the geocaching website. They would show up in searches and be downloadable as part of the geocaching pocket query. You could log a "find" through the Geocaching.com website but it would actually be recorded on the Waymarking site, though it could still count in your statistics, or, if not, at lease have a tab with your Waymarking visits on your profile page. If you had a nice location to share, however, you would need to create a waymark and comply with the rules for that Waymarking category. The Waymarking category officers decide whether a virtual cache/waymark meets the requirements to be published, instead of the volunteer geocache reviewers.

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 won't even ask which one, but I bet that most are posted by one user and have never been visited, unless I visited it. Yes, you can bet your cache that the new virtuals will be the same. Still want them on the geocaching site?

 

BTW: What did you think of my waymark?

Edited January 18, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Manville Possum]

Please send me a PM if you do not want to post the code to this cache, I just want to view it.

 

Thank you.

It's the only virt that I own. You should be able to track it down without too much trouble. I'll give you a hint to it's location. It's in Anaheim.

 

It also has the most favorite votes in my 50 mile radius.

Cool, seems like virtuals are getting a lot of favorites. I am sure that we would like to visit.

Also check out how many waymarks are listed at the site, 313 of them.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Avernar]

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

 

What were "some of the issues" they caused?

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

[+Manville Possum]

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

 

What were "some of the issues" they caused?

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

We have a peer review in Waymarking that allowes us to vote for or against a new category listing. The old system must not have had this in place, or the site would not be so full of junk with over 1000 different category listings. I would suggest limiting virtual cache categorys, then let PM's vote wheather to accept the listing or not. Keep reviewers out of it, and let us users decide what gets listed.

 

A few months ago someone did try to create a category for sneakers hanging from power lines, it failed to pass the peer review.

I think virtuals should have something similar to reject junk like this.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+sbell111]

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

 

What were "some of the issues" they caused?

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

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.

[+Packanack]

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

 

What were "some of the issues" they caused?

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

 

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

 

If the former, I will answer by saying what business is it of anyone else, if they met guidelines . Not every cache, virtual, earth, locationless or physical meets the same level of quality . No one should insist that they do, for if that were the case, there would perhaps be only 10 hiders in any given geographical area and the numbers finders would soon run out of targets.

[+sbell111]

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

 

What were "some of the issues" they caused?

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

We have a peer review in Waymarking that allowes us to vote for or against a new category listing. The old system must not have had this in place, or the site would not be so full of junk with over 1000 different category listings. I would suggest limiting virtual cache categorys, then let PM's vote wheather to accept the listing or not. Keep reviewers out of it, and let us users decide what gets listed.

 

A few months ago someone did try to create a category for sneakers hanging from power lines, it failed to pass the peer review.

I think virtuals should have something similar to reject junk like this.

... and still there are plenty of 'junk' waymark categories, some of which have been discussed in this very thread.

 

A better plan would be to simply list any virt that meets the guidelines and allow people to choose to look for them based on whether they think it will be interesting or not. After all, tools such as favorites exist to help us decide which caches are worthwhile. Virts are no different. Good ones will collect bunches of faves. Bad ones will not.

[GOF and Bacall]

On this one,I submit that those who are agains Virtuals have never taken the time to even consider that they may be wrong. I suggest they are wrong because they would deny me an enjoyment of an aspect of the game that I have enjoyed from the inception and my enjoyment does them no foul. Their anal fixation on the existence of a box and log is laughably simplistic.

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. True, there are a few people who like the idea of a physical box and log to sign as it then is clear that geocaching is about finding something.

 

This is the real crux. There are some people who think that geocaching is about bringing you to a location that is special in some way - a nice view, natural solitude, historic locale, natural wonder, man-made marvel - in other words "Wow". There are many more that believe geocaching is about using your GPS to find an object hidden at some geographic coordinates. Virtual caches were first proposed to allow that second definition in areas where a physical cache could not be hidden. Unfortunately, some of the people who think the location is more important than the hide, used virtual caches to share interesting locations where there was no object to find (or where a physical cache could have been hidden or where an existing object could be used as stage in a multi-cache).

 

Waymarking was developed as a site where such locations could be shared. It also provided something similar for the concept of locationless caches - where you were asked to find something and then post its coordinates.

 

For various reasons, while locationless caches were removed entirely from Geocaching.com, virtuals and webcams were grandfathered. New virtual caches would no longer be published but the existing ones remained for geocachers to "find". Some new geocachers who never saw the problems caused by virtuals, have discovered that they enjoy being taken to interesting places via these grandfathered caches.

 

Many have not even looked at Waymarking to see how they can use that site to share interesting places. Some have and find that the category system is confusing. There are some categories that don't seem very wow. It's often a chore to find the category for the location you want to share and then you discover that that category wants you to provide specific information about the location. "I just want to share the coordinates so others can discover this place themselves. What's with all these variables I need to provide?"

 

Of course some people like to visit virtual caches while they are looking for physical geocaches. Since virtual caches show up in the same PQ as other caches, and in a format that can be used with various paperless solutions, it's easy to do this. Trying to combine visiting waymarks with geocaching and you have to download all sorts of third party tools to combine your PQ with the Waymarking download. And the Waymarking download doesn't have all the information you need to know if there are requirements for logging your visit, so it's hard to go paperless. And then there is the issue of Waymarking visits counting in your geoaching stats.

 

My solution would be to make some selected Waymarking categories visible as "virtual caches" to people using the geocaching website. They would show up in searches and be downloadable as part of the geocaching pocket query. You could log a "find" through the Geocaching.com website but it would actually be recorded on the Waymarking site, though it could still count in your statistics, or, if not, at lease have a tab with your Waymarking visits on your profile page. If you had a nice location to share, however, you would need to create a waymark and comply with the rules for that Waymarking category. The Waymarking category officers decide whether a virtual cache/waymark meets the requirements to be published, instead of the volunteer geocache reviewers.

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 won't even ask which one, but I bet that most are posted by one user and have never been visited, unless I visited it. Yes, you can bet your cache that the new virtuals will be the same. Still want them on the geocaching site?

 

BTW: What did you think of my waymark?

 

Personally I see no need to bring them back. It is even more pointless to put them on the Waymarking site if they are brought back. Why would I want to have to look on multiple sites for geocaching.com geocaches? If they have to come back I would like to see some limits.

 

Your waymarks look interesting. However, how many could have a cache hidden nearby or could even be used as the first leg of an offset leading to a container near by?

[GOF and Bacall]

Please send me a PM if you do not want to post the code to this cache, I just want to view it.

 

Thank you.

It's the only virt that I own. You should be able to track it down without too much trouble. I'll give you a hint to it's location. It's in Anaheim.

 

It also has the most favorite votes in my 50 mile radius.

Cool, seems like virtuals are getting a lot of favorites. I am sure that we would like to visit.

Also check out how many waymarks are listed at the site, 313 of them.

 

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[+Packanack]

"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.

[+SwineFlew]

Some people need to go caching more than arguing about virtuals coming back.

[+Avernar]

We have a peer review in Waymarking that allowes us to vote for or against a new category listing.

I'm an officer in several groups. I know how it works.

 

I would suggest limiting virtual cache categorys, then let PM's vote wheather to accept the listing or not.

 

Keep reviewers out of it, and let us users decide what gets listed.

Ugh. No categories please. That will just make things too repetitive to find. Or we'll need tons of categories and the system will become another Waymarking.

 

The problem with letting PMs vote is it's easy to game the system. People with a lot of friends will have no problem getting their crappy virtuals listed.

 

But it doesn't really matter if it's a reviewer, a bunch of reviewers, or a bunch of PMs. The main problem is the same thing that plagued the Wow test. Where do you draw the line? When someone got a cache rejected the ran to appeals and the forums with the "But *I* think it's a good virtual" argument.

 

A few months ago someone did try to create a category for sneakers hanging from power lines, it failed to pass the peer review.

I think virtuals should have something similar to reject junk like this.

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.

[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.

[+Packanack]

"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.

[+narcissa]

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.

[+Avernar]

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.

 

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.

 

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?

[+narcissa]

The problem with letting PMs vote is it's easy to game the system. People with a lot of friends will have no problem getting their crappy virtuals listed.

 

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