The Return Of Virtuals

[+cx1]

What have these cachers been doing for the last decade?

 

I don't understand what you are asking. The discussion is about a future implementation of bringing virtual caches back and what 'I' would recommend as guidelines for doing this.

 

As to the radius guideline;

I am sure there are examples where people have gotten permission to place traditional caches a great distance from their home location and are able to maintain these caches without difficulty. However these are a rare occurrence out of the 1.2 million caches that have been placed. The general guideline for cache placement is a reasonable distance based on their caching area.

The territory in which a geocacher is able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from one person to the next. An active geocacher who regularly visits areas hundreds of miles apart can demonstrate their ability to maintain a cache 100 miles from home. A geocacher whose previous finds and hides are all within 25 miles of their home would likely not see their cache published if placed 250 miles away from their home.

 

If you have special circumstances, please describe your maintenance plan on your cache page. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.

 

Now admittedly I may just be looking at this from a biased personal perspective since about 80% of my finds are within 50 miles of my home. But to me because of the limited amount of virtual caches a person would be allowed to place that a radius limit would not often be an issue. Currently the maximum number of new virtual caches an individual account could own is below 10 (I am unsure when premium membership was developed but I assume it was not the 1st year) so needing to travel a great distance to place their limited amount may not be an issue for most.

However I would find it acceptable to use the same distance from home coordinates for virtual caches that reviewers use for publishing traditional caches. I thought there was a general guideline with a specific 'rule of thumb' distance given but I could be mistaken on that.

[+sbell111]

Now admittedly I may just be looking at this from a biased personal perspective since about 80% of my finds are within 50 miles of my home. But to me because of the limited amount of virtual caches a person would be allowed to place that a radius limit would not often be an issue. Currently the maximum number of new virtual caches an individual account could own is below 10 (I am unsure when premium membership was developed but I assume it was not the 1st year) so needing to travel a great distance to place their limited amount may not be an issue for most.

However I would find it acceptable to use the same distance from home coordinates for virtual caches that reviewers use for publishing traditional caches. I thought there was a general guideline with a specific 'rule of thumb' distance given but I could be mistaken on that.

Where are you getting the bolded information?

[+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?

I don't understand what you are asking. The discussion is about a future implementation of bringing virtual caches back and what 'I' would recommend as guidelines for doing this.

You are making the argument that if no limit was put on the number of virts that an individual could own, then people would create so many of them that people who like regular caches wouldn't be able to place them in these ultracool areas. My question to you is if these areas are so awesome, why don't they already have caches placed there, thereby blocking the hypothetical future virts? Edited January 21, 2011 by sbell111

[+cx1]

You are making the argument that if no limit was put on the number of virts that an individual could own, then people would create so many of them that people who like regular caches wouldn't be able to place them in these ultracool areas. My question to you is if these areas are so awesome, why don't they already have caches placed there, thereby blocking the hypothetical future virts?

Actually I did not make that argument but rather addressed it in my proposal. From other posts in this thread (and previous threads about returning virtual caches)there appeared to be a concern from other people for the advent of virtual power trails and other improper issues with virtual caches. I do not have to agree with the potential of a problem to allow for that potential in my proposal and address a method of elimination or reduction of this potential.

 

As to why there is not currently a physical cache at a location where someone might wish to make a virtual cache:

- Many sites that would allow for a nice virtual cache do not support the placement of a proper physical container. Basically the thought behind virtual caches to begin with.

- Previous virtual caches have for various reasons been archived. These sits may still not be suitable for a physical container yet still would be an interesting place for a new virtual cache.

 

The bold bit from your other question comes from my original post in this thread where I propose to limit the amount of new virtual caches a premium member may place. I also explain why I propose that limit.

[+Manville Possum]

I don't want a limit on how many waymarks or caches of any type that I can own as long as they are maintained properly. I have some good caches that I could develope in historically accurate locations that are being blocked by some lame micros in parking lots that have nothing to do with the historic district.

[+sbell111]

You are making the argument that if no limit was put on the number of virts that an individual could own, then people would create so many of them that people who like regular caches wouldn't be able to place them in these ultracool areas. My question to you is if these areas are so awesome, why don't they already have caches placed there, thereby blocking the hypothetical future virts?

Actually I did not make that argument but rather addressed it in my proposal. From other posts in this thread (and previous threads about returning virtual caches)there appeared to be a concern from other people for the advent of virtual power trails and other improper issues with virtual caches. I do not have to agree with the potential of a problem to allow for that potential in my proposal and address a method of elimination or reduction of this potential.

I'm not a big proponent of solving problems that haven't been shown to exist. The mere fact that some have stated that the return of virts will result in virtual power trails doesn't 1) provide evidence that this will happen, and 2) explain why this would be a real problem.

As to why there is not currently a physical cache at a location where someone might wish to make a virtual cache:

- Many sites that would allow for a nice virtual cache do not support the placement of a proper physical container. Basically the thought behind virtual caches to begin with.

- Previous virtual caches have for various reasons been archived. These sits may still not be suitable for a physical container yet still would be an interesting place for a new virtual cache.

In the two examples you gave, virtual caches would not block a physical cache because no physical caches could be placed in the locations. Edited January 21, 2011 by sbell111

[+cx1]

I don't want a limit on how many waymarks or caches of any type that I can own as long as they are maintained properly. I have some good caches that I could develope in historically accurate locations that are being blocked by some lame micros in parking lots that have nothing to do with the historic district.

 

Ok, then how would you limit virtual caches to prevent virtual power trails or other potentially undesirable virtual caches without placing the determination burden on a 3rd party (reviewer or committee).

 

How do you purpose balancing your desire for historical importance of a cache with others who only enjoy finding caches irregardless of any historical significance? Many people enjoy finding and hiding micro caches in parking lots for many various reasons.

[+cx1]

I'm not a big proponent of solving problems that haven't been shown to exist. The mere fact that some have stated that the return of virts will result in virtual power trails doesn't 1) provide evidence that this will happen, and 2) explain why this would be a real problem.

 

True, but I am attempting to eliminate a potential argument that is often cited against the returning of virtual caches by addressing it directly in my proposal on how to return them.

 

In the two examples you gave, virtual caches would not block a physical cache because no physical caches could be placed in the locations.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point I was trying to make so let me try and clarify my position.

In any given area there are a limited amount of potentially 'good' locations for a virtual cache. Let us use for discussion a hypothetical area that has 10 'good' places. Now without any type of limit to the number of virtual caches a person can place it would be relatively easy for a single member to quickly 'claim' all 10 of those 'good' spots for a virtual. Now another cacher would like to place their own virtual cache as well. But the first cacher has taken all the 'good' spots so now cacher #2 might look for some 'not as good' places for their virtual. This could lead to some 'not so good' virtual caches. Limiting the number of virtual caches a member can create allows more cachers to also create 'good' virtual caches. This is a potential unproven problem similar to the potential virtual power-trail problem. I cannot provide proof that it would happen, but I see how it could happen.

I forecast that the moment new virtual caches are allowed to be submitted that reviewers will be swamped with new virtual cache submissions. Considering this, I might also recommend that each premium member only be allowed to submit one of their maximum amount of virtual caches per thirty day period.

[Clan Riffster]

Ok, then how would you limit virtual caches to prevent virtual power trails.

Dude! You're raining on my parade! I'm almost done collecting data, plotting locations, etc, for my 2300+ virtual power trail.

If something like this appeals to numbers cachers, why place any limits at all?

My run will give seekers over 2300 smileys in a 4 hour round trip drive.

How can that possibly be a bad thing?

[+tozainamboku]

I don't see anything wrong with a virtual power trail so long a non-virtual power trails are allowed. Whether there is need to limit the number of virtuals should they be brought back it likely based on other factors.

 

The basic issue is that TPTB have determined that

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.

Therefore they many want to keep a limit on the number of virtual caches simply to ensure that physical caches remain the emphasis of geocaching.

 

The original virtuals show that virtual caches open up cache ownership to many who might never place a physical cache. You do not need a container to place a virtual; you do not need to maintain the container or replace full log sheets; you don't need to worry that your container will cause problems; you have less issues obtaining permission. In fact many, including Jeremy, have argued that you don't need permission at all if the virtual is in a publicly accessible place. This generally lead to a lot of not very well though out virtuals being placed. It just too easy. In the past, the reviewers spent a great deal of time dealing with virtual placements that were not well thought out or didn't meet the guidelines - and not just the "wow" guideline. Limiting the number of virtuals that can be submitted may meke sense - particularly if the volunteer reviewers will be reviewing them.

[+Don_J]

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

 

Well I just crested the hill, (turned 50 two weeks ago), so I guess I'm an Old Fart too, because I agree with every thing you wrote.

[+Don_J]

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?

I don't understand what you are asking. The discussion is about a future implementation of bringing virtual caches back and what 'I' would recommend as guidelines for doing this.

You are making the argument that if no limit was put on the number of virts that an individual could own, then people would create so many of them that people who like regular caches wouldn't be able to place them in these ultracool areas. My question to you is if these areas are so awesome, why don't they already have caches placed there, thereby blocking the hypothetical future virts?

 

Ah! the old No one can place a cache on the ET highway theory. They have had ten years. You wait, you lose, (the spot).

[+Don_J]

I don't want a limit on how many waymarks or caches of any type that I can own as long as they are maintained properly. I have some good caches that I could develope in historically accurate locations that are being blocked by some lame micros in parking lots that have nothing to do with the historic district.

 

Ok, then how would you limit virtual caches to prevent virtual power trails or other potentially undesirable virtual caches without placing the determination burden on a 3rd party (reviewer or committee).

 

How do you purpose balancing your desire for historical importance of a cache with others who only enjoy finding caches irregardless of any historical significance? Many people enjoy finding and hiding micro caches in parking lots for many various reasons.

 

Simple.

Virtual caches must be 528' from any other virtual. If some nut job decides to set up a virtual on every off ramp of the Pennsylvania turnpike, then a reviewer should step in.

[+Manville Possum]

I don't want a limit on how many waymarks or caches of any type that I can own as long as they are maintained properly. I have some good caches that I could develope in historically accurate locations that are being blocked by some lame micros in parking lots that have nothing to do with the historic district.

 

Ok, then how would you limit virtual caches to prevent virtual power trails or other potentially undesirable virtual caches without placing the determination burden on a 3rd party (reviewer or committee).

 

How do you purpose balancing your desire for historical importance of a cache with others who only enjoy finding caches irregardless of any historical significance? Many people enjoy finding and hiding micro caches in parking lots for many various reasons.

Well, as a waymarker I see that we have over 1000 categorys. Many waymarks fit into multiple categorys. First, limit the number of virtual cache categorys. We don't need 1000 different ones like we have on Waymarking. Appoint review teams, not just one reviewer. Let the team vote whether or not the virtual cache fits the category, if the new listing is just a copy of a exsiting virtual cache, or a new one that stands on it's own. It is quite simple, and promixity is not a issue.

Edited January 22, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+sbell111]

I don't want a limit on how many waymarks or caches of any type that I can own as long as they are maintained properly. I have some good caches that I could develope in historically accurate locations that are being blocked by some lame micros in parking lots that have nothing to do with the historic district.

 

Ok, then how would you limit virtual caches to prevent virtual power trails or other potentially undesirable virtual caches without placing the determination burden on a 3rd party (reviewer or committee).

 

How do you purpose balancing your desire for historical importance of a cache with others who only enjoy finding caches irregardless of any historical significance? Many people enjoy finding and hiding micro caches in parking lots for many various reasons.

Well, as a waymarker I see that we have over 1000 categorys. Many waymarks fit into multiple categorys. First, limit the number of virtual cache categorys. We don't need 1000 different ones like we have on Waymarking. Appoint review teams, not just one reviewer. Let the team vote whether or not the virtual cache fits the category, if the new listing is just a copy of a exsiting virtual cache, or a new one that stands on it's own. It is quite simple, and promixity is not a issue.

This sounds like just another 'wow' review. This failed before and I don't see how building 'reviewer teams' would make the idea any better.

[+addisonbr]

This sounds like just another 'wow' review. This failed before and I don't see how building 'reviewer teams' would make the idea any better.

If they can create an illusion of third-party review, it could work. It seems to work with Earthcaches and the GSA.

[+sbell111]

I'm not a big proponent of solving problems that haven't been shown to exist. The mere fact that some have stated that the return of virts will result in virtual power trails doesn't 1) provide evidence that this will happen, and 2) explain why this would be a real problem.

 

True, but I am attempting to eliminate a potential argument that is often cited against the returning of virtual caches by addressing it directly in my proposal on how to return them.

I'm not interested in quelling potential arguments about hypothetical issues that haven't been shown to be a problem.

 

 

 

In the two examples you gave, virtual caches would not block a physical cache because no physical caches could be placed in the locations.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point I was trying to make so let me try and clarify my position.

In any given area there are a limited amount of potentially 'good' locations for a virtual cache. Let us use for discussion a hypothetical area that has 10 'good' places. Now without any type of limit to the number of virtual caches a person can place it would be relatively easy for a single member to quickly 'claim' all 10 of those 'good' spots for a virtual. Now another cacher would like to place their own virtual cache as well. But the first cacher has taken all the 'good' spots so now cacher #2 might look for some 'not as good' places for their virtual. This could lead to some 'not so good' virtual caches. Limiting the number of virtual caches a member can create allows more cachers to also create 'good' virtual caches. This is a potential unproven problem similar to the potential virtual power-trail problem. I cannot provide proof that it would happen, but I see how it could happen.

I forecast that the moment new virtual caches are allowed to be submitted that reviewers will be swamped with new virtual cache submissions. Considering this, I might also recommend that each premium member only be allowed to submit one of their maximum amount of virtual caches per thirty day period.

I did misunderstand your position. I thought that you were stating that the virts would be blocking traditional caches.

 

Of course, I'm not sure that we should be concerned with one person's virts taking the location away from other potential virt owners. In my mind, this is a game of 'first come, first served'. If I wish to place a cache (any kind of cache) in a spot and come to find that a cache is already there (or close enough to block mine), then my choices are to find a different location or not have my cache listed on gc.com.

 

Ok, then how would you limit virtual caches to prevent virtual power trails.

Dude! You're raining on my parade! I'm almost done collecting data, plotting locations, etc, for my 2300+ virtual power trail.

If something like this appeals to numbers cachers, why place any limits at all?

My run will give seekers over 2300 smileys in a 4 hour round trip drive.

How can that possibly be a bad thing?

I realize that you are being sarcastic, but what would be the problem if some players wanted to build and find virtual power trails?

[+sbell111]

This sounds like just another 'wow' review. This failed before and I don't see how building 'reviewer teams' would make the idea any better.

If they can create an illusion of third-party review, it could work. It seems to work with Earthcaches and the GSA.

I disagree that any 'wow' review would be successful. The moment that a cacher's cool spot is denied, it becomes an angst factory.

 

Caches should be listed based on whether they meet the black and white verbiage in the guidelines, not based on whether the cache owner is able to convince some person or persons of it's wowness.

Edited January 22, 2011 by sbell111

[+addisonbr]

This sounds like just another 'wow' review. This failed before and I don't see how building 'reviewer teams' would make the idea any better.

If they can create an illusion of third-party review, it could work. It seems to work with Earthcaches and the GSA.

I disagree that any 'wow' review would be successful. The moment that a cacher's cool spot is denied, it becomes an angst factory.

 

Caches should be listed based on whether they meet the black and white verbiage in the guidelines, not based on whether the cache owner is able to convince some person or persons of it's wowness.

All I'm saying is that subjective review of the placement seems to work for Earthcaches. They're reviewed for uniqueness, the quality of the eduation / lesson provided at the spot, etc. Perhaps some are unhappy with it, but it's hard to argue that Earthcaches haven't been successful on the whole.

[+cx1]

 

Well, as a waymarker I see that we have over 1000 categorys. Many waymarks fit into multiple categorys. First, limit the number of virtual cache categorys. We don't need 1000 different ones like we have on Waymarking. Appoint review teams, not just one reviewer. Let the team vote whether or not the virtual cache fits the category, if the new listing is just a copy of a exsiting virtual cache, or a new one that stands on it's own. It is quite simple, and promixity is not a issue.

 

Interesting perspective.

So how many categories would you use and why?

 

Who appoints the review teams? Would it be one team per category?

If it is a team per category and the the cache does not fit that category does the team forward the cache to the correct category?

 

Do the grandfathered virtual caches get put into categories?

 

If say a virtual cache can qualify for 3 categories do you incorporate all three categories on the same cache page or would it require three pages?

Would each page (if necessary) generate a unique GC number?

How many spots would this cache take in a pocket query (1 or 3)?

How many find counts would the cache generate per user as in would it be a find per category or a find per location?

 

Would each category use the same icon or one unique per category?

 

Would there be a sub-set type filtering so say a person who wants to just look at category A virtual cache on a map but not category B?

What would display if the virtual cache was in both categories?

 

The system you propose is rather complicated. It also does not seem lend itself well to the functions built into the geocaching website. In my opinion the reason Waymarking has not caught on as well as hoped is because of these same type of complications.

[+NCDaywalker]

I think one thing we can pretty much all agree on is no armchair virtuals. I am not sure how one can prevent armchair virtuals but there is a need for some kind of controls. For example, I recently was looking for some virtuals to visit on a road trip to pick up a family member in Georgia. I noticed that one had been recently visited by a cacher in Germany, yes I mean in Germany not from, read further. I thought how cool, looked at their profile and they had not only visited this one in the US on the same day but others that short of hopping a ride on a SR-71 Blackbird was physically impossible to do, in addition to these were some logs for countries in Europe the same day.

 

Should Virtuals not count toward your Total Finds ala Benchmarks? I am in favor of counting these as finds!

 

Should Virtuals be required to be educational ala Earthcaches? NO

 

Should Virtuals have specific requirements for logging? Example: requiring questions to answered about the site in addition to photos (ala Earthcaches). Yes

 

Should they be restricted to certain types of locations and if so what kind? Limit it to historic buildings/landmarks, statues, and monuments? Man-made objects only not natural ones (i.e. natural objects must be Earthcaches)? I can live with the virtual having to be historic buildings/landmarks, statues, and monuments? Man-made objects only.

 

Should saturation restrictions (the 0.1 mile limit) apply to Virtuals now? This could limit "Virtuals spam" and help limit them to areas where physical caches cannot be placed. Same as other caches 0.1 mi

 

Should their be some kind of voting process for Virtuals? no, go with the plan in place now with a Reviewer checking out the entry

 

Should Virtuals be banned from commercial property? Ex: no Disney World Virtuals. I would be inclined to favor prohibiting commercial caches where one has to pay a fee to enter to located the virtual. In addition to this, one may state that some state parks have admission fees to enter for caches and EC's. Soooooo.........

[+Packanack]

People liked them the way the were.

 

The so called problems were overstated. What do I care about somebody arm chair logging, it is not my game but his and does't affect me at all.

 

Even the sneaker in the woods ,wasn't a virt, it was a mystery or puzzle.

 

Leave the the way they were , make them a hiding per of premium membership and limit them to 10 hides per person. Hey, hiders with more than 50 total hides are a rarity any how.

[+cx1]

 

Caches should be listed based on whether they meet the black and white verbiage in the guidelines, not based on whether the cache owner is able to convince some person or persons of it's wowness.

 

I agree with that statement.

When I set about trying to conceive of how I would bring back virtual caches I paid close attention to what caused them to be grandfathered and concerns people have for bringing them back.

In no particular order:

- The subjective 'Wow" factor

- The 'one shoe in the woods' also know as 'the dead deer carcass' type virtual caches that are poor subjects.

- Arm chair logging.

- Potential virtual power-trails.

- Land remaining closed to physical caches if virtual caches are an option.

- Lack of a physical container disqualifies virtual caches as being classified as a cache by their very nature.

 

Now I tried to decide what would be the simplest method to address the majority of these concerns. Since it is impossible to force compliance to the 'spirit' of a rule the rules must be specific and as clear as possible. It should also work easily in the current web-site structure.

Limiting the number of virtual caches a person may place and having a somewhat secure method of verification eliminates or reduces most of the potential concerns.

It is not perfect, but I doubt any system is going to make all parties satisfied.

[+Manville Possum]

 

Well, as a waymarker I see that we have over 1000 categorys. Many waymarks fit into multiple categorys. First, limit the number of virtual cache categorys. We don't need 1000 different ones like we have on Waymarking. Appoint review teams, not just one reviewer. Let the team vote whether or not the virtual cache fits the category, if the new listing is just a copy of a exsiting virtual cache, or a new one that stands on it's own. It is quite simple, and promixity is not a issue.

 

Interesting perspective.

So how many categories would you use and why?

 

Who appoints the review teams? Would it be one team per category?

If it is a team per category and the the cache does not fit that category does the team forward the cache to the correct category?

 

Do the grandfathered virtual caches get put into categories?

 

If say a virtual cache can qualify for 3 categories do you incorporate all three categories on the same cache page or would it require three pages?

Would each page (if necessary) generate a unique GC number?

How many spots would this cache take in a pocket query (1 or 3)?

How many find counts would the cache generate per user as in would it be a find per category or a find per location?

 

Would each category use the same icon or one unique per category?

 

Would there be a sub-set type filtering so say a person who wants to just look at category A virtual cache on a map but not category B?

What would display if the virtual cache was in both categories?

 

The system you propose is rather complicated. It also does not seem lend itself well to the functions built into the geocaching website. In my opinion the reason Waymarking has not caught on as well as hoped is because of these same type of complications.

You seem to have quite a good understanding on the issues at hand. But let me just limit my answer to I feel that one listing should be placed in one category and not several different ones like we have on Waymarking.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Caches should be listed based on whether they meet the black and white verbiage in the guidelines, not based on whether the cache owner is able to convince some person or persons of it's wowness.

 

I agree with that statement.

When I set about trying to conceive of how I would bring back virtual caches I paid close attention to what caused them to be grandfathered and concerns people have for bringing them back.

In no particular order:

- The subjective 'Wow" factor

- The 'one shoe in the woods' also know as 'the dead deer carcass' type virtual caches that are poor subjects.

- Arm chair logging.

- Potential virtual power-trails.

- Land remaining closed to physical caches if virtual caches are an option.

- Lack of a physical container disqualifies virtual caches as being classified as a cache by their very nature.

 

Now I tried to decide what would be the simplest method to address the majority of these concerns. Since it is impossible to force compliance to the 'spirit' of a rule the rules must be specific and as clear as possible. It should also work easily in the current web-site structure.

Limiting the number of virtual caches a person may place and having a somewhat secure method of verification eliminates or reduces most of the potential concerns.

It is not perfect, but I doubt any system is going to make all parties satisfied.

 

 

The WOW factor can be resolved quite easily with a simple "like/dislike" button (like the one that was used for facebook for a while) for the finders and after X number of finds the highest like or dislike determines the fate of the cache. This relieves the reviewer from having to make a decision on how much WOW the cache has and lets the finders voice their opinions. If it is liked it will stay, if it isn't liked it can be archived. As to the dead deer carcass and similar caches, use the SBA button and Explain what the problem with the cache is and let the reviewer make his call as to whether or not it stays.

 

As to armchair loggers, just require a picture of the finder and their GPSr. As I stated earlier, the finder can face away from the camera or have their hat pulled down over their eyes, if they so choose, but they would need to be at the cache site to get the picture taken and get credit for the find.

 

I don't do power trails, but what is the difference between current power trails and a virtual power trail. It is only the cache type.

 

Land remaining close to physical caches is a red herring. If the land manager doesn't want regular caches now, but allows grandfathered virtuals, then they can just point to Waymarking and say "waymark it, but no containers"

 

They are called virtual caches now, so the precedence has already been set. It is just a word game to argue whether or not it is a cache. If it is listed on Geocaching.com and has been called a cache for 10 years or more, it must be a cache.

 

Limiting the number a person can place does nothing to ensure quality caches. If I am allowed to place 10 caches and all 10 are mediocre to lousy - hey I got my Icon for hiding virtuals. I have seen regular caches by cachers that should never have been allowed to hide even the first one. Just because it is a virtual, things will not be any different.

 

John

[+cx1]

 

The WOW factor can be resolved quite easily with a simple "like/dislike" button (like the one that was used for facebook for a while) for the finders and after X number of finds the highest like or dislike determines the fate of the cache. This relieves the reviewer from having to make a decision on how much WOW the cache has and lets the finders voice their opinions. If it is liked it will stay, if it isn't liked it can be archived. As to the dead deer carcass and similar caches, use the SBA button and Explain what the problem with the cache is and let the reviewer make his call as to whether or not it stays.

 

But is the like/dislike function as simple as it sounds? If you base it on number of finds then it would seem that those who find it would be required to vote. Otherwise it would be possible to reach the find count with no votes given. Forcing people to vote will anger some members.

Now given the people that do vote, do they actually vote about the cache? At first glance one might think that yes it is only about the cache. But after reading the thread about soliciting for favorite votes it seems people will withhold a positive vote based on criteria other then the cache itself.

You would also need to consider that there are people who dislike virtual caches to such an extent that they will go find them, just to vote dislike on them to get them archived.

Also once you start down the path of voting to either keep or archive a virtual cache people will want the same ability on other cache types.

 

The SBA was not good enough to satisfy people about 'deer carcass' virtual caches in the past, why would it work now? I agree it 'should' work but the history seems to prove otherwise.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

The WOW factor can be resolved quite easily with a simple "like/dislike" button (like the one that was used for facebook for a while) for the finders and after X number of finds the highest like or dislike determines the fate of the cache. This relieves the reviewer from having to make a decision on how much WOW the cache has and lets the finders voice their opinions. If it is liked it will stay, if it isn't liked it can be archived. As to the dead deer carcass and similar caches, use the SBA button and Explain what the problem with the cache is and let the reviewer make his call as to whether or not it stays.

 

But is the like/dislike function as simple as it sounds? If you base it on number of finds then it would seem that those who find it would be required to vote. Otherwise it would be possible to reach the find count with no votes given. Forcing people to vote will anger some members.

Now given the people that do vote, do they actually vote about the cache? At first glance one might think that yes it is only about the cache. But after reading the thread about soliciting for favorite votes it seems people will withhold a positive vote based on criteria other then the cache itself.

You would also need to consider that there are people who dislike virtual caches to such an extent that they will go find them, just to vote dislike on them to get them archived.

Also once you start down the path of voting to either keep or archive a virtual cache people will want the same ability on other cache types.

 

The SBA was not good enough to satisfy people about 'deer carcass' virtual caches in the past, why would it work now? I agree it 'should' work but the history seems to prove otherwise.

 

 

Actually it is as simple as it sounds. You already have to click several buttons from drop down menus, so 1 more buttom wouldn't be that much more to require. People will vote for/against the cache if they need only select like or dislike from the drop down. The voting can be hidden so no one need reveal their identity when voting. Just show the votes when the cache is archived.

 

If there are people who hate virtuals that much, that they will fore-go doing the kind of caches they really like it will not have that much of an effect on the outcome. 1 person voting dislike out of 10 or 15 or whatever the total number of votes would be would not have enough weight to get the cache archived. I just cannot see anyone going to that much trouble when there is an ignore function available and when you can select only certain types of caches when you do a Pocket Query.

 

Maybe the cachers were not smart enough to use SBA when virtuals were allowed.

 

Either way if enough people find a cache that is in bad taste it will be voted down. Suppose the total number of votes will be 13, if the first 7 votes are dislike, then that would be enough to archive the cache, since that would be more than half of the total votes.

 

What people want and what they get does not always happen. Groundspeak already allow voting by means of "Favorites", which is not to much different than like/dislike, only without the option of archiving the poor caches.

 

John

[+sseegars]

I miss when I first started caching. There weren't so many problems.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I miss when I first started caching. There weren't so many problems.

 

There weren't so many cachers to have problems.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I miss when I first started caching. There weren't so many problems.

 

These problems only exist in the forums. When we step away from our computers and go search for caches, all is fine.

 

This thread, especially, is about problems that only exist in the forum. People have chosen to have an endless argument over something that doesn't exist... guidelines for placing virtual caches. Right now, you can't place virtual caches. TPTB have indicated that they plan to bring them back. When they do, they will provide us with guidelines. Those of us who want to place virtuals will follow those guidelines. Those of us who enjoy finding virtuals will have some new ones to search for.

 

But all of this endless arguments about what some people would like to see in the guidelines... what's the point? Seriously, people. Go geocaching. Have fun. Y'all are getting all worked up over a phantasm.

[+addisonbr]

People have chosen to have an endless argument over something that doesn't exist... guidelines for placing virtual caches. Right now, you can't place virtual caches. TPTB have indicated that they plan to bring them back. When they do, they will provide us with guidelines.

...

But all of this endless arguments about what some people would like to see in the guidelines... what's the point?

I think for some, if there is a chance that Groundspeak is following these threads and folks could have some influence over the new guidelines, it can be worth speaking up.

[cezanne]

They exist just fine on Waymarking, and that site allows others to submit similar items in the spirit of the old locationless type.

Virtuals go something like this: "I'm too lazy to maintain a geocache here, so visit the statue at these coordinates and tell me how many arms it has to claim a find."

 

This is just one possible scenario for a virtual cache. I have an almost finished concept for a cache: I do have the initial puzzle leading to the location and questions/tasks which play a role in showing around the cacher at the location and in initiating reflection and learning processes. If showing and sharing the location would be my only goal, it might be conceivable to use the Waymarking site (though I would have to need a surprise category as I neither want to tell in advance what is to be found at the location nor to give away the coordinates of the location). Regardless of how many people use the Waymarking site, whether smilies are earned there and how user-friendly the system is, Waymarking is not well-suited for implementing what I have in mind.

 

By hiding a container I can turn my idea into a conventional cache. I have paid about five extended visits to the area and I simply could not find a hideout fulfilling all my criteria. Even when searching for a hideout I arose suspicion in some areas, others are off-limit for various other reasons (too dirty, problems with private property and trespassing issues if cachers are not carefully following the instructions, too many muggles, hideout cannot be found in Winter time, closeness to playing grounds etc). I am definitely not too lazy to maintain a geocache, but I have certain expectations on a cache and my preferred variant would be a virtual cache. I do not want to hide a container at a place with which I am not satisfied just to be able to implement my cache idea. I am convinced that I could come up with logging requirements that will reduce the number of cheaters to an equally low level than for caches with a log book.

 

There are many places where a cache container could be hidden, but where I neither would hide one nor would like to search for one. Among these locations, there are many which I would enjoy to visit in a cache-induced way (i.e. going there, being guided by the cache description and the GPS-r, fulfilling some tasks etc).

 

I am not optimistic that the new concept of virtual caches will meet my expectations and I also fear that there will be a wave of lame virtuals (in the same way as there is a wave of lame physical caches). Nevertheless I do not think that Waymarking is an appropriate site for everything that could be implemented as virtual caches.

 

Cezanne

[+GeoGeeBee]

People have chosen to have an endless argument over something that doesn't exist... guidelines for placing virtual caches. Right now, you can't place virtual caches. TPTB have indicated that they plan to bring them back. When they do, they will provide us with guidelines.

...

But all of this endless arguments about what some people would like to see in the guidelines... what's the point?

I think for some, if there is a chance that Groundspeak is following these threads and folks could have some influence over the new guidelines, it can be worth speaking up.

 

But this isn't the feedback forum. There's no reason to expect Groundspeak to wade through these ridiculous arguments to try to find some nugget of Guideline Goodness.

[+addisonbr]

But this isn't the feedback forum. There's no reason to expect Groundspeak to wade through these ridiculous arguments to try to find some nugget of Guideline Goodness.

I suspect that these threads aren't being ignored.

 

A recent feedback topic regarding power trails was closed by Groundspeak, with the instruction that the forums are a better place for policy and guidelines discussions (as opposed to feature requests and bugs). I don't think it's unreasonable to take Groundspeak at their word on that.

[+sbell111]

The voting can be hidden so no one need reveal their identity when voting. ...

First, let me state again that voting for wowness is a seriously bad idea for many reasons. Hiding the votes only exacerbates those issues.

 

If people are going to have the power to vote 'no' for a cache and get it archived, then they need to do it in the light of day.

[+narcissa]

People have chosen to have an endless argument over something that doesn't exist... guidelines for placing virtual caches. Right now, you can't place virtual caches. TPTB have indicated that they plan to bring them back. When they do, they will provide us with guidelines.

...

But all of this endless arguments about what some people would like to see in the guidelines... what's the point?

I think for some, if there is a chance that Groundspeak is following these threads and folks could have some influence over the new guidelines, it can be worth speaking up.

 

But this isn't the feedback forum. There's no reason to expect Groundspeak to wade through these ridiculous arguments to try to find some nugget of Guideline Goodness.

 

And what, exactly, is the point of scolding people over a long discussion that interests them? There are interesting ideas being bounced around, and maybe some of them will creep into the feedback site when they've had some exposure to other people's thoughts and ideas. Maybe people just like to talk. Who cares? If you want to go caching, go. It's nearly -40 here with the wind chill, so if you don't mind, I plan to stay inside today.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The WOW factor can be resolved quite easily with a simple "like/dislike" button (like the one that was used for facebook for a while) for the finders and after X number of finds the highest like or dislike determines the fate of the cache. This relieves the reviewer from having to make a decision on how much WOW the cache has and lets the finders voice their opinions. If it is liked it will stay, if it isn't liked it can be archived. As to the dead deer carcass and similar caches, use the SBA button and Explain what the problem with the cache is and let the reviewer make his call as to whether or not it stays.

 

That will lead to large numbers of Virtuals being published and archived. (Good for the numbers people, perhaps...)

I like the idea of a volunteer review board. This takes the blame/angst out of the reviewers fins. Anyone who likes Virtuals (has found 50 or more) may volunteer to review proposed Virtuals. (I'll volunteer to review two a week.) A random panel of volunteers (30 perhaps?) is given all of the information. They vote Yes, No, Abstain, or No Vote, I'm on vacation. One week review time. Majority votes yes, the cache is published. Majority not reached, the cache is turned down. No recriminations to the reviewers.

[+niraD]

I think that if virtual caches come back, then they should follow the model of EarthCaches. The old guidelines for virtual caches didn't work, which is why Groundspeak stopped listing them in the first place. The current guidelines for EarthCaches work. The one change I'd make would be to expand them to fields other than geoscience (e.g., history, technology, literature).

[+texasgrillchef]

This thread is covering everything under the sun about Virtuals... Way to BROAD a topic for one thread... probably one of the reasons this thread is WAY TO LONG allready 7 pages plus.

 

Thats why I started a thread about my idea for guidelines... Nothing more... Nothing less. It is just about if you think MY IDEA of guidelines is good or bad, & why.

 

It isn't about if we should or should not have virtuals. I have NO desires to discuss if we should or shouldn't.

 

I wasn't very pleased about my thread getting locked. What a joke... Freedom of speech here in these forums? Yeah right.

 

Am I PO... You bet I am... am I venting.. of course I am. I have every right to be. If you dont' think so.. Then thats your RIGHT.

 

The reason I started My thread is to discuss my ideas about the Virtual guidelines.. not everything else under the sun about virtuals.

 

TGC

[Clan Riffster]

... Freedom of speech here in these forums? Yeah right.

what a quaint little notion. I don't recall seeing anything in 1st Amendment covering Internet forums owned by private companies. Could you provide some supporting documentation for that notion? If you can demonstrate that you have a "right", (ergo, a privilege protected by law), to post anything that comes to mind in here, the Moderators, (including the one who told you to post your ideas in this thread and not create a separate one), could all take an extended vacation and catch up on caching.

[+The Blorenges]

Maybe we should all start our own individual topics to discuss only our opinions of how "the New Virtuals" should be administered?

 

 

Yeah... that'll work well.

 

MrsB

[+Sioneva]

<snip>

The reason I started My thread is to discuss my ideas about the Virtual guidelines.. not everything else under the sun about virtuals.

 

TGC

 

Um, aren't others allowed to discuss their ideas as well? That's what this thread is here for...

[GOF and Bacall]

This thread is covering everything under the sun about Virtuals... Way to BROAD a topic for one thread... probably one of the reasons this thread is WAY TO LONG allready 7 pages plus.

 

Thats why I started a thread about my idea for guidelines... Nothing more... Nothing less. It is just about if you think MY IDEA of guidelines is good or bad, & why.

 

It isn't about if we should or should not have virtuals. I have NO desires to discuss if we should or shouldn't.

 

I wasn't very pleased about my thread getting locked. What a joke... Freedom of speech here in these forums? Yeah right.

 

Am I PO... You bet I am... am I venting.. of course I am. I have every right to be. If you dont' think so.. Then thats your RIGHT.

 

The reason I started My thread is to discuss my ideas about the Virtual guidelines.. not everything else under the sun about virtuals.

 

TGC

[+cx1]

This thread is covering everything under the sun about Virtuals... Way to BROAD a topic for one thread... probably one of the reasons this thread is WAY TO LONG allready 7 pages plus.

 

Thats why I started a thread about my idea for guidelines... Nothing more... Nothing less. It is just about if you think MY IDEA of guidelines is good or bad, & why.

 

It isn't about if we should or should not have virtuals. I have NO desires to discuss if we should or shouldn't.

 

I wasn't very pleased about my thread getting locked. What a joke... Freedom of speech here in these forums? Yeah right.

 

Am I PO... You bet I am... am I venting.. of course I am. I have every right to be. If you dont' think so.. Then thats your RIGHT.

 

The reason I started My thread is to discuss my ideas about the Virtual guidelines.. not everything else under the sun about virtuals.

 

TGC

 

This thread started with a similar idea to your thread.

You see the problem is that you can't have a discussion on this forum just about how implement the return of virtual caches.

The anti-virtual cache crowd can not help themselves, they must post about not wanting the return of virtual caches. They simply must.

It does not matter that the TPTB have stated that virtual caches are going to return. The anti-virtual people must still speak out about it no matter how politely you ask them not to.

It does not matter if you give them their own thread to complain about virtual caches. They will still insist on speaking out on all threads relating to virtual caches.

You could start a thread on what icon the new virtual caches should have and the anti-virtual people will still post there about virtual caches should not return.

That is why these threads about virtual caches go on and on. It had already started in your thread by about the 2nd post.

[GOF and Bacall]

Welcome to the wonderful world of the internet. This your first day?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Welcome to the wonderful world of the internet. This your first day?

 

Perhaps it is his first day.

 

He must not be too familiar with forum guidelines, since he opened a new thread discussing his ideas on virtuals after his first thread on that topic was closed.

 

John

[+bflentje]

... Freedom of speech here in these forums? Yeah right.

what a quaint little notion. I don't recall seeing anything in 1st Amendment covering Internet forums owned by private companies. Could you provide some supporting documentation for that notion? If you can demonstrate that you have a "right", (ergo, a privilege protected by law), to post anything that comes to mind in here, the Moderators, (including the one who told you to post your ideas in this thread and not create a separate one), could all take an extended vacation and catch up on caching.

 

Thank you. Agreeing with the Riffster here.

[+niraD]

Freedom of speech here in these forums? Yeah right.

As others have said, freedom of speech (or of the press) doesn't apply here. Actually, it does, but not the way you think. Here, it protects the right of the forum owner (Groundspeak) to control what is said (or printed). And they do so, through the forum moderators.

 

Am I PO... You bet I am...

Am I the only one who read that as "Am I Poison Oak... You bet I am..."? But I digress...

 

am I venting.. of course I am. I have every right to be. If you dont' think so.. Then thats your RIGHT.

The owner of the forum has granted you the freedom to post here, as long as you respect the forum guidelines. If you violate those guidelines, then you'll find your freedom to post here severely restricted.

 

And FWIW, I thought your new thread duplicated this one too. But I am not a forum moderator here, so my opinion carries little weight.

[WildNTexas]

Hmmm did a moderator delete my post?

 

It was here

 

WNT

[+cx1]

Hmmm did a moderator delete my post?

 

It was here

 

WNT

I can't speak to if it was deleted by a moderator, but I did see it here earlier.

I am not surprised it disappeared though.

 

Back on topic I still like my idea for future virtual caches.