Once Groundspeak brings back virtuals, what are you going to "hide"?

[+FloridaFour]

I found some cool storage tanks in a park, that are painted with gorgeous local wildlife murals. I'd have people find them, and tell me what is on the murals.

 

Another cool thing would be to have people tour the local recycling plants and show pictures of themselves taking the tour.

 

Anything that brings people to places that rescue wildlife such as our local seabird sanctuary, marine life rescue center, etc.

 

The virtuals that I like are the ones that REALLY make you look at something, not just glance at it. Interact with how the cache owner is thinking. I found one that is a two trees intertwined...but actually it is 3 different trees intertwined. It's in a park I have been to many times, but just have not noticed this. It's an interesting biological observation and a chance to look at the world more carefully.

 

Not just the ones that say, "Go here and take a picture", but really interact and experience something. I guess Wherigo would work like that, but Wherigo is a bit more of a hassle because it requires a certain type of gps or phone.

 

And why do perfectly good questions have to be trampled on by people? Either answer the question asked, or go create your own debate/trainwreck on another thread. I'm sure I'll regret typing these words later.

Edited February 23, 2011 by FloridaFour

[+Borst68]

I am planning a "virtual power trail". It will run from Buffalo, NY to Utica, NY along route 5. It will consist of every other telephone pole for the entire 200 mile distance. Since its virtual, there will be no need to litter the earth with 2000 film canisters. It will also eliminate the "throw downs" and the "leap frogging". Since you won't (technically) be required to stop at any of these poles, the world record will be determined by how fast you are willing/able to drive the route and how few speeding tickets you get.

 

Seriously, I have a couple of ideas in mind but would need to see the new guidelines to ensure they fit the criteria. I would rather see very restrictive guidelines in place than very lax ones. I don't want this to end up like Waymarking where half of the waymarks in my area are Tim Horton Donut shops. (Sorry Gof, I know how much you like the donut...)

[+Kyle98632]

I am pretty excited about the idea of bring back virtuals, but as a few have said I think we need to see how they will come into play in the game before making up new viturals. Here are a couple of histroic buildings in my city where placement of physical caches isnt possible. Ive considered mystery caches based off them, but virtuals would also be interesting. My city also has the worlds only bridge built for squirrels, though Im not sure how I could make it a vitrual without having any information not found online...yet

[+Packanack]

I have 5 stacked in queue for the day they come back and if they meet guidelines for the new virtuals it is click, click and published. I go out and look around to see what would make a good one. I found a place where The Underground Railway was located in Paterson NJ, and it just so happens to be next to the Central Police Station where I do not think they would want a traditional cache, but it is of significant historical importance that I think it can be justified.

[+TerraViators]

There's this really cool wooden telephone pole down the street from me. I want to make that a virtual cache and ask finders to email me the pole number.

 

Then there's this rotting animal carcass back in the woods behind the school. I can ask finders to email me what kind of animal it is/was.

 

Or the penny that's been smashed into the railroad tracks next to the post office. You can still read the year on the penny! I can make it a virtual so people can see it and email me that year. Wouldn't that be cool?

Funny!

 

There's also a cool looking box under a bridge with an exposed wire. It's dark there, so you will have to illuminate the area with a lighter.

[TheCacheSeeker]

I'm going to create a physical cache that's located at a telephone pole that overlooks a rock outcropping. That way, people can find the physical cache, tell whether the rock is sedimentary or not(earthcache), and then send me the number on the telephone pole. That way they can get 3 finds in one spot.

 

Hey, wait a minute, I could create a geotrail of them. A 1000 in a row of the triplets. And then there could be new records made. 3000 in one day! That would be so awesome!

Congragulations! You gave me a super good idea for an earthcache!!!!

[+narcissa]

if geocachers had stayed involved with Waymarking over the past 5 years

 

If Groundspeak had ever put in the effort to make an appealing, workable site, perhaps this could have happened. It did not. Time to move on.

 

In case it escaped your notice, this post is about virtual geocaches, not Failmarking.

[cezanne]

I find it quite interesting that among all the ideas for potential future virtual caches (except my own), only single stage constructions showed up. I have several ideas for potential virtuals (even if I am quite convinced that Groundspeak will never make it possible to realize them), but most of them are multi-stage based and some of them involve some mystery component.

For example, I could think of several interesting city walks with specialized themes (appealing only to a minority group of cachers) where hiding a container does not contribute anything to the idea of the cache (in many cases hiding a container would even fail to the high cache density in these areas and moreover I would prefer not to block some areas by a physical container that does not have any value for me as it would be hidden at an arbitrary location with no connection to the topic of the cache, while others might want to hide a container there which is of relevance to their cache). Do not mention Waymarking as an alternative - I know the related groups, but they are not what I am looking for to realize my concepts.

 

Cezanne

[+DanOCan]

I sort of feel bad for Waymarking. When I am traveling I find Waymarking to be very useful for finding places of interest. When we were in PA a couple years back I used the Waymarking site to locate many great covered bridges -- a lot of which had caches as well, but some did not. It took some time to hide the categories I have no interest in (Starbucks, etc) but after that it was great. I didn't think the amount of effort I put into it was any more than I do filtering caches that don't interest me.

 

Anyway, don't want to stray any further OT, so...

 

Until Groundspeak releases the guidelines for how Virtuals will come back any discussion of what I plan on hiding is irrelevant. No point in designing a solution when I don't know the requirements yet.

 

Actually, I don't plan on hiding any Virtuals. I believe part of the reason Virtuals are appealing is because they were grandfathered and are becoming increasingly rare. Bringing them back really causes them to lose their appeal to me. I suspect many locals will rush to "hide" their own just to get the icon on that aide of their profile so there won't be any need for me to contribute in that regard.

[+Castle Mischief]

Until Groundspeak releases the guidelines for how Virtuals will come back any discussion of what I plan on hiding is irrelevant. No point in designing a solution when I don't know the requirements yet.any need for me to contribute in that regard.

 

My thoughts exactly. I have this funny feeling that some of the bumps in the road when Virts do come back will be caused by cachers trying to make locations that they have in mind fit the guidelines that haven't been written.

[cezanne]

Until Groundspeak releases the guidelines for how Virtuals will come back any discussion of what I plan on hiding is irrelevant. No point in designing a solution when I don't know the requirements yet.

 

Maybe the question rather should have been what virtual caches one would like to hide provided of course the guidelines allows one to do so. That question also makes sense right now. Of course, the answer that one has not thought about it is a valid answer to that question.

 

I believe part of the reason Virtuals are appealing is because they were grandfathered and are becoming increasingly rare. Bringing them back really causes them to lose their appeal to me.

 

That's not true at all for me, neither when searching for caches nor when hiding caches (I do already own a virtual cache). I appreciate virtual caches in all situations where I neither want to search for nor to hide a container, and there are plenty of such. I'd actually say in urban settings this is even true for the majority of locations. I do enjoy every well done Earthcache, regardless of how many exist. The same would be true for caches with historic, artistic, biological etc focus.

 

It's much easier with the concept of a virtual cache than with a waymark to integrate some active part on the side of the finder. Take e.g. the waymark group permanent orienteering courses. The goal there is just to collect a list of those courses and the visitor is just asked to post some photos and is not required to visit and to find all the markers of the course. Creating a new group not only for each type of object, but also each type of activity someone would like to ask for would be crazy and lead to an even less usable site than the current Waymarking site. For me the integrated activity part is the most important aspect of geocaching, regardless of whether there is a container or not. For that reason, I have of course many ideas for future virtual caches and this does not depend on how the guidelines will look like.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 24, 2011 by cezanne

[+klipsch49er]

Virtual caches can be annoying.

 

Having said that... I love Earth Caches! They shoud do a similar approach for Histoic virtuals, reviewers could assure the lame are excluded.

[+Ecylram]

I'm planning a virtual at the new Walmart down the street. Probably have cachers give me the number off the dumpster bin. I really hope nobody takes my idea.

 

After that I'll probably do a series on restaurant greasebins of the American South. It's an under-appreciated aspect of American culture.

[+FloridaFour]

Having said that... I love Earth Caches! They shoud do a similar approach for Histoic virtuals, reviewers could assure the lame are excluded.

 

I like that idea.

 

I also like Cezanne's idea of a multi step virtual. Call it a self-guided walking tour, but aided by a gps, I think it's cool.

 

Again, this is similar to Wherigo, but would make it more available for people...but I guess Wherigo wouldn't make as much money that way...

[+GeoGeeBee]

Again, this is similar to Wherigo, but would make it more available for people...but I guess Wherigo wouldn't make as much money that way...

 

As far as I can tell, "Wherigo" doesn't make any money. The tools to build a Wherigo cartridge are free, and there are free players available for GPS-enabled smart phones.

[+currykev]

My intent in the fourth paragraph was that if geocachers had stayed involved with Waymarking over the past 5 years we would have seen the development of categories that supported what people enjoyed about virtuals (other than the smiley),

 

I do not agree at all with you on this aspect. You might be right with respect to the development of categories that capture what you enjoy about virtual caches.

I am familiar with your Best Kept Secrets category and other waymark categories which contain locations that I regard as worth to visit, but which to not satisfy my idea of

a virtual cache. I could not think of a reasonable category one could try to suggest to integrate virtual caches of the type I have in mind (I mentioned further above my last cache as example of a cache that I would have liked to set up as virtual in a slightly different way than its current form). Waymarking is much better suited to deal with virtual traditionals than with virtual multi-stage caches with and without mystery components.

 

I agree with you, however, on another aspect. I am pretty sure that the way virtuals will return will leave many unhappy (most likely myself included).

 

Cezanne

 

I read that 3 times and still don't know what you said.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Then there's this rotting animal carcass back in the woods behind the school. I can ask finders to email me what kind of animal it is/was.

Dang, you took my idea.

[cezanne]

My intent in the fourth paragraph was that if geocachers had stayed involved with Waymarking over the past 5 years we would have seen the development of categories that supported what people enjoyed about virtuals (other than the smiley),

 

I do not agree at all with you on this aspect. You might be right with respect to the development of categories that capture what you enjoy about virtual caches.

I am familiar with your Best Kept Secrets category and other waymark categories which contain locations that I regard as worth to visit, but which to not satisfy my idea of

a virtual cache. I could not think of a reasonable category one could try to suggest to integrate virtual caches of the type I have in mind (I mentioned further above my last cache as example of a cache that I would have liked to set up as virtual in a slightly different way than its current form). Waymarking is much better suited to deal with virtual traditionals than with virtual multi-stage caches with and without mystery components.

 

I agree with you, however, on another aspect. I am pretty sure that the way virtuals will return will leave many unhappy (most likely myself included).

 

Cezanne

 

I read that 3 times and still don't know what you said.

 

The reason might be that for most readers here the predominant concept of cache is a single stage cache (look e.g. at your profile and at mine) and they associate caching with showing/sharing a location.

My focus is a different one.

 

Cezanne

[+narcissa]

Having said that... I love Earth Caches! They shoud do a similar approach for Histoic virtuals, reviewers could assure the lame are excluded.

 

I like that idea.

 

I also like Cezanne's idea of a multi step virtual. Call it a self-guided walking tour, but aided by a gps, I think it's cool.

 

Again, this is similar to Wherigo, but would make it more available for people...but I guess Wherigo wouldn't make as much money that way...

 

I have done several multi-waypoint virtuals - they're some of my favourites.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Having said that... I love Earth Caches! They shoud do a similar approach for Histoic virtuals, reviewers could assure the lame are excluded.

 

I like that idea.

 

I also like Cezanne's idea of a multi step virtual. Call it a self-guided walking tour, but aided by a gps, I think it's cool.

 

Again, this is similar to Wherigo, but would make it more available for people...but I guess Wherigo wouldn't make as much money that way...

 

I have done several multi-waypoint virtuals - they're some of my favourites.

 

I started to say "me too," but then realized I haven't. The caches I was thinking of were not multi-waypoint virtuals, they were just multis. The "virtual" part came as one toured a variety of locations, gathering information to plug in to a formula to determine the coordinates for the final, which was a traditional container with a log.

 

So for anyone willing to hide a container, the "multi-waypoint virtual" can be done right now. No need to wait for GS to bring back virtuals.

[+hzoi]

We're thinking of a few places that we've been that weren't related enough to earth science to support an earthcache. But we want OUR caches there, not someone else's, so we're not telling.

[cezanne]

So for anyone willing to hide a container, the "multi-waypoint virtual" can be done right now. No need to wait for GS to bring back virtuals.

 

The key point for me is rather whether the container does any positive to the resulting cache. Of course I can set up a guided walk through a cemetary which focuses

on historical, architectural and artistic aspects of the area and then hide a container outside at a very mundane location not fitting to the spirit of the cache at all.

That's however nothing that makes me happy.

 

Also in case of my last cache I had to hide a container not fitting at all to the spirit of the cache because the key location of the cache is off-limit and the surroundings do

not offer anything that is really worth a container. In case virtuals existed, that cache certainly would have ended up as virtual.

 

Moreover, I noticed that in case of virtual caches which deal with e.g. with a location which played a tragic role in history the typical logs are not logs of the type "quick after work cache" as in the case of virtuals it is possible to ask questions and so the logger has to deal with the location which is important for me in case of caches which have not been placed with the intent of offering a hide and seek game to others. It is almost unbearable to me to read logs of the quick after work cache at locations where hundreds/thousands of people suffered in an unbelievable way as e.g. in internment camps.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 25, 2011 by cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

Looks like the feedback forum is much more active in wanting virtuals reinstated than this thread. Bring them back!

[+Vater_Araignee]

So for anyone willing to hide a container, the "multi-waypoint virtual" can be done right now. No need to wait for GS to bring back virtuals.

 

The key point for me is rather whether the container does any positive to the resulting cache.

It may not for you as the hider but for me as the finder it does. I have never experienced that "Found It" moment with a virt or an earthcache. They are waymarks, waymarks that I cant prove I visited by simply adding my Flag. It is the physical act of striking claim on the spot that is a geocache. Well that and the fact that there is actually a cache.

A multiple waypoint puzzle using virtual elements to lead one to a cache is vastly more appealing to the geocacher inside.

[cezanne]

So for anyone willing to hide a container, the "multi-waypoint virtual" can be done right now. No need to wait for GS to bring back virtuals.

 

The key point for me is rather whether the container does any positive to the resulting cache.

It may not for you as the hider but for me as the finder it does. I have never experienced that "Found It" moment with a virt or an earthcache. They are waymarks, waymarks that I cant prove I visited by simply adding my Flag. It is the physical act of striking claim on the spot that is a geocache. Well that and the fact that there is actually a cache.

A multiple waypoint puzzle using virtual elements to lead one to a cache is vastly more appealing to the geocacher inside.

 

That's of course something subjective - I am fully aware of that. For me finding a film container at a traffic sign next to a building in a city, say e.g. a wellness centre, feels much more like Waymarking than an Earthcache for which I have to hike to a cave and then experience some adventure there and learn something about earth science.

It is the experience on the way that finds a place in my memory and that counts for me. Typically Waymarking focuses on a location and not on the way to the location and on having been there and not on the adventures on the way. (Of course there are exceptions)

 

I have hidden several multi/mystery caches with virtual elements where I feel comfortable with having a container at the end, namely in forest and mountain areas. In the case of my last cache, however, having to hide a container was a real burden to me and I hate the hideout myself as the whole area is not offering any spot where I enjoy searching for a cache.

 

Cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

I've had a few idea's but nothing certain yet. What are you guys going to "hide" with the new virtuals?

I went with a Patriot Missile virtual in a City Park in a tourist area on another site. Now someone has suggested they would like to blow it up because it is related to a war. Can't wait to see what this site has to offer with their virtual listings.

[+Vater_Araignee]

That's of course something subjective - I am fully aware of that. For me finding a film container at a traffic sign next to a building in a city, say e.g. a wellness centre, feels much more like Waymarking...

I'm almost of the same mindset with that part of the statement but, but there is a cache and I get to plant my flag.

I have hidden several multi/mystery caches with virtual elements where I feel comfortable with having a container at the end, namely in forest and mountain areas. In the case of my last cache, however, having to hide a container was a real burden to me and I hate the hideout myself as the whole area is not offering any spot where I enjoy searching for a cache.

How close is the final to the last position for acquiring the final coords?

I understand that I don't know the area and it is possible that there just isn't a good location but with 12.5 square miles to work with it strikes me as unlikely.

 

To me the term Waymarking should have never have been used. Geocaching says it all in terms of what geocaching is, Geoshowingup explains virts, waymarks, etc.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I've had a few idea's but nothing certain yet. What are you guys going to "hide" with the new virtuals?

I went with a Patriot Missile virtual in a City Park in a tourist area on another site. Now someone has suggested they would like to blow it up because it is related to a war. Can't wait to see what this site has to offer with their virtual listings.

WAAAAAAAAY out of context much?

I do know that the actual stament is..

I have known some real leftist whack jobs who would love nothing more than to see any memorial that could be connected to war in the slightest get blown up.

And that statement was in defense of placing a vert at the location rather than a physical cache as is made obvious by the next part of the paragraph.

Most of us have read news articles about bomb squads being called for a geocache that turned out to be a film can or pill bottle. Having any real cache in this area is not only a bad idea but reeks of stupidity. You did the right thing.

 

Don't place words into my mouth.

Or fingers as it where.

[Pup Patrol]

It would be nice if disagreements from another forum weren't dragged over here. If we're interested, we'll join the other forums to read all the drama that doesn't belong here.

 

I wish the moderators would return to locking threads that discuss "other sites" again.

 

If I really wanted to know about "other sites", I would do a google search for them, register with them if I wanted to, and participate in the issues and melodrama in the appropriate venue.

 

As it is, I'm not interested in anything other than Groundspeak forums, and Groundspeak topics and issues.

[+Manville Possum]

It would be nice if disagreements from another forum weren't dragged over here. If we're interested, we'll join the other forums to read all the drama that doesn't belong here.

 

I wish the moderators would return to locking threads that discuss "other sites" again.

 

If I really wanted to know about "other sites", I would do a google search for them, register with them if I wanted to, and participate in the issues and melodrama in the appropriate venue.

 

As it is, I'm not interested in anything other than Groundspeak forums, and Groundspeak topics and issues.

I was on topic with my post as to what kind of virtual I will be listing and the reaction that I got from other users on another site about it.

That is why I can hardly wait for GC to reinstate virtual listings, and I wonder what kind of hassle we will have to go through with, or will things go smoothly? We like to list EarthCaches, but they are alot of trouble to get listed on the first review for me, so I seldom list one now, but still enjoy seeking them.

[GOF and Bacall]

Are we even sure that they are going to reinstate them? I mean it seems like it would be a simple thing to add during one of the updates. Yet we see little movement. Have they said anything recently on the matter?

[+TheLoneGrangers]

by reading some of these comments I imagine some of you dont like virtuals lol

[jholly]

Are we even sure that they are going to reinstate them? I mean it seems like it would be a simple thing to add during one of the updates. Yet we see little movement. Have they said anything recently on the matter?

Bringing back virtuals is #2 of the top issues on the feedback site. Not bringing back virtuals is #16 on the feedback site. Clearly there is a conflict. However since bringing back virtuals is #2 on the list this pretty much insures it will not be brought back since the frog seemingly uses this list for highly desired features not to implement.

[+Lil Devil]

Are we even sure that they are going to reinstate them? I mean it seems like it would be a simple thing to add during one of the updates. Yet we see little movement. Have they said anything recently on the matter?

Virtuals in their previous form didn't work. There were too many issues. So I don't expect The Frog to just "flip a switch" and bring back the same old virtuals.

 

They tried giving us both locationless and virtual caches in the form of Waymarking, but that has it's own issues.

 

I'm betting they're working on some new form of virtuals that will be without the drawbacks of the legacy virtuals, or of Waymarking. Something all-new. Whether it will work and be accepted by the masses is the unknown.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm betting they're working on some new form of virtuals that will be without the drawbacks of the legacy virtuals, or of Waymarking. Something all-new. Whether it will work and be accepted by the masses is the unknown.

 

Weren't we supposed to hear some details earlier this month? Or did I dream that?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+Manville Possum]

No, I belive Jeremy is a man of his word. And he says that they will be a type of virtual listing on this site by late this month. Some of the other competive geocache listing sites already have virtual listings avalable for their members. I can't see this site not staying competive in the geocache listing service business.

[+dfx]

I don't know the details of the "new virtuals", but I was told by somebody who does that "they're not gonna like it".

[+tozainamboku]

I can't see this site not staying competive in the geocache listing service business.

I doubt this site needs to have virtuals to stay competitive as a geocaching site. Waymarking, OTOH, could be in real trouble if virtuals takeoff on one of the alternative sites.

Edited May 18, 2011 by tozainamboku

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't know the details of the "new virtuals", but I was told by somebody who does that "they're not gonna like it".

 

That begs two big questions. Why aren't 'they' gonna like it? And just who are 'they' anyways?

[+Manville Possum]

I don't know the details of the "new virtuals", but I was told by somebody who does that "they're not gonna like it".

 

That begs two big questions. Why aren't 'they' gonna like it? And just who are 'they' anyways?

Yes, I agree. Where did you get that info anyway? Made-upBS.com?

"They" would be "them" people that like virtuals would it not?

[+Manville Possum]

I can't see this site not staying competive in the geocache listing service business.

I doubt this site needs to have virtuals to stay competitive as a geocaching site. Waymarking, OTOH, could be in real trouble if virtuals takeoff on one of the alternative sites.

I would like to see the new GC virtuals listed on the Waymarking site along with Benchmark Hunting. I like the Waymarking site better than this one. Photos upload better, the site is not slow on weekends, it's easy to use, ect....

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't know the details of the "new virtuals", but I was told by somebody who does that "they're not gonna like it".

 

That begs two big questions. Why aren't 'they' gonna like it? And just who are 'they' anyways?

Yes, I agree. Where did you get that info anyway? Made-upBS.com?

"They" would be "them" people that like virtuals would it not?

Or people who don't? Or perhaps reviewers? Odds are good that someone won't like it. Looked at like that it makes the statement probably true. But it still leaves the question of why?

[+Snoogans]

I guess the Geocacher's Creed needs to be revised to add, "I will not submit a lame/non-WOW factor Virtual Cache."

 

Get over yourselves detractors.

 

Some of my favorite geocaching experiences are VIRTS!

[GOF and Bacall]

I can't see this site not staying competive in the geocache listing service business.

I doubt this site needs to have virtuals to stay competitive as a geocaching site. Waymarking, OTOH, could be in real trouble if virtuals takeoff on one of the alternative sites.

I would like to see the new GC virtuals listed on the Waymarking site along with Benchmark Hunting. I like the Waymarking site better than this one. Photos upload better, the site is not slow on weekends, it's easy to use, ect....

 

Isn't that what Waymarking is? The old virtuals plus?

[+Manville Possum]

I can't see this site not staying competive in the geocache listing service business.

I doubt this site needs to have virtuals to stay competitive as a geocaching site. Waymarking, OTOH, could be in real trouble if virtuals takeoff on one of the alternative sites.

I would like to see the new GC virtuals listed on the Waymarking site along with Benchmark Hunting. I like the Waymarking site better than this one. Photos upload better, the site is not slow on weekends, it's easy to use, ect....

 

Isn't that what Waymarking is? The old virtuals plus?

No, not really. But Waymarks, EarthCaches, virtual listings, and benchmarks are not true geocaches where you have to sign a log. I enjoy them all, but why not just list the non physical loggable ones on one site? That would mean that new virtual listings would have to pass through peer review, which would take some of the load off of the GC reviewers. You know that we are going to flood the site with virtuals, so I hope GC has good clear guidelines for the reviewers.

[GOF and Bacall]

I can't see this site not staying competive in the geocache listing service business.

I doubt this site needs to have virtuals to stay competitive as a geocaching site. Waymarking, OTOH, could be in real trouble if virtuals takeoff on one of the alternative sites.

I would like to see the new GC virtuals listed on the Waymarking site along with Benchmark Hunting. I like the Waymarking site better than this one. Photos upload better, the site is not slow on weekends, it's easy to use, ect....

 

Isn't that what Waymarking is? The old virtuals plus?

No, not really. But Waymarks, EarthCaches, virtual listings, and benchmarks are not true geocaches where you have to sign a log. I enjoy them all, but why not just list the non physical loggable ones on one site? That would mean that new virtual listings would have to pass through peer review, which would take some of the load off of the GC reviewers. You know that we are going to flood the site with virtuals, so I hope GC has good clear guidelines for the reviewers.

 

I don't think it is gonna be quite the flood you think. Yes, there will be a few who go overboard. However, I suspect that once the novelty wears off things will slow down.

 

I don't have a problem with them coming back. I just don't want to see people placing a virtual on every street corner.

[cezanne]

I have hidden several multi/mystery caches with virtual elements where I feel comfortable with having a container at the end, namely in forest and mountain areas. In the case of my last cache, however, having to hide a container was a real burden to me and I hate the hideout myself as the whole area is not offering any spot where I enjoy searching for a cache.

How close is the final to the last position for acquiring the final coords?

I understand that I don't know the area and it is possible that there just isn't a good location but with 12.5 square miles to work with it strikes me as unlikely.

 

It is within 500 m since a larger distance would have led to complaints by most visitors. 8 years ago I could have hidden the cache in some green area 2km or more from the key area which is going to be shown by the cache, but nowadays that does not work out any longer. So I had to choose a compromise hideout in an area which is urban and where there always will exist the typical muggle issues. In such areas I would prefer to set up virtual caches. I am not expecting however that the new concept of virtual caches will cover what I have in mind.

 

Cezanne

[+Ambient_Skater]

Aww yea the crap I can virtualize! I'll start with the bush in front of my friend's house. He'll surely enjoy watching cachers count the number of leaves on it to report to me (and coming out to distract them and make them lose count just when they're almost finished.)

 

• The spot at Vancouver Airport where Robert Dziekanski was publicly "executed" by the RCMP (while being filmed!)
  

Oooh I wish I thought of that one!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

When virts can be listed again I am going back to the Alabama Historical Association which had asked the AGA (Alabama Geocachers Association) to hide a cache at all of their maintained historical sites. We dropped the plan when virts went to Waymarking but I hope to see it reborn when virts are again allowed.

 

And back to the City of Birmingham, whose Department of Tourism asked me a few months ago to help build a Tour of Birmingham geocaching trail. Too many places weren't suitable for containers so we dropped it (I don't do Waymarks), but virts will be perfect!

[+Vater_Araignee]

I don't have a problem with them coming back. I just don't want to see people placing a virtual on every street corner.

I could see dozens of street corner verts in Michigan.

I heard we are going to have the first annual axle breaking trailing arm snapping pothole festival this year. OK so most of them aren't at street corners but a lot are near utility poles.

I also know of a few roundabout groupings where you are just as likely to see an accident as not. I guess technically no corners but it is a junction.

Then you have the "stupid drunken teen" crashed and died here memorials. I have come to the conclusion long ago that if teens didn't need to navigate turns then less would die in automotive crashes.

I could also see a series dedicated to Nain Rouge sightings in Detroit, pretty much only street corners and utility poles. I.E. I was at this street corner when I saw it skitter down that utility pole.