Virtual Caches

March 30, 2011

We've all heard talk of the virtual cache becoming available again but after searching thru the forums i haven't seen any new information in months. Anyone have an update on this topic they can share?

38.2k · March 30, 2011

Over in the feedback section I think Jeremy said the target was May.

5.7k · March 30, 2011

Yes, looks like in May. http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050805-bring-back-virtuals?utm_campaign=Widgets&utm_medium=widget&utm_source=feedback.geocaching.com

We are getting ready for them. Details are still sketchy right now, but they are coming back.

2.7k · March 30, 2011

Well I'm going to start looking at some placements.

March 30, 2011

At this point all details are rumor and speculation.

Will they count towards total finds or not?

Will they have their own sub-categories or not?

How will the wow factor or learning factors be kept?

etc.

I'm excited to see what the GS team comes up with.

38.2k · March 30, 2011

At this point all details are rumor and speculation.

Will they count towards total finds or not?

Will they have their own sub-categories or not?

How will the wow factor or learning factors be kept?

etc.

I'm excited to see what the GS team comes up with.

Whatever it is I'm sure there will be numerous complaints (heck, I may be one of them).

Edited March 30, 2011 by briansnat

5.7k · March 30, 2011

At this point all details are rumor and speculation.

Will they count towards total finds or not?

Will they have their own sub-categories or not?

How will the wow factor or learning factors be kept?

etc.

I'm excited to see what the GS team comes up with.

Whatever it is I'm sure there will be numerous complaints (heck, I may be one of them).

Oh, you know it. I may develope a few and still complain. I would just as soon list them and Benchmarks on the Waymarking site. I know what people will do for a smiley, things are bound to get crazy. :blink: Wonder who will review them?

March 30, 2011

I'd like to get on a plane, fly to Ukraine, and place one at Pripyat, near the Chernobyl nuclear reactor.

May doesn't give much time for me to save up for that plane ticket, though. And I'm sure someone else has already had the same idea anyway...

5.7k · March 30, 2011

I'd like to get on a plane, fly to Ukraine, and place one at Pripyat, near the Chernobyl nuclear reactor.

May doesn't give much time for me to save up for that plane ticket, though. And I'm sure someone else has already had the same idea anyway...

The site is already Waymarked. :lol:

18.9k · March 30, 2011

....

Whatever it is I'm sure there will be numerous complaints (heck, I may be one of them).

+1

Really depends on what they come up with.

My fear is that Virtuals may be used as an excuse to prohibit physical caches by some land managers. I am wondering how they will work that one out.....

8k · March 30, 2011

....

Whatever it is I'm sure there will be numerous complaints (heck, I may be one of them).

+1

Really depends on what they come up with.

My fear is that Virtuals may be used as an excuse to prohibit physical caches by some land managers. I am wondering how they will work that one out.....

You don't believe Jeremy when he says it won't adversely affect the core geocaching experience?

14k · March 30, 2011

At this point all details are rumor and speculation.

Will they count towards total finds or not?

Will they have their own sub-categories or not?

How will the wow factor or learning factors be kept?

etc.

I'm excited to see what the GS team comes up with.

For a fairly major feature like this it would have been nice if there was a lot more developer - user interaction so that what they come up with isn't a total surprise that doesn't address what the user community actually wants.

Edited March 30, 2011 by NYPaddleCacher

18.9k · March 30, 2011

....

Whatever it is I'm sure there will be numerous complaints (heck, I may be one of them).

+1

Really depends on what they come up with.

My fear is that Virtuals may be used as an excuse to prohibit physical caches by some land managers. I am wondering how they will work that one out.....

You don't believe Jeremy when he says it won't adversely affect the core geocaching experience?

At this point - I am just wondering how that concern is addressed (and trusting that they did address it).

1.2k · March 30, 2011

For a fairly major feature like this it would have been nice if there was a lot more developer - user interaction so that what they come up with isn't a total surprise that doesn't address what the user community actually wants.

+∞

There were plenty of people stauntly against virtuals. There were those (including myself) you would be in favor of a return if done right there was a long thread with some suggestions (between lots of arguing). I hope this thread does not turn into another argument between the for and against crowds.

5.7k · March 30, 2011

....

Whatever it is I'm sure there will be numerous complaints (heck, I may be one of them).

+1

Really depends on what they come up with.

My fear is that Virtuals may be used as an excuse to prohibit physical caches by some land managers. I am wondering how they will work that one out.....

You don't believe Jeremy when he says it won't adversely affect the core geocaching experience?

Of course I belive Jeremy, don't you? :lol: If you ignore virtuals they will have no effect on you.

March 30, 2011

Don't know why people are against virtuals.. since then there has been some ridiculous caches,i.e. power trails and nano/log caches... or dare i say it.. LAMP POST CACHES? I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

BRING BACK THE VIRTUALS and BAN LPC's!!!

4.1k · March 30, 2011

My fear is that Virtuals may be used as an excuse to prohibit physical caches by some land managers. I am wondering how they will work that one out.....

It has always seemed like Groundspeak was attempting a herculean task -- reinstating virtuals in a way that will satisfy both camps (as expressed in an early announcement) or doing it in a way that will not effect the core of the caching experience (recent announcement). But I am looking forward to seeing how this is implemented and am glad that I will not have too long to wait.

However, this is one fear that I do not share. Park managers do not need an excuse to prohibit physical caches. The NPS in my area physically removed 95% of the traditionals that had been grandfathered on their lands because they do not like physical caches - they did not need any other reason to do so and did not point to any alternatives to show they were taking the least restrictive approach.. The park superintendent told me that he considered traditionals to be litter and have a negative environmental impact. That perception will not change because of virtuals, earthcaching, Waymarking or other location based games. Some land managers will permit earthcaching because it has different considerations than physical caches but it does not mean that they would permit physical caches if there were no virtual alternatives.

Fortunately, other agencies in my area (state parks) distinguish between areas that allow physical caches and certain areas where only virtuals are permitted -- generally due to the historical or environmental nature of the site. I see no reason why park managers cannot make such distinctions. And that because such decisions can be made, I hope that other land managers will eventually allow physical caches in appropriate areas.

If an excuse is needed, the land manager simply has to point to the growing number of "virtual" location-based games that allow people to use GPS technology, regardless of whether or not it is affiliated with Groundspeak.. Virtuals will not add much to that equation. I am somewhat heartened by the reports of earthcaching persuading park managers to open up areas to physical caches, so perhaps virtuals can also lead to greater acceptance of other forms of caching. In any case, I am hoping for the best -- at the very least it would be nice if virtuals opened this game to some of the 150.000 acres in my area where traditionals are not permitted.

Groundspeak seems like they have been proceeding very carefully, so we will see how it all comes together.

Edited March 30, 2011 by mulvaney

2.7k · March 30, 2011

My fear is that Virtuals may be used as an excuse to prohibit physical caches by some land managers. I am wondering how they will work that one out.....

You don't believe Jeremy when he says it won't adversely affect the core geocaching experience?

No.

6.7k · March 30, 2011

Don't know why people are against virtuals.. since then there has been some ridiculous caches,i.e. power trails and nano/log caches... or dare i say it.. LAMP POST CACHES? I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

BRING BACK THE VIRTUALS and BAN LPC's!!!

All that would happen is you'd see an uptick in the number of LPC virtual caches out there.

1.1k · March 31, 2011

Don't know why people are against virtuals.. since then there has been some ridiculous caches,i.e. power trails and nano/log caches... or dare i say it.. LAMP POST CACHES? I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

BRING BACK THE VIRTUALS and BAN LPC's!!!

+1 A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, don't matter if it's physcial or virtual! IMHO

18.9k · March 31, 2011

My fear is that Virtuals may be used as an excuse to prohibit physical caches by some land managers. I am wondering how they will work that one out.....

It has always seemed like Groundspeak was attempting a herculean task -- reinstating virtuals in a way that will satisfy both camps (as expressed in an early announcement) or doing it in a way that will not effect the core of the caching experience (recent announcement). But I am looking forward to seeing how this is implemented and am glad that I will not have too long to wait.

However, this is one fear that I do not share. Park managers do not need an excuse to prohibit physical caches. The NPS in my area physically removed 95% of the traditionals that had been grandfathered on their lands because they do not like physical caches - they did not need any other reason to do so and did not point to any alternatives to show they were taking the least restrictive approach.. The park superintendent told me that he considered traditionals to be litter and have a negative environmental impact. That perception will not change because of virtuals, earthcaching, Waymarking or other location based games. Some land managers will permit earthcaching because it has different considerations than physical caches but it does not mean that they would permit physical caches if there were no virtual alternatives.

Fortunately, other agencies in my area (state parks) distinguish between areas that allow physical caches and certain areas where only virtuals are permitted -- generally due to the historical or environmental nature of the site. I see no reason why park managers cannot make such distinctions. And that because such decisions can be made, I hope that other land managers will eventually allow physical caches in appropriate areas.

If an excuse is needed, the land manager simply has to point to the growing number of "virtual" location-based games that allow people to use GPS technology, regardless of whether or not it is affiliated with Groundspeak.. Virtuals will not add much to that equation. I am somewhat heartened by the reports of earthcaching persuading park managers to open up areas to physical caches, so perhaps virtuals can also lead to greater acceptance of other forms of caching. In any case, I am hoping for the best -- at the very least it would be nice if virtuals opened this game to some of the 150.000 acres in my area where traditionals are not permitted.

Groundspeak seems like they have been proceeding very carefully, so we will see how it all comes together.

Back in the heyday of Virtuals - I watched it in action as 2 local agencies pointed to virtual caches as a good excuse to ban physical caches. When virtuals went belly up on this site - they changed their minds and allowed physical caches. Can't wait to see where the pendulum swings this time.

7.9k · March 31, 2011

Over in the feedback section I think Jeremy said the target was May.

Or maybe it was Thursday...

I'm ready to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm also planning for a big letdown.

April 29, 2011

Over in the feedback section I think Jeremy said the target was May.

I can't wait! When done right and with a modicum of review, Virtual caches are excellent. I myself have wanted to post some historical/literary caches for awhile but haven't been able.

April 29, 2011

At this point all details are rumor and speculation.

Will they count towards total finds or not?

Will they have their own sub-categories or not?

How will the wow factor or learning factors be kept?

etc.

I'm excited to see what the GS team comes up with.

Whatever it is I'm sure there will be numerous complaints (heck, I may be one of them).

Oh, you know it. I may develope a few and still complain. I would just as soon list them and Benchmarks on the Waymarking site. I know what people will do for a smiley, things are bound to get crazy. Wonder who will review them?

Well, I'd imagine they will recruit volunteers. As an English professor, I for one would be happy to review literary caches.

June 9, 2011

Well May has come and gone and nothing from geocaching.com about virtuals (unless I missed something). A new update for the droid phones and a new website did come out but nothing about virtuals..

4.1k · June 9, 2011

Jeremy stated on the feedback thread that it will be late June or early July. They will be incorporating the concept into the August block party.

5.7k · June 10, 2011

Jeremy stated on the feedback thread that it will be late June or early July. They will be incorporating the concept into the August block party.

Well, I hope they are worth the wait. Early Augest is not far away as the plans go. http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050805-bring-back-virtuals?utm_campaign=Widgets&utm_medium=widget&utm_source=feedback.geocaching.com

I have been listing some on another site and there sure are alot of haters out there that don't want to see them listed. I hope that Groundspeak has something better to offer than the other site. :rolleyes:

June 10, 2011

I really hope they end up like a Earthcache but for cultural and historical significance rather than ecological. Complete with a committee and everything.

9.3k · June 10, 2011

I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

Just because it's a virtual, doesn't mean it won't suck. The current trend in geocaching these days seems to be "Easier is better", as areas become saturated with P&Gs. Note: This is an observation/opinion, not a complaint. The P&G crowd are playing the way they want, and mostly doing so within the guidelines. I'm just pointing out that with today's trends, the chance for suckiness is high.

For instance, I have a butt load of waypoints, (2000+), in a GSAK file, ready to create a virtual power trail running the length of Interstate 4. Because the highway is so wide. I'll be able to keep my linear distance from cache to cache a lot closer than 528', as I stagger them from one side of the highway to the other. If the virtuals don't have some significant restrictions such as the old "Wow" factor, I will publish these under a sock account. The irony is, there are folks who will sing my sock's praises for the creaton of such a monstrosity, celebrating the fact that they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive. :rolleyes:

June 10, 2011

I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

Just because it's a virtual, doesn't mean it won't suck. The current trend in geocaching these days seems to be "Easier is better", as areas become saturated with P&Gs. Note: This is an observation/opinion, not a complaint. The P&G crowd are playing the way they want, and mostly doing so within the guidelines. I'm just pointing out that with today's trends, the chance for suckiness is high.

For instance, I have a butt load of waypoints, (2000+), in a GSAK file, ready to create a virtual power trail running the length of Interstate 4. Because the highway is so wide. I'll be able to keep my linear distance from cache to cache a lot closer than 528', as I stagger them from one side of the highway to the other. If the virtuals don't have some significant restrictions such as the old "Wow" factor, I will publish these under a sock account. The irony is, there are folks who will sing my sock's praises for the creaton of such a monstrosity, celebrating the fact that they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive.

:laughing:

Your sock's e-mail would be a mess!

3.8k · June 10, 2011

I have officially changed my position. While I love doing 'existing' virtuals, I no longer want them revived. Unless of course there is a workable process put into place like there are for earthcaches. If not, let them die.

1.7k · June 10, 2011

I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

Just because it's a virtual, doesn't mean it won't suck. The current trend in geocaching these days seems to be "Easier is better", as areas become saturated with P&Gs. Note: This is an observation/opinion, not a complaint. The P&G crowd are playing the way they want, and mostly doing so within the guidelines. I'm just pointing out that with today's trends, the chance for suckiness is high.

For instance, I have a butt load of waypoints, (2000+), in a GSAK file, ready to create a virtual power trail running the length of Interstate 4. Because the highway is so wide. I'll be able to keep my linear distance from cache to cache a lot closer than 528', as I stagger them from one side of the highway to the other. If the virtuals don't have some significant restrictions such as the old "Wow" factor, I will publish these under a sock account. The irony is, there are folks who will sing my sock's praises for the creaton of such a monstrosity, celebrating the fact that they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive.

Uh- please tell me you are joking...

9.4k · June 10, 2011

I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

Just because it's a virtual, doesn't mean it won't suck. The current trend in geocaching these days seems to be "Easier is better", as areas become saturated with P&Gs. Note: This is an observation/opinion, not a complaint. The P&G crowd are playing the way they want, and mostly doing so within the guidelines. I'm just pointing out that with today's trends, the chance for suckiness is high.

For instance, I have a butt load of waypoints, (2000+), in a GSAK file, ready to create a virtual power trail running the length of Interstate 4. Because the highway is so wide. I'll be able to keep my linear distance from cache to cache a lot closer than 528', as I stagger them from one side of the highway to the other. If the virtuals don't have some significant restrictions such as the old "Wow" factor, I will publish these under a sock account. The irony is, there are folks who will sing my sock's praises for the creaton of such a monstrosity, celebrating the fact that they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive.

Now that's just awesome. You wouldn't even have to get out of the car since there's no logbook to sign. Just drive by and take pictures and say you're geocaching. Real glad the site operators are moving away from anything related to the name of the site with this one.

June 10, 2011

As much as I'd love to see a HistoryCache to go along with EarthCache, I'd really rather not see more virtuals.

1.1k · June 10, 2011

I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

Just because it's a virtual, doesn't mean it won't suck. The current trend in geocaching these days seems to be "Easier is better", as areas become saturated with P&Gs. Note: This is an observation/opinion, not a complaint. The P&G crowd are playing the way they want, and mostly doing so within the guidelines. I'm just pointing out that with today's trends, the chance for suckiness is high.

For instance, I have a butt load of waypoints, (2000+), in a GSAK file, ready to create a virtual power trail running the length of Interstate 4. Because the highway is so wide. I'll be able to keep my linear distance from cache to cache a lot closer than 528', as I stagger them from one side of the highway to the other. If the virtuals don't have some significant restrictions such as the old "Wow" factor, I will publish these under a sock account. The irony is, there are folks who will sing my sock's praises for the creaton of such a monstrosity, celebrating the fact that they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive.

Uh- please tell me you are joking...

I really hope that you are joking and not going to engage in such a childish, counter productive idea. :yikes: I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

7k · June 10, 2011

I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

I've also said it before, and I'll also say it again. The difference between setting up a real cache and a virtual cache is that it takes zero effort to create a virtual cache. You don't even need to leave the house. It's therefore much easier for someone to create a "virtual powertrail" than a powertrail of real caches, and so people would be much more likely to do that.

Edited June 10, 2011 by dfx

3.8k · June 10, 2011

I'd rather do a virtual than a LPC ANYDAY!

Just because it's a virtual, doesn't mean it won't suck. The current trend in geocaching these days seems to be "Easier is better", as areas become saturated with P&Gs. Note: This is an observation/opinion, not a complaint. The P&G crowd are playing the way they want, and mostly doing so within the guidelines. I'm just pointing out that with today's trends, the chance for suckiness is high.

For instance, I have a butt load of waypoints, (2000+), in a GSAK file, ready to create a virtual power trail running the length of Interstate 4. Because the highway is so wide. I'll be able to keep my linear distance from cache to cache a lot closer than 528', as I stagger them from one side of the highway to the other. If the virtuals don't have some significant restrictions such as the old "Wow" factor, I will publish these under a sock account. The irony is, there are folks who will sing my sock's praises for the creaton of such a monstrosity, celebrating the fact that they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive.

Uh- please tell me you are joking...

I really hope that you are joking and not going to engage in such a childish, counter productive idea. I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

I suspect if you look at Cliff's posting history and how much we all know he loves to cache in the swamp, I suspect he's joshing you all.

EDIT: Cliff was shorthand for Clan Riffster. Thought I'd point that out before the wolves do.

Edited June 10, 2011 by bflentje

June 10, 2011

I would think the folks at geocaching.com would publish guidelines and processes in order for a virtual to be approved, but you are right.. Geocaching.com folks don't seem to manage traditional, multi, mystery, Wherigo, event caches. They assume it is what the CO is being honest and 99% of the time they are. I could see this getting out of hand, just as LPC's and power trails have gotten out of hand. I'll admit I've done both.. I'd hope they would clamp down and be restrictive as to what constitute a virtual cache is, i.e. relevance to history, relevance of area, etc. I'd like to know more about historical places around the world where physical caches are not allowed because of rules/restrictions of placing such items in those areas. But I know that won't happen and virtuals will take over.. LOL

3.8k · June 10, 2011

I would think the folks at geocaching.com would publish guidelines and processes in order for a virtual to be approved, but you are right.. Geocaching.com folks don't seem to manage traditional, multi, mystery, Wherigo, event caches. They assume it is what the CO is being honest and 99% of the time they are. I could see this getting out of hand, just as LPC's and power trails have gotten out of hand. I'll admit I've done both.. I'd hope they would clamp down and be restrictive as to what constitute a virtual cache is, i.e. relevance to history, relevance of area, etc. I'd like to know more about historical places around the world where physical caches are not allowed because of rules/restrictions of placing such items in those areas. But I know that won't happen and virtuals will take over.. LOL

While I don't prefer LPC's and powertrails, I would not categorize them as being out of control, at least in the sense of needing official policy and governance.

1.1k · June 10, 2011

I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

I've also said it before, and I'll also say it again. The difference between setting up a real cache and a virtual cache is that it takes zero effort to create a virtual cache. You don't even need to leave the house. It's therefore much easier for someone to create a "virtual powertrail" than a powertrail of real caches, and so people would be much more likely to do that.

Don't know how it takes zero effort to create a good virtual? The ones I have set up required at least one visit to the site, coming up with a question that ensures that the find is real and an ongoing effert to police the finds to make sure that armchair finds don't happen.

7k · June 10, 2011

I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

I've also said it before, and I'll also say it again. The difference between setting up a real cache and a virtual cache is that it takes zero effort to create a virtual cache. You don't even need to leave the house. It's therefore much easier for someone to create a "virtual powertrail" than a powertrail of real caches, and so people would be much more likely to do that.

Don't know how it takes zero effort to create a good virtual? The ones I have set up required at least one visit to the site, coming up with a question that ensures that the find is real and an ongoing effert to police the finds to make sure that armchair finds don't happen.

I'm talking about the lame ones. To make a lame cache, you need to go there, put the container, take coordinates, create the listing. To make a lame virtual, you just create the listing. Think about how many lame caches there are now, then think about how many lame virtuals there would be.

June 10, 2011

I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

I've also said it before, and I'll also say it again. The difference between setting up a real cache and a virtual cache is that it takes zero effort to create a virtual cache. You don't even need to leave the house. It's therefore much easier for someone to create a "virtual powertrail" than a powertrail of real caches, and so people would be much more likely to do that.

There is a power trail of Earthcaches right outside my house.

Lets be real though, we don't know the nature of these new virtuals, other than that it's been implied they have changed in some way. I don't think we should be making definitive statements about their nature until we've heard what they even are.

1.1k · June 10, 2011

I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

I've also said it before, and I'll also say it again. The difference between setting up a real cache and a virtual cache is that it takes zero effort to create a virtual cache. You don't even need to leave the house. It's therefore much easier for someone to create a "virtual powertrail" than a powertrail of real caches, and so people would be much more likely to do that.

Don't know how it takes zero effort to create a good virtual? The ones I have set up required at least one visit to the site, coming up with a question that ensures that the find is real and an ongoing effert to police the finds to make sure that armchair finds don't happen.

I'm talking about the lame ones. To make a lame cache, you need to go there, put the container, take coordinates, create the listing. To make a lame virtual, you just create the listing. Think about how many lame caches there are now, then think about how many lame virtuals there would be.

hopefully the new rules from the lilly pond will take care of this.

14k · June 10, 2011

I've said it before and I'll say it again, A good cache is a good cache and a bad cache is a bad cache, doesn't matter if it a virtual or a traditional. I would rather do a good virtual rather then a lame mico or nano anytime. :

I've also said it before, and I'll also say it again. The difference between setting up a real cache and a virtual cache is that it takes zero effort to create a virtual cache. You don't even need to leave the house. It's therefore much easier for someone to create a "virtual powertrail" than a powertrail of real caches, and so people would be much more likely to do that.

Don't know how it takes zero effort to create a good virtual? The ones I have set up required at least one visit to the site, coming up with a question that ensures that the find is real and an ongoing effert to police the finds to make sure that armchair finds don't happen.

I'm talking about the lame ones. To make a lame cache, you need to go there, put the container, take coordinates, create the listing. To make a lame virtual, you just create the listing. Think about how many lame caches there are now, then think about how many lame virtuals there would be.

Presumably once virtual are reinstated (Groundspeak has indicated that they *will* reinstate virts in some form) they will still have a unique cache type, and thus can be filtered out using a Pocket Query which does not include virtual caches. I'm not sure why it would matter if there were a lot of lame virtuals when virtual can easily be filtered out and their existence doesn't not impact other types of caches. As far as I can tell, the only impact that lame virtuals might have is if the proximity guidelines are changed such that the 528' rule would apply to non-physical caches or stages of a cache. Given the number of Unknown (I mean Mystery) and Multi caches with non-physical stages out there I just can't imagine that happening though.

2.1k · June 10, 2011

I've also said it before, and I'll also say it again. The difference between setting up a real cache and a virtual cache is that it takes zero effort to create a virtual cache.

Don't know how it takes zero effort to create a good virtual?

dfx didn't say "good virtual."

It takes effort to create a good virtual. It takes zero effort to create a virtual cache. Those statements are not contradictory.

9.3k · June 10, 2011

...they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive.

Uh- please tell me you are joking...

But... But... Think of the smileys! Lots and lots of smileys! :unsure: :blink:

1.7k · June 10, 2011

...they can now rack up over 2000 finds with a 4 hour round trip drive.

Uh- please tell me you are joking...

But... But... Think of the smileys! Lots and lots of smileys!

Thinking of them.

...

Okay, I'm done!

1.4k · June 15, 2011

I'm rarely on these forums (still cache though, less than I used to but at least once/month) so hearing about this I had to go back and see. After railing on this for a good year or two circa 2006-07 or so, I never thought they would ever come back. I wonder what did it?

A) Potential competition like Opencaching (which I have to admit at least in the NY metropolitan area has not made a dent though)

Realizing the hypocrisy of pulling back Earthcaches from Waymarking, which they did because "money" (or more accurately "sponsorship") talks?

Speaking of EarthCaches, to be fair, it should come back as something like HistoryCaches as someone else here suggested, not the full lame virts, etc.

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation