Why no webcam caches or virtual caches anymore?

[+CaveMountainBrewers]

Reviewer denied my 3 new caches I submitted......2 webcam and 1 virtual. My bad for not catching it in the guidelines....but why are virtual and webcam caches no longer allowed? I went over to Waymarking.com and see that there is very little activity over there. They may sit there for a long time before anyone pursues them if I submit there.

 

Is it okay to incorporate a traditional cache with a webcam cache? For example,in order to get to the cache you must capture an image of yourself on the webcam, submit to me for verification, then I will give the final coordinates for the cache location.

 

How have others done this?

[+wimseyguy]

The Powers That Be (TPTB) decreed that it isn't a geocache if it doesn't have a container a few years back. Waymarking was supposed to be the solution, but it has sputtered.

Back in the beginning virts and cams were considered a novel and interesting approach and acceptable alternative, not any more.

No, you cannot require someone to submit a webcam image. That would be an Additional Logging Requirement. (ALR)

 

If you are totally hung up on using a webcam, try and create a puzzle that can work with something already visible in the camera. And be prepared for lots of complaints as many cachers do not like webcams.

[+Too Tall John]

Wimseyguy answered the question pretty well, although I have one comment:

If you are totally hung up on using a webcam, try and create a puzzle that can work with something already visible in the camera. And be prepared for lots of complaints as many cachers do not like webcams.

Not sure about how many is "many cachers" but I've seen a lot more threads in the forums about cachers hating puzzles in general, so I say go for it!

[+StarBrand]

Early on, virtuals were fun and somewhat novel ideas for caching without a cache container. However, really lame things like discarded sneakers in the woods and spray painted words on bridges were being submitted as virtual caches. TPTB decided to have reviewers only accept new virtuals that had a "WoW" factor. However - it is very difficult to define "wow". Some clarifications tried to help but just added to the confusion. Slowly, very very few new virtuals were being accepted because of the "wow" requirement. Finally, it was decided that a Geocache just needed to be a physical container hidden somewhere - not just the somewhere. Virtuals, webcams, locationless and earthcaches were slated for archival here and moving to Waymarking. Many cachers complained bitterly so some modifications were made - existing virtuals got grandfathered instead of moved to Waymarking, so did webcams, earthcaches got some requirement changes and locationless caches went over to Waymarking. No new ones were accepted after that.

 

Now - there is an unknown plan to return virtuals in the next few months.

[+CaveMountainBrewers]

'can see how "hiders" can get carried away with virtuals...but I think webcams can be fun.

 

My webcam cache that was denied was the webcam at Windham Mountain here..... http://www.windhammountain.com/the-mountain/web-cam/

 

I think it would have been a lot of fun to have cachers submit the images to their logs of themselves captured on the webcams. The top webcam image would have been a fun challenge since the cam is halfway up the mountain. I was going to mail the FTF a nice prize, and the value of the prize would double if the image was captured at night with a flashlight on their faces. Oh well!!!!

[+CaveMountainBrewers]

Early on, virtuals were fun and somewhat novel ideas for caching without a cache container. However, really lame things like discarded sneakers in the woods and spray painted words on bridges were being submitted as virtual caches.

 

A bad day of geocaching is still better than a good day at work. I'd hunt for sneakers and spray paint all day long if there were no traditional caches left in my area.

[+t4e]

Reviewer denied my 3 new caches I submitted......2 webcam and 1 virtual.

 

webcams and virtuals had their own icons, removed from the list of cache types when they were grandfathered

 

what icon did you use for yours?

[+t4e]

And be prepared for lots of complaints as many cachers do not like webcams.

 

and who cares?

[+CaveMountainBrewers]

Reviewer denied my 3 new caches I submitted......2 webcam and 1 virtual.

 

webcams and virtuals had their own icons, removed from the list of cache types when they were grandfathered

 

what icon did you use for yours?

 

unknown...with a note to the reviewer to please list as a webcam or virtual cache. I was confused because I've seen grandfathered virtuals and thought they were still okay and the icon would be added by a reviewer.

[+dakboy]

unknown...with a note to the reviewer to please list as a webcam or virtual cache. I was confused because I've seen grandfathered virtuals and thought they were still okay and the icon would be added by a reviewer.

"Grandfathered" (both on this site, and in general usage) means "no longer applicable/allowed, but we won't force you to remove ones that existed under the old rules."

Edited April 8, 2011 by dakboy

[+Isonzo Karst]

When I first visited these forums, they were completely dominated by threads about "the evil reviewer wouldn't publish my special virtual cache; it's so Wow!". The end of virts was nearly a given, if the review community was to remain sane.

 

Webcams seem to really excite some folks.

 

They're okay with me, but, as geocaches they tend to become just places to go take your picture, with your own camera. Few owners want to hassle deleting logs of people who make excuses about why they couldn't capture a webcam shot, and even fewer will disable the cache when the webcam goes down.

 

I owned for a while, owning it was not that much fun >> people really really think that if they're on the spot and take any picture, that should = Smiley. That they're not *really* obligated to figure out how to run the camera and capture a webcam image.

 

I think if you look a the gallery of a lot of webcams, you'll see a lot non-webcam shots. To me, those are all DNF, but I absolutely do understand why the cache owners aren't deleting them. Not much fun in that.

[+Nicodemus3]

With the way things are getting now (micro's in every parking lot for example), I can see how virtuals could get out of hand. Though there are many examples of places that would make for great virtuals due to restrictions of hiding a physical cache. I'm interested in seeing what Groundspeak comes up with to reinstate them successfully.

[+CanadianRockies]

The Powers That Be (TPTB) decreed that it isn't a geocache if it doesn't have a container a few years back.

That's taking it a little far. Caches that generally don't have containers: events (including mega, CITO, and Lost & Found), EarthCaches, and GPS Adventures Exhibit.

[+dfx]

They're okay with me, but, as geocaches they tend to become just places to go take your picture, with your own camera. Few owners want to hassle deleting logs of people who make excuses about why they couldn't capture a webcam shot, and even fewer will disable the cache when the webcam goes down.

 

Oh yeah, I've done one like that too The link given on the page had been dead for a long time, so everybody was just taking pictures on their own. Lame. I didn't wanna cheat and take the same shortcut, so I spent some time investigating and managed to find a working link for the real webcam.

 

I didn't find a geocache there btw.

[+dfx]

The Powers That Be (TPTB) decreed that it isn't a geocache if it doesn't have a container a few years back.

That's taking it a little far. Caches that generally don't have containers: events (including mega, CITO, and Lost & Found), EarthCaches, and GPS Adventures Exhibit.

 

Nope, all those are in fact not caches. You can still list them here though, and they count towards your find count too.

[+CaveMountainBrewers]

 

..... people really really think that if they're on the spot and take any picture, that should = Smiley. That they're not *really* obligated to figure out how to run the camera and capture a webcam image.

 

 

kicking at a dead horse here....but I would clearly list guidelines saying you must capture the webcam image with you in it, and not a digital camera shot of you in the webcam area. To me that's 50% of the challenge and fun.

[+briansnat]

I'm just curious as to why you seem surprised. When you submitted the three caches three times you checked the box that said you read and understood the guidelines. This means you knew that no new webcam or virtuals are being accepted, or should have.

 

It would be a good idea to re-read the guidelines so as not to waste your time in the future.

Edited April 8, 2011 by briansnat

[+CanadianRockies]

The Powers That Be (TPTB) decreed that it isn't a geocache if it doesn't have a container a few years back.

That's taking it a little far. Caches that generally don't have containers: events (including mega, CITO, and Lost & Found), EarthCaches, and GPS Adventures Exhibit.

Nope, all those are in fact not caches. You can still list them here though, and they count towards your find count too.

I guess we should start calling them EarthNonCaches.

[+dfx]

I guess we should start calling them EarthNonCaches.

 

You can call them whatever you want. You can also call yourself King of England if you want.

[+CaveMountainBrewers]

I'm just curious as to why you seem surprised. When you submitted both caches you checked the box that said you read and understood the guidelines. This means you knew that no new webcam or virtuals are being accepted, or should of.

 

It would be a good idea to re-read the guidelines so as not to waste your time in the future.

 

I admit that I din't read the guidelines thoroughly and submitted a new cache because I've seen "grandfathered" virtuals and webcams and didn't think they were now verboten.

 

I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I'm just curious as to why you seem surprised. When you submitted both caches you checked the box that said you read and understood the guidelines. This means you knew that no new webcam or virtuals are being accepted, or should of.

 

It would be a good idea to re-read the guidelines so as not to waste your time in the future.

 

I admit that I din't read the guidelines thoroughly and submitted a new cache because I've seen "grandfathered" virtuals and webcams and didn't think they were now verboten.

 

I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

You don't even have to read the complete guidelines, the link to Virtual and Webcam Caches is on the first page..

[Mr.Yuck]

With the way things are getting now (micro's in every parking lot for example), I can see how virtuals could get out of hand. Though there are many examples of places that would make for great virtuals due to restrictions of hiding a physical cache. I'm interested in seeing what Groundspeak comes up with to reinstate them successfully.

 

I've always said that. OMG, can you imagine if they never had put any restrictions on virtuals? Every roadside historical marker in America would have been a virtual by now. I truly believe virtual's would have totally overrun the game.

 

I'm not quoting anyone on the matter, but webcams, in general, have shown themselves to have a lot of downtime, and often go offline completely forever. My only webcam cache, placed in 2005, went offline in 2010. It was on a private homeowners property overlooking a pond in a park, and was used with his permission. I started getting a few reports it was offline, and when I finally went to knock on the door to see what's up, I found an empty Condo with a "for sale" sign.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm just curious as to why you seem surprised. When you submitted both caches you checked the box that said you read and understood the guidelines. This means you knew that no new webcam or virtuals are being accepted, or should of.

 

It would be a good idea to re-read the guidelines so as not to waste your time in the future.

 

I admit that I din't read the guidelines thoroughly and submitted a new cache because I've seen "grandfathered" virtuals and webcams and didn't think they were now verboten.

 

I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

 

Don't worry, those accolades are bogus. He's really a very nice guy, and you read him wrong. I can see you trying to list those things as unknown, if you didn't know any better. There are other Geocaching websites which accept virtuals and webcams, but expect little, or even no traffic, depending on where it is.

 

Oh, and of course you can list them on the Groundspeak website Waymarking.com, but again, expect very little, if any traffic.

[+DanOCan]

Is it okay to incorporate a traditional cache with a webcam cache? For example,in order to get to the cache you must capture an image of yourself on the webcam, submit to me for verification, then I will give the final coordinates for the cache location.

 

Further reading in the guidelines will reveal to you that this sort of idea is also not allowed. It would be considered an "additional logging requirement" (ALR) which were removed awhile back, except for challenge caches. Basically, once someone signs your log you can't deny them the ability to log their find for failure to perform some addtional task such as posting a photo.

 

You also are not allowed to force peoople to email you in order to obtain coordinates.

 

I have a friend who hid a Traditional cache in a spot that is visible on a highway traffic camera. He requested that people -- if they want -- capture the webcam image and post it with their log. He had to go back and forth with the reviewer a few times before the reviewer was satisifed that the wording was sufficiently clear that this was an option, not a requirement and the traffic cam was in no way needed to find the cache.

 

Read the guidelines in detail. They cover a lot of situations and will save you a lot of effort down the road. Cheers!

[+narcissa]

Read the guidelines. Now, read them again.

 

And think hard before you try to lie to a reviewer again. Yes, checking those boxes without reading the guidelines amounts to lying. If a reviewer can't trust you, why should he/she publish any of your caches?

[+StarBrand]

....I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

When installing software from companies I know and trust - no I don't generally read it all. When signing a loan - every last word twice.

 

I once worked for an Internet provider that had you sign a 3 paragraph user agreement when signing up. Part of that agreement was that there was no refund if you did not use the dialup service for any period of time. I'll bet 4 or 5 people a month would call and tell us they had not dialed in for a month or two and we could confirm that - they still demanded a refund for unused services. When we showed them paperwork with their own signature - most all yelled and screamed that they did not read or understand what they signed and threatened to sue us. One guy went so far as to say that we 'forced' him to sign it without a chance to read it. Sigh.....

 

Read it. Read it Again. Really read it. Understand it.

[+Don_J]

....I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

When installing software from companies I know and trust - no I don't generally read it all. When signing a loan - every last word twice.

 

I once worked for an Internet provider that had you sign a 3 paragraph user agreement when signing up. Part of that agreement was that there was no refund if you did not use the dialup service for any period of time. I'll bet 4 or 5 people a month would call and tell us they had not dialed in for a month or two and we could confirm that - they still demanded a refund for unused services. When we showed them paperwork with their own signature - most all yelled and screamed that they did not read or understand what they signed and threatened to sue us. One guy went so far as to say that we 'forced' him to sign it without a chance to read it. Sigh.....

 

Read it. Read it Again. Really read it. Understand it.

 

That's silly. That would be like asking your cable for a refund because you didn't watch TV.

 

As far as software, I once downloaded a neatly described, and recommended freeware program that would record off of my radio scanner, only when the scanner was active. The EULA seemed kind of long, so I inspected it carefully. Buried in the middle was a clause that by installing, I was giving them permission to access my address book for the purpose of sending commercial email. Since then, unless it's in a box from a major trusted company, I read every word of the End User License.

[+CaveMountainBrewers]

I stand corrected

[Andronicus]

'can see how "hiders" can get carried away with virtuals...but I think webcams can be fun.

 

My webcam cache that was denied was the webcam at Windham Mountain here..... http://www.windhammountain.com/the-mountain/web-cam/

 

I think it would have been a lot of fun to have cachers submit the images to their logs of themselves captured on the webcams. The top webcam image would have been a fun challenge since the cam is halfway up the mountain. I was going to mail the FTF a nice prize, and the value of the prize would double if the image was captured at night with a flashlight on their faces. Oh well!!!!

Rather than require caches to submit the images to their logs of themselves captured on the webcams, you could suggest that it would be fun if they did. You would need to place an actual physical cache though.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first?

 

Better check to see who owns your soul. Link

[+TerraViators]

....I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

When installing software from companies I know and trust - no I don't generally read it all. When signing a loan - every last word twice.

 

I once worked for an Internet provider that had you sign a 3 paragraph user agreement when signing up. Part of that agreement was that there was no refund if you did not use the dialup service for any period of time. I'll bet 4 or 5 people a month would call and tell us they had not dialed in for a month or two and we could confirm that - they still demanded a refund for unused services. When we showed them paperwork with their own signature - most all yelled and screamed that they did not read or understand what they signed and threatened to sue us. One guy went so far as to say that we 'forced' him to sign it without a chance to read it. Sigh.....

 

Read it. Read it Again. Really read it. Understand it.

Hmmm...well that definitely is shady on the ISP's part, but that's corporate greed for you.

[+Don_J]

....I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

When installing software from companies I know and trust - no I don't generally read it all. When signing a loan - every last word twice.

 

I once worked for an Internet provider that had you sign a 3 paragraph user agreement when signing up. Part of that agreement was that there was no refund if you did not use the dialup service for any period of time. I'll bet 4 or 5 people a month would call and tell us they had not dialed in for a month or two and we could confirm that - they still demanded a refund for unused services. When we showed them paperwork with their own signature - most all yelled and screamed that they did not read or understand what they signed and threatened to sue us. One guy went so far as to say that we 'forced' him to sign it without a chance to read it. Sigh.....

 

Read it. Read it Again. Really read it. Understand it.

Hmmm...well that definitely is shady on the ISP's part, but that's corporate greed for you.

 

Why is it shady? If you don't use your phone for a month, you still get a phone bill. If you buy a service, you pay for the service, regardless of if you use it or not. Also, how do know if the ISP was incorporated?

[+GeoGeeBee]

....I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

When installing software from companies I know and trust - no I don't generally read it all. When signing a loan - every last word twice.

 

I once worked for an Internet provider that had you sign a 3 paragraph user agreement when signing up. Part of that agreement was that there was no refund if you did not use the dialup service for any period of time. I'll bet 4 or 5 people a month would call and tell us they had not dialed in for a month or two and we could confirm that - they still demanded a refund for unused services. When we showed them paperwork with their own signature - most all yelled and screamed that they did not read or understand what they signed and threatened to sue us. One guy went so far as to say that we 'forced' him to sign it without a chance to read it. Sigh.....

 

Read it. Read it Again. Really read it. Understand it.

Hmmm...well that definitely is shady on the ISP's part, but that's corporate greed for you.

Can I get a refund on the bicycle that's hanging in my garage? I haven't used it all winter.

[+bflentje]

Read the guidelines. Now, read them again.

 

And think hard before you try to lie to a reviewer again. Yes, checking those boxes without reading the guidelines amounts to lying. If a reviewer can't trust you, why should he/she publish any of your caches?

 

[+bflentje]

....I can't help but ask...... have you never checked off a box in your life without doing everything the box asks first? If yes....it would probably earn you the 2011 "smartest man in the world" which yo could add to your list of accolades.

When installing software from companies I know and trust - no I don't generally read it all. When signing a loan - every last word twice.

 

I once worked for an Internet provider that had you sign a 3 paragraph user agreement when signing up. Part of that agreement was that there was no refund if you did not use the dialup service for any period of time. I'll bet 4 or 5 people a month would call and tell us they had not dialed in for a month or two and we could confirm that - they still demanded a refund for unused services. When we showed them paperwork with their own signature - most all yelled and screamed that they did not read or understand what they signed and threatened to sue us. One guy went so far as to say that we 'forced' him to sign it without a chance to read it. Sigh.....

 

Read it. Read it Again. Really read it. Understand it.

Hmmm...well that definitely is shady on the ISP's part, but that's corporate greed for you.

 

OMG, that's the best post in this thread so far..

[+NYPaddleCacher]

'can see how "hiders" can get carried away with virtuals...but I think webcams can be fun.

 

My webcam cache that was denied was the webcam at Windham Mountain here..... http://www.windhammountain.com/the-mountain/web-cam/

 

I think it would have been a lot of fun to have cachers submit the images to their logs of themselves captured on the webcams. The top webcam image would have been a fun challenge since the cam is halfway up the mountain. I was going to mail the FTF a nice prize, and the value of the prize would double if the image was captured at night with a flashlight on their faces. Oh well!!!!

Rather than require caches to submit the images to their logs of themselves captured on the webcams, you could suggest that it would be fun if they did. You would need to place an actual physical cache though.

 

This leads to an issue that nobody seems to have commented on yet. The OP stated that "For example,in order to get to the cache you must capture an image of yourself on the webcam, submit to me for verification, then I will give the final coordinates for the cache location."

 

I assume that the CO means that after verifying a photo taken by the webcam they would send the final coordinates via email. It doesn't matter if a webcam, a personal camera, or the finder has to identify something seen at the published coordinates. Sending a CO information to be verified before receiving final coordinates via email isn't allowed.

[+Too Tall John]

Hmmm...well that definitely is shady on the ISP's part, but that's corporate greed for you.

OMG, that's the best post in this thread so far..

What, pray tell, do you have to contribute to the thread?

[+DanOCan]

This leads to an issue that nobody seems to have commented on yet

 

Hehe, I tried to bring it up back in Post #24 but it seemed to get overlooked because it was a single sentence tucked between two paragraphs.

 

You also are not allowed to force peoople to email you in order to obtain coordinates.

[+360 Degrees NZ]

Early on, virtuals were fun and somewhat novel ideas for caching without a cache container. However, really lame things like discarded sneakers in the woods and spray painted words on bridges were being submitted as virtual caches.

 

A bad day of geocaching is still better than a good day at work. I'd hunt for sneakers and spray paint all day long if there were no traditional caches left in my area.

I agree. And another thing is, earthcaches have no physical container, then why weren't they moved over to Waymarking?

[+niraD]

And another thing is, earthcaches have no physical container, then why weren't they moved over to Waymarking?

Actually, Earthcaches were moved to Waymarking.com. But then people stopped logging Earthcaches, and the logging requirements for Earthcaches weren't really a good fit for Waymarking anyway. After some negotiation between Groundspeak and GSA (The Geological Society of America, the sponsor of Earthcaches), Earthcaches were moved back to Geocaching.com.

[+lamoracke]

Too bad there is not a webcam society for America with some clout.

[+Team Woodward]

Personally I would like to see Virtuals back and micro caches banned. Most of the P&G's any more are completely pointless except to the "numbers" bunch.

 

Virtuals took me to many interesting and historical places that I would have not seen otherwise. Granted I didn't log all of these but I did appreciate most of them. So what if every historical marker becomes a Virtual?

 

Waymarking is a failure. Talk about a bunch of useless destinations. In our small town the ugly one story brick post office built in the 60's is listed. Every church whether they are historically or architecturally significant. Three people listing the same thing? There is no control here at all it seems.

 

With some basic guidelines and a reviewer who would take it seriously Virtuals could be revived. For people who don't like them there are filters! I don't like having to maintain two seperate accounts to keep track. That is why I don't use the Waymarking site.

[+T.D.M.22]

Personally I would like to see Virtuals back and micro caches banned. Most of the P&G's any more are completely pointless except to the "numbers" bunch.

 

Virtuals took me to many interesting and historical places that I would have not seen otherwise. Granted I didn't log all of these but I did appreciate most of them. So what if every historical marker becomes a Virtual?

 

I can just see it now-virtual power trails. I could have 2000 caches with no wet log books or mugglings to worry about.

[+lamoracke]

as opposed to Wherigo power trails? letterbox power trails? These already exist, can do one Wherigo cartridge q&a and get 15 Wherigo finds just like that in at least one place. LBH power trails exist many places. I wonder if they even have stamps in them. As someone who would love to see virtuals and webcams back, I would want some limitation to not allow sheer mass volumes on these. That would be funny in a way, a webcam power trail.

Edited October 15, 2012 by lamoracke

[+ArcherDragoon]

Personally I would like to see Virtuals back and micro caches banned. Most of the P&G's any more are completely pointless except to the "numbers" bunch.

 

Virtuals took me to many interesting and historical places that I would have not seen otherwise. Granted I didn't log all of these but I did appreciate most of them. So what if every historical marker becomes a Virtual?

 

Waymarking is a failure. Talk about a bunch of useless destinations. In our small town the ugly one story brick post office built in the 60's is listed. Every church whether they are historically or architecturally significant. Three people listing the same thing? There is no control here at all it seems.

 

With some basic guidelines and a reviewer who would take it seriously Virtuals could be revived. For people who don't like them there are filters! I don't like having to maintain two seperate accounts to keep track. That is why I don't use the Waymarking site.

Two Accounts???

 

You ID you created for Geocaching.com should work for the other...it is a Groundspeak thing...I know mine works on Geocaching, Waymarking, and Wherigo...no need for seperate accounts on each...

[+tozainamboku]

Personally I would like to see Virtuals back and micro caches banned. Most of the P&G's any more are completely pointless except to the "numbers" bunch.

 

Virtuals took me to many interesting and historical places that I would have not seen otherwise. Granted I didn't log all of these but I did appreciate most of them. So what if every historical marker becomes a Virtual?

There has always been a dichotomy as to what people consider the proper purpose of a geocache. For many the idea was to use a GPS to find something hidden by someone else (or in the case of a virtual to find a existing object). But a for a few people the "coolness" was that the cache often brought you to an interesting location, especially on you might not have visited except for the cache there.

 

Once the "wow" requirement was added for virtual caches they tended to bring you to such interesting places. But that also pointed out the everyone has a different definition of what is wow.

 

Waymarking is a failure. Talk about a bunch of useless destinations. In our small town the ugly one story brick post office built in the 60's is listed. Every church whether they are historically or architecturally significant. Three people listing the same thing? There is no control here at all it seems.

Waymarking avoided the "wow" issue. Instead of being "wow", waymarks simply need to fit into one of the many categories created by groups of waymarkers. By definition each of the categories is "of interest" to somebody. (Of course, some categories are now abandoned with no active officers to approve waymarks. Perhaps it is that Waymarking is a failure because it lacks a way to deal with categories that are no longer of interest to anyone). If you want to use Waymarking to find interesting places to visit you need to do some work and find the categories that interest you. You can no longer reply on some reviewer picking out what is "wow".

 

With some basic guidelines and a reviewer who would take it seriously Virtuals could be revived. For people who don't like them there are filters! I don't like having to maintain two seperate accounts to keep track. That is why I don't use the Waymarking site.

What would these guidelines be? There was a lot of effort trying to define "wow" for virtual caches and frankly it didn't work. The reviewers themselves got tired of it.

 

That doesn't mean that there aren't people who wouldn't mind be the arbiters of "wowness". In other fields these people are called critics. And there are certainly people who choose what movies to see based on what the critics say.

 

I'd prefer something like this be implemented on Waymarking, but I can understand that some people want very much to integrate finding geocaches with visiting interesting places, and may even want to be able to log a "find" when they visit an interesting place. I am always taken aback a little when someone declares Waymarking a failure and then immediately shows how little they know about the Waymarking site with comment like needing two separate accounts .

Edited October 16, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Personally I would like to see Virtuals back and micro caches banned. Most of the P&G's any more are completely pointless except to the "numbers" bunch.

 

Virtuals took me to many interesting and historical places that I would have not seen otherwise. Granted I didn't log all of these but I did appreciate most of them. So what if every historical marker becomes a Virtual?

 

I can just see it now-virtual power trails. I could have 2000 caches with no wet log books or mugglings to worry about.

 

Well, after the initial placing of the 2000 film cans, power trail owners don't worry about wet log books or containers disappearing either

[+360 Degrees NZ]

With some basic guidelines and a reviewer who would take it seriously Virtuals could be revived. For people who don't like them there are filters! I don't like having to maintain two seperate accounts to keep track. That is why I don't use the Waymarking site.

I support that. Maybe there could be a petition that geocachers could sign, and then it could be determined from the community.

[+The A-Team]

With some basic guidelines and a reviewer who would take it seriously Virtuals could be revived. For people who don't like them there are filters! I don't like having to maintain two seperate accounts to keep track. That is why I don't use the Waymarking site.

I support that. Maybe there could be a petition that geocachers could sign, and then it could be determined from the community.

When we had the UserVoice site, "Bring back virtuals" was overwhelmingly the highest rated suggestion. You have to remember, though, this isn't a democracy. Groundspeak can choose to implement (or not implement) whatever they want. Virtuals were becoming too problematic back in 2005 for various reasons, and the reasons haven't changed since then. The biggest reason is the matter of which virtuals get published. That is, can any virtual be published (leading to lots of ridiculous/boring/low-quality virtuals), or have some kind of subjective restrictions (the WOW factor). The reviewers made it very clear that they no longer wanted to be the arbiters of "WOW", and allowing any virtual would probably just water them down and make them as irrelevant as Waymarks.

 

Trust me, there have been lots of ideas for bringing them back. Some not that bad, some absurd. In the end, though, none of those ideas ever dealt with all the problems there were with virtuals. Give it up. They aren't coming back.

[+Manville Possum]

I listed a web cam cache here recently. I just called it a Challange.