Why no webcam caches or virtual caches anymore?

[4wheelin_fool]

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

 

The only reason why webcams and virtuals were listed as caches, is because someone called it a cache. Then other people called it a cache, and the site listed it as a cache. But they are not caches, and never will be anything like a "cache". I suppose if lots of people call something it isn't, then eventually it will become it. All of the Challenges I've seen function exactly like virtuals, but somehow they are not considered the same. They seem to be virtual caches to me.

[+Manville Possum]

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

 

The only reason why webcams and virtuals were listed as caches, is because someone called it a cache. Then other people called it a cache, and the site listed it as a cache. But they are not caches, and never will be anything like a "cache". I suppose if lots of people call something it isn't, then eventually it will become it. All of the Challenges I've seen function exactly like virtuals, but somehow they are not considered the same. They seem to be virtual caches to me.

Yeah, virtual listings are not geocaches. Geocaches are physical containers with a log book.

EarthCaches are not geocaches, they are a virtual listing with a lesson in geology.

I enjoy virtuals, waymarks, challanges and some EarthCaches.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+snow_rules]

Actually virtual and webcams are geocaches based on the wiki article, they are just not listed on GC.com

[+tozainamboku]

Actually virtual and webcams are geocaches based on the wiki article, they are just not listed on GC.com

Somebody needs to edit the wiki page.

[+jellis]

Yeah But!

Virtuals were great in places like National Parks where you can't place a physical cache.

Webcams were just fun.

[+Manville Possum]

Actually virtual and webcams are geocaches based on the wiki article, they are just not listed on GC.com

Somebody needs to edit the wiki page.

+1

[+snow_rules]

The wiki page is correct. Other listing sites still have these type of caches and they do say the GC has elected not to participate in listing these. GC is not the only source of geocaching and isn't the authority over them. Just because you have more listing then the other sites doesn't mean you get to make all the rules.

[+snow_rules]

And I see that both still have virtuals listed in your stats and one actually created a virtual cache. If you don't think they are caches then you should remove them from your listings. I am proud of my 32 virtual and 1 webcam finds. In fact if I am in a new area I would rather pick up a virtual then a LPC. Also if they weren't caches why are they still included on GC in their statistics?

[+tozainamboku]

And I see that both still have virtuals listed in your stats and one actually created a virtual cache. If you don't think they are caches then you should remove them from your listings. I am proud of my 32 virtual and 1 webcam finds. In fact if I am in a new area I would rather pick up a virtual then a LPC. Also if they weren't caches why are they still included on GC in their statistics?

The comment on updating the wiki page is was meant to humorous. But wiki pages are notorious for misrepresenting facts as anyone can edit the page.

 

Since the earliest days, there have been some people who felt that virtual caches are not real geocaches. Dave Ulmer (who hid the first gecoache) suggested listing coordinates for interesting locations whose reward would be simply in visiting these places. These "wonderts", as he called them, were pooh-poohed by others who felt the future was in hiding containers as he originally did.

 

When Groundspeak began listing virtual caches, I think they had something different in mind. The idea was allow geocaching in places where a physical cache was not allowed or where a physical container would be impractical to maintain. These "virtual" caches were meant to be a specific object that could be found using the GPS coordinates. Proof of a find would be in the form of a picture or in a verification question that could only be answered if you found the actual object.

 

I happen to think that a properly done virtual cache fits my definition of a geocache. However, IMO, many "virtual" caches did not meet the guidelines. They didn't list a particular object to find and they didn't ask for a photograph or answer to a verification question. Even when they did, many owners of virtual caches were not interested in dealing with email or confirming the "finds" on their caches. Someone found someplace interesting they wanted to share and they were unable to place a physical cache there. Not only that but they were apparently unable (or unwilling) to make a virtual cache there. The virtual cache began to morph into the waymark. IMO, it is this, more than the "wow" requirement, that led to grandfathering of virtual caches and the decision to not list any new virtual caches.

 

I realize that some people really like be taken to cool interesting places they would not have visited otherwise. And I can see that some people have found geocaching (and particularly the grandfathered virtual caches) a good way to find these places. Perhaps the opportunity to find a few geocaches along the way enhances that experience. And I understand that the Waymarking site is lacking in some of the capabilities of Geocaching.com that make it harder to use to simply get a list of places to go and perhaps to get the feeling that when you have visited you should log that online and get a statistic. But many of those who complain about Waymark have never taken more than a cursory look at it nor have they made any effort to learn how use it for finding cool, interesting places to visit.

 

I've given up on trying to convince people that Waymarking is the way to go to share interesting locations. But bringing waymarks back to Geoaching.com is not the right thing either. We need some way for people, using the Geocaching.com website to find and share location they find interesting where for one reason or another they cannot hide a physical cache; whether this is through Challenges or via better integration with Waymarking.com or something else.

[+Manville Possum]

And I see that both still have virtuals listed in your stats and one actually created a virtual cache. If you don't think they are caches then you should remove them from your listings. I am proud of my 32 virtual and 1 webcam finds. In fact if I am in a new area I would rather pick up a virtual then a LPC. Also if they weren't caches why are they still included on GC in their statistics?

I have over 100+ virtual listings and Waymarks published, but I don't call them geocaches. Geocaches are a container with a log. I have 100+ of those too.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

And I see that both still have virtuals listed in your stats and one actually created a virtual cache. If you don't think they are caches then you should remove them from your listings. I am proud of my 32 virtual and 1 webcam finds. In fact if I am in a new area I would rather pick up a virtual then a LPC. Also if they weren't caches why are they still included on GC in their statistics?

I have over 100+ virtual listings and Waymarks published, but I don't call them geocaches. Geocaches are a container with a log. I have 100+ of those too.

 

Lots of people seem to have their own definition of a geocache. As I see it, in the context of the game that we all play, using the Groundspeak database of geocaches, the only definition that really matters is Groundspeaks definition of a geocache. If it's listed in their database, whether it's a traditional, multi, unknown/mystery, virtual, webcam, event, or letterbox hybrid it's a geocache. If it's something that does not meet their guidelines, thus can't be listed, it's not.

[GrandPotentate]

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.

I've talked to cachers that have logged over 500 finds in 1 day. He explained that he went out with a group, they split up at took off on ATVs in different directs and signed everyone's name on the logs. kinda violates the spirit of the sport.

[GrandPotentate]

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.

Why has no one noticed the the OP has no clue what "granfathered" means. A cache is "grandfathered" if it exists before the rules were changed. It doesn't mean, "since I've seen caches like this before, I can make a new cache and get it approved".

 

Also, I'm sure if your reviewer is anything like mine (knows what he is doing), you would have been told specifically why your cache was not published. If you has asked, the reviewer might have even tried to work with you to get something published that follows the rules as stated at the time.

[+cerberus1]

8 minutes ago, samuel.lewis12 said:

Not officially, however you could publish a trad then later edit it.

 

Sure.  Until a Reviewer's notified you may even get away with it a while. 

[+J Grouchy]

23 minutes ago, samuel.lewis12 said:

Not officially, however you could publish a trad then later edit it.

 

You made this suggestion in another thread.  I recommend not doing that since it encourages violation of the guidelines for hiding and maintaining cache listings.

[+MartyBartfast]

45 minutes ago, samuel.lewis12 said:

Not officially, however you could publish a trad then later edit it.

 

Nope, once it's published the cache type is one of the few things you can't change, even to another "legitimate" cache type.

 

[+TriciaG]

So why was this 6 year old thread resuscitated? To post bad advice?

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, samuel.lewis12 said:

Not officially, however you could publish a trad then later edit it.

Nothing like putting a big bullseye on your chest. 

[+Max and 99]

This is NOT in response to any specific person who has posted on this thread. But the thread reminded me of one of my favorite reviewer notes:

 

"Now you get to see what happens when I'm lied to! "

 

Believe me, it was warranted!

[+hzoi]

Since we're all here because of the bump anyway, I've seen at least one of the new virtual reward caches that incorporated a web cam.  If I find it, I'll post it.

 

edit: here it is

Edited August 20, 2018 by hzoi

[+Uncle Alaska]

8 hours ago, hzoi said:

Since we're all here because of the bump anyway, I've seen at least one of the new virtual reward caches that incorporated a web cam.  If I find it, I'll post it.

 

edit: here it is

Wow. out less than a year...320 find logs and 270 favorite points!!

[+J Grouchy]

34 minutes ago, Uncle Alaska said:

Wow. out less than a year...320 find logs and 270 favorite points!!

 

...and over 1500 photos in the gallery. 

[+GEO COWBOYS]

A new "virtual" cache was just approved on the 18 of this month.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7B6BV_the-ruckers-everetts-founding-family

[+TriciaG]

3 hours ago, GEO COWBOYS said:

A new "virtual" cache was just approved on the 18 of this month.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7B6BV_the-ruckers-everetts-founding-family

There were two published in our province over the weekend. The deadline is approaching, so the last hangers-on are getting in their submissions.

Edited August 21, 2018 by TriciaG
published --> approved

[+bflentje]

On 8/16/2018 at 2:15 PM, TriciaG said:

So why was this 6 year old thread resuscitated? To post bad advice?

 

Because if a new thread was started someone would have asked why an existing thread wasn't used, posting links to several old threads on the topic. 

 

At the end of the day it doesn't matter..

[+TriciaG]

If you're just coming to the thread now, the post that resuscitated this thread wasn't asking a question. It answered the 6-year-old question only - and with bad advice. (The bump-post was apparently deleted, but the entirety of the bump-post is quoted in several posts in response.)

My humble opinion: no thread should be resuscitated  - or a new thread started - with a post that advises someone to deceive their reviewer.

[+MNTA]

On 10/16/2012 at 10:46 PM, jellis said:

Webcams were just fun.

I'm so bummed my last attempt at a webcam was using a road department webcam at a mountain pass. Got there, agh no signal. Looks like my carrier is the only one with a problem.  

 

I still think they are fun!

[+Uncle Alaska]

5 hours ago, MNTA said:

I'm so bummed my last attempt at a webcam was using a road department webcam at a mountain pass. Got there, agh no signal. Looks like my carrier is the only one with a problem.  

 

I still think they are fun!

Was it this one? 

[+noncentric]

5 hours ago, Uncle Alaska said:

Was it this one? 

It happened to me there a couple years ago. My cell carrier is 'suboptimal'.

[+MNTA]

7 hours ago, Uncle Alaska said:

Was it this one? 

Yes will have to try again some day

[+Team Christiansen]

16 hours ago, MNTA said:

Looks like my carrier is the only one with a problem.  

Let me guess ... it's not Verizon, right?

[+thebruce0]

20 hours ago, TriciaG said:

If you're just coming to the thread now, the post that resuscitated this thread wasn't asking a question. It answered the 6-year-old question only - and with bad advice. (The bump-post was apparently deleted, but the entirety of the bump-post is quoted in several posts in response.)

I didn't think cerberus1 would be up to making such a bump ;P

[+The A-Team]

12 hours ago, noncentric said:

My cell carrier is 'suboptimal'.

Well, what did you expect with a carrier named that?

[+noncentric]

44 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

12 hours ago, noncentric said:

My cell carrier is 'suboptimal'.

Well, what did you expect with a carrier named that?

Good one.

That webcam cache did teach me a new tip, to look at the carriers shown in the cache's Gallery photos. If none of the photos include my own carrier, then that might suggest reception issues there.   Looks like AT&T and Verizon work at the specific one noted above, but I don't use either of those. May be time to switch back soon.

 

On another note. With the new Virtual Rewards, I was able to get an FTF on a Virtual cache!  Something I never thought I'd be able to do, since I started caching after Virtuals had been discontinued.