Jump to content

Virtuals


chrispt
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Never at the speed they are going. :smile:

And there was much rejoicing.

 

Yea, when I first joined GC, i want virtual to come back and now after peer reviewing a number of virtual on another site, I dont really want it back after all. There is a very good reason why Groundspeak dont really want it back.

Link to comment

For those of us who are looking forward to their return (in whatever form that might be) Jeremy has stated

 

"We continue to work on the project, but unfortunately will be unable to launch something until late June or early July. I'll update this if anything changes. We'll be incorporating the concept into our August 20 Block Party in Seattle, so early August is the absolute latest that we'll have something live."

 

Edited to note that I missed the earlier quotation as I was drinking coffee and reading this on my phone, but it bears repeating along with other statements that Groundspeak hopes to reintroduce them in a way that satisfies everyone and will be consistent with the core of the caching experience. This seems like a Herculean task but I am looking forward to seeing how virtuals are implemented.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

Never, I hope.

I thought the rumor was they were coming back?

Something that ought to act as a kind-of replacement is gonna "come back". Not virtuals per se.

If they do come back as "a kind-of replacement" and not exactly "virtual" I hope they get a new Icon, mainly to let me sort from the original virtuals and the "new and improved" ones.

Link to comment

I love some of the virtuals but I can certainly understand why they became a problem. I'm wondering how they will be reintroduced. They certainly can't come back as they were originally implemented. From what I've heard and read things got really out of hand with the original implementation. I'll just have to wait and see how they can manage to revive the concept of the virtual cache without bringing back the problems. It seems to me that the original idea was ok but the problem was the idiotic things people decided they wanted to list as a virtual. As usual, people can manage to screw up stuff pretty badly and you can't seem to count on them having any common sense.

Link to comment

Never, I hope.

I thought the rumor was they were coming back?

Something that ought to act as a kind-of replacement is gonna "come back". Not virtuals per se.

There is already something that ought to act as a kind-of replacement for virtuals. There is no need for another kind-of anything. If that is what Jeremy is planing than it will fail as much as Waymarking to satisfy those who want virtuals. If they come back, then they will come back as virtuals. What might change are the guidelines for listing the new virtuals:

  • Will there be a "Wow" requirement?
  • Will there be special saturation guidelines?
  • Will there be special maintenance requirements?
  • Will permission be required?
  • What will the logging requirements be?
  • Who will review virtual cache submissions?

Link to comment

I tried searching to find the answer, but does anyone have an idea of when virtuals are going to return?

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 keep being put off here on GC, and listing one on another site that I use is "Hog-Wash" getting them through peer review. I'm holding out until they are reinstated here to see what GC has to offer before I submit another. :anibad:

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed. If not they may quickly go on my ignore list.

I like EarthCaches, but still have some of them on "my" ignore list. :rolleyes:

I hear ya! The Earthcache review method trims the fat, but no process can eliminate all the fat.

 

Off-Topic: I'm headed up your way for a Power Run on Fri/Sat. I have one of your caches on my list.

Link to comment
I tried searching to find the answer, but does anyone have an idea of when virtuals are going to return?

 

 

I asked a lackey about virtuals not too long ago and they basically said that Groundspeak is trying to get them back, but the problem is virtuals are meant to be placed at "special places", and this idea is different from cacher to cacher.

 

I'm not sure how today's cachers would react to virtuals vs cachers who have been around since shortly after the game began, a new icon may need to be developed...

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed. If not they may quickly go on my ignore list.

 

And, if they are like some of the Earthcaches out there, where I have to write a term paper in order to log them, they will go on my Ignore list.

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed. If not they may quickly go on my ignore list.

 

And, if they are like some of the Earthcaches out there, where I have to write a term paper in order to log them, they will go on my Ignore list.

Or have to pay to visit like some EC's and virtuals are. I ignore them too. :anibad:

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

 

If the guidelines will be like the ones for Earthcaches, I will refrain from coming up with a virtual as I am not willing to write my cache page in any other language than English.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

Indeed. Let's have something like HistoryCaches, with the same strict requirements for EarthCaches, but focusing on history.

 

We got it, its over at Waymarking.com. :ph34r:

Now if only one could get a proper GPX from WM.com.

when geocaching I download and go, I tried to give Waymarking a chance but if I'm not willing to do more than download to find something then I am even less inclined to do more to just show up.

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed. If not they may quickly go on my ignore list.

 

And, if they are like some of the Earthcaches out there, where I have to write a term paper in order to log them, they will go on my Ignore list.

Or have to pay to visit like some EC's and virtuals are. I ignore them too. :anibad:

 

+100

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

Indeed. Let's have something like HistoryCaches, with the same strict requirements for EarthCaches, but focusing on history.

 

We got it, its over at Waymarking.com. :ph34r:

I think that the Waymarking site is great. :D If it were used. :anicute: Just so many lame categorys were allowed into the site that most geocachers won't even go there but will try and sign a wet log in some "real" cache. :mad:

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

Indeed. Let's have something like HistoryCaches, with the same strict requirements for EarthCaches, but focusing on history.

 

We got it, its over at Waymarking.com. :ph34r:

I think that the Waymarking site is great. :D If it were used. :anicute: Just so many lame categorys were allowed into the site that most geocachers won't even go there but will try and sign a wet log in some "real" cache. :mad:

Yeah because there is no such thing as a virtual cache in real life just locations and caches. There are however Tons of virtual caches in SecondLife. OK there are virtual caches in RL, the empty container, just a log, the destroyed cache...

I don't do ECs because they are not caches, they are just locations. Had an opportunity to do a web-cam but there is nothing to sign so it is just a location. At one point I set up an account for me to log anything that did not have a log for me to sign, and I can't even remember the password because the only time I even conciser using it is when caching with others that like the false cache types.

 

What they should do is list anything that requires a log under found it and anything that doesn't require a log under showed up.

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

Indeed. Let's have something like HistoryCaches, with the same strict requirements for EarthCaches, but focusing on history.

 

We got it, its over at Waymarking.com. :ph34r:

I think that the Waymarking site is great. :D If it were used. :anicute: Just so many lame categorys were allowed into the site that most geocachers won't even go there but will try and sign a wet log in some "real" cache. :mad:

Yeah because there is no such thing as a virtual cache in real life just locations and caches. There are however Tons of virtual caches in SecondLife. OK there are virtual caches in RL, the empty container, just a log, the destroyed cache...

I don't do ECs because they are not caches, they are just locations. Had an opportunity to do a web-cam but there is nothing to sign so it is just a location. At one point I set up an account for me to log anything that did not have a log for me to sign, and I can't even remember the password because the only time I even conciser using it is when caching with others that like the false cache types.

 

What they should do is list anything that requires a log under found it and anything that doesn't require a log under showed up.

Virtual listings, waymarks, POI's, and EC's are not like geocaching at all for us. They are places that we enjoy visiting and taking photos. But they are still GPS related fun for us. :D

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed. If not they may quickly go on my ignore list.

 

And, if they are like some of the Earthcaches out there, where I have to write a term paper in order to log them, they will go on my Ignore list.

:unsure:

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

Indeed. Let's have something like HistoryCaches, with the same strict requirements for EarthCaches, but focusing on history.

 

You want to find historic sites?

 

You can find historical spots there, but these really cannot be compared to the educational focus that distinguishes earthcaches. Earthcaches were added to Groundspeak because an organization, the Geological Society of America, proposed how these caches could be organized and provided funding and staffing to make it work.. Geoaware, who coordinates earthcaches, has suggested that if people want to see other caches like these, they should convince a similar organization to approach Groundspeak. But in the meantime, it will be interesting to see how virtuals are implemented.

 

Virtuals and earthcaches are a significant part, perhaps the majority, of my favorites and are the first caches I look for whenever I travel to an area. They have enriched my experience as part of this game so I am interested in what is developed, but see no need to do too much speculating until then.

Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

Indeed. Let's have something like HistoryCaches, with the same strict requirements for EarthCaches, but focusing on history.

 

You want to find historic sites?

 

I really wish that we could get more geocachers to join us in Waymarking. At first glance I hated the site. Some really lame junk categorys, but some really great ones too.

Link to comment

 

Yes, I do, but the stress is not on finding them, but on learning more about them. Apart from the fact that Waymarking in my area does not offer me anything at all in this respect, the historical waymarks I have looked at in the US mainly stress the location point of view and are not the educational/scientific point of view that is at the centre of my focus.

 

Waymarks like that one

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMBRRT_Roman_Wall_Tower_of_London_London_UK

or that one

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMBF2A_La_voie_Domitius_de_Meyras_Ardche_France

are very far from the type of history caches I would like to see. Apart from the fact that the logging task is ridiculous, the educational aspect is not existing at all and the background information provided is even less than what is typically displayed at information boards at such sites which is much less than I would like to be informed about. What is written in any cheap travel guide or can be found in wikipedia is not what I am looking for.

 

I also could well imagine virtual caches along the lines of this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=dc8e2869-d48d-4aa9-b608-b1794c9e405c

where one could omit the micro container at the end which is not really related to the cache and the tasks to be solved. The main focus is not identifying certain types of tree in a large urban park. When implemented in a virtual way such caches would also not take up locations for hideouts for caches that really need a certain location.

The only issue is of course that someone would need to make the decision which virtuals are published and which rejected. I am certainly not interested into virtuals showing me a fast food restaurant, but a cache box there does not interest me either.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I don't understand you people. Complain, complain, complain.

 

We cache and benchmark hunt for the enjoyment of it. We really enjoy some of the places where it has taken us. We don't do this to learn about rocks, or learn the history of something, etc. We are in it for the grandeur of the places we find caches and benchmarks. We don't need to spend all the extra time and effort to log an earthcache or history cache. If some spot really gets our attention and we want to learn more about it, we will, but to be Forced to do so as part of finding the cache is ridiculous. If we wanted to be educated, then we would go back to school and take the specific classes for what we would like to learn. We do this for fun and relaxation and not for a mediocre education.

 

If you don't like virtuals exclude them from your pocket query. If you like to jump through hoops to log a cache, then do earthcaches, but try to force everyone else to do the things the same way they do things with earthcaches. There is no reason a virtual needs to force the cacher to learn about the history of an area. We know plenty of places that are amazing and awe-inspiring but there is little history to be learned from them, but they are worth the time to visit just for the sheer beauty of the area.

 

There are areas we find peace and solitude and grandeur, but to others they are "God forsaken" bone chilling places. We don't need to force others to go to these places, but would gladly let others knows those places exist if they are interested.

 

We hope virtuals come back in some form close to what the originals were.

 

John

Link to comment

We are in it for the grandeur of the places we find caches and benchmarks. We don't need to spend all the extra time and effort to log an earthcache or history cache. If some spot really gets our attention and we want to learn more about it, we will, but to be Forced to do so as part of finding the cache is ridiculous. If we wanted to be educated, then we would go back to school and take the specific classes for what we would like to learn. We do this for fun and relaxation and not for a mediocre education.

 

I learnt that it is quite subjective what type of activities bring along enjoyment, relaxation, fun etc for different people.

I do respect your point of view, but also would like to have my point of view respected. I do not have the time to study all those many subjects I am interested in as I need to work and earn money.

I often cache in my home area where I am already familiar with most of the great places, but quite often I do not know that much about them.

 

Take again the example of the multi cache I have linked to above. I have been more than 1000 times in the city park of my home town. I do know all locations there and have enjoyed the beauty at all seasons. I have never ever taken the time before with taking a detailed look at the special trees there and to identify the species. I have enjoyed this learning process very much. Noone has forced me to visit that cache and noone else will be forced to visit it. Still it belongs to the most enjoyful caches I have visited in the last two years.

 

While I know cachers that are enthiastic about caches with specially constructed cache containers and enjoy finding such caches, I rather find an untight container at the summit of a nice mountain.

I find it relaxing to read deep books about neuroscience (for example) and find it annoying to view a baseball game or a sitcom. It's very relative what fun means.

 

If you don't like virtuals exclude them from your pocket query. If you like to jump through hoops to log a cache, then do earthcaches, but try to force everyone else to do the things the same way they do things with earthcaches. There is no reason a virtual needs to force the cacher to learn about the history of an area.

 

Certainly there is no such need. I just said that I personally would like such history caches (and caches about other areas) and that Waymarking does not offer me what I am looking for. By the way, I do not hope that virtual caches will be like Earthcaches for various reasons, one of them being the language issue.

 

We know plenty of places that are amazing and awe-inspiring but there is little history to be learned from them, but they are worth the time to visit just for the sheer beauty of the area.

 

There are areas we find peace and solitude and grandeur, but to others they are "God forsaken" bone chilling places. We don't need to force others to go to these places, but would gladly let others knows those places exist if they are interested.

 

I do like to visit such places, too. Not each cache needs to be educative to please me. I just feel that the type of virtual cache you describe above can relatively simply also offered at Waymarking while the type of virtual caches I am interested in does not have this property.

 

My own virtual cache from 2003 has an extremely strong educative focus - I am sure that would not like that cache as all (the same holds true for the associated non virtual caches). So already back when the virtuals still existed it was possible to come up with different sorts of virtual caches. This is not a new issue.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

If they are like Earthcaches they may be able to succeed.

Indeed. Let's have something like HistoryCaches, with the same strict requirements for EarthCaches, but focusing on history.

 

You want to find historic sites?

 

I really wish that we could get more geocachers to join us in Waymarking. At first glance I hated the site. Some really lame junk categorys, but some really great ones too.

 

The Waymarking conversation should be a whole different thread. However, I will mention how ridiculous it is to hit the nearest waymark button and find a dozen waymarks that are all the same thing but listed in a plethora of categories. At least with the geocaching site I know that the next cache is going to be at a different place. It may only be a different lamp post, but it is different.

Link to comment

I don't understand you people. Complain, complain, complain.

 

We cache and benchmark hunt for the enjoyment of it. We really enjoy some of the places where it has taken us. We don't do this to learn about rocks, or learn the history of something, etc. We are in it for the grandeur of the places we find caches and benchmarks. We don't need to spend all the extra time and effort to log an earthcache or history cache. If some spot really gets our attention and we want to learn more about it, we will, but to be Forced to do so as part of finding the cache is ridiculous. If we wanted to be educated, then we would go back to school and take the specific classes for what we would like to learn. We do this for fun and relaxation and not for a mediocre education.

 

If you don't like virtuals exclude them from your pocket query. If you like to jump through hoops to log a cache, then do earthcaches, but try to force everyone else to do the things the same way they do things with earthcaches. There is no reason a virtual needs to force the cacher to learn about the history of an area. We know plenty of places that are amazing and awe-inspiring but there is little history to be learned from them, but they are worth the time to visit just for the sheer beauty of the area.

 

There are areas we find peace and solitude and grandeur, but to others they are "God forsaken" bone chilling places. We don't need to force others to go to these places, but would gladly let others knows those places exist if they are interested.

 

We hope virtuals come back in some form close to what the originals were.

 

John

Well put. I like virtuals and am looking forward to there return, if you don't ignore them. I dislike power trails so I ignore them. Play the game the way you want and I'll do the same.

Link to comment
The Waymarking conversation should be a whole different thread. However, I will mention how ridiculous it is to hit the nearest waymark button and find a dozen waymarks that are all the same thing but listed in a plethora of categories. At least with the geocaching site I know that the next cache is going to be at a different place. It may only be a different lamp post, but it is different.

You should have stopped a the first sentence. The same location in multiple Waymarking categories is not riduculous at all (and is one of the things that makes Waymarking different than virtual caches).

 

Just as one location can be in several Waymarking categories, one location could be use to satisfy multiple locationless caches. Not only that but often that location was virtual or sometimes even a physical cache.

 

Waymarking is fundamentally different from geocaching.

 

I suspect that many people liked the idea of virtual caches because it takes you to some interesting place. When you get there, the GPS should take you to a specific target where you can get answers to a question (or take a picture). Depending on how interested you are in the place you might spend time looking around and learning more about the place or just enjoying what there is to see there.

 

Waymarking is more likely to be use by people interested in a particular type of thing or location. They may look for waymarks in the particular categories they are interested in and visit those places. The "prize" is getting to see something they are interested in, so they are less likely to log a visit. If the location is in several categories they aren't going to think that it's unfair to log their visit in as many or as few of these categories as they like.

 

Now given all this, it is still possible to have categories within Waymarking that function more like virtual caches. These categories may emphasize different aspects of what made a virtual "Wow". Some people seem to like to learn something. Some like finding places they would not have know about except for the cache. Some like places that are truly one-of-a-kind. In Waymarking, it only takes a group of three or more premium members to create a category. If these groups are willing to make the decision as to whether the location fit their "wowness" definition, we could have a number of Waymarking categories that could easily replace virtual caches. The only remaining issue - for geocachers - would be a way to combine these "virtual" caches with the physical geocaches on geocaching.com as the original virtual caches were.

Link to comment
The Waymarking conversation should be a whole different thread. However, I will mention how ridiculous it is to hit the nearest waymark button and find a dozen waymarks that are all the same thing but listed in a plethora of categories. At least with the geocaching site I know that the next cache is going to be at a different place. It may only be a different lamp post, but it is different.

You should have stopped a the first sentence. The same location in multiple Waymarking categories is not riduculous at all (and is one of the things that makes Waymarking different than virtual caches).

 

Just as one location can be in several Waymarking categories, one location could be use to satisfy multiple locationless caches. Not only that but often that location was virtual or sometimes even a physical cache.

 

Waymarking is fundamentally different from geocaching.

 

I suspect that many people liked the idea of virtual caches because it takes you to some interesting place. When you get there, the GPS should take you to a specific target where you can get answers to a question (or take a picture). Depending on how interested you are in the place you might spend time looking around and learning more about the place or just enjoying what there is to see there.

 

Waymarking is more likely to be use by people interested in a particular type of thing or location. They may look for waymarks in the particular categories they are interested in and visit those places. The "prize" is getting to see something they are interested in, so they are less likely to log a visit. If the location is in several categories they aren't going to think that it's unfair to log their visit in as many or as few of these categories as they like.

 

Now given all this, it is still possible to have categories within Waymarking that function more like virtual caches. These categories may emphasize different aspects of what made a virtual "Wow". Some people seem to like to learn something. Some like finding places they would not have know about except for the cache. Some like places that are truly one-of-a-kind. In Waymarking, it only takes a group of three or more premium members to create a category. If these groups are willing to make the decision as to whether the location fit their "wowness" definition, we could have a number of Waymarking categories that could easily replace virtual caches. The only remaining issue - for geocachers - would be a way to combine these "virtual" caches with the physical geocaches on geocaching.com as the original virtual caches were.

 

You were doing so good with the brevity of your posts lately. Someone give you a new bag of letters?

 

Start another thread about Waymarking vs. geocaching and I'll toss it back and forth with you for a while.

Link to comment

You were doing so good with the brevity of your posts lately. Someone give you a new bag of letters?

 

Start another thread about Waymarking vs. geocaching and I'll toss it back and forth with you for a while.

No! Please no! :blink:

 

We all know Toz's high opinion of Waymarking. He's one of it's three diehard fans. We got that. No need for a Waymarking vs. Geocaching thread. Ever. :huh:

 

 

:P:D

Link to comment

We are in it for the grandeur of the places we find caches and benchmarks. We don't need to spend all the extra time and effort to log an earthcache or history cache. If some spot really gets our attention and we want to learn more about it, we will, but to be Forced to do so as part of finding the cache is ridiculous. If we wanted to be educated, then we would go back to school and take the specific classes for what we would like to learn. We do this for fun and relaxation and not for a mediocre education.

 

I learnt that it is quite subjective what type of activities bring along enjoyment, relaxation, fun etc for different people.

I do respect your point of view, but also would like to have my point of view respected. I do not have the time to study all those many subjects I am interested in as I need to work and earn money.

I often cache in my home area where I am already familiar with most of the great places, but quite often I do not know that much about them.

 

Take again the example of the multi cache I have linked to above. I have been more than 1000 times in the city park of my home town. I do know all locations there and have enjoyed the beauty at all seasons. I have never ever taken the time before with taking a detailed look at the special trees there and to identify the species. I have enjoyed this learning process very much. Noone has forced me to visit that cache and noone else will be forced to visit it. Still it belongs to the most enjoyful caches I have visited in the last two years.

 

While I know cachers that are enthiastic about caches with specially constructed cache containers and enjoy finding such caches, I rather find an untight container at the summit of a nice mountain.

I find it relaxing to read deep books about neuroscience (for example) and find it annoying to view a baseball game or a sitcom. It's very relative what fun means.

 

If you don't like virtuals exclude them from your pocket query. If you like to jump through hoops to log a cache, then do earthcaches, but try to force everyone else to do the things the same way they do things with earthcaches. There is no reason a virtual needs to force the cacher to learn about the history of an area.

 

Certainly there is no such need. I just said that I personally would like such history caches (and caches about other areas) and that Waymarking does not offer me what I am looking for. By the way, I do not hope that virtual caches will be like Earthcaches for various reasons, one of them being the language issue.

 

We know plenty of places that are amazing and awe-inspiring but there is little history to be learned from them, but they are worth the time to visit just for the sheer beauty of the area.

 

There are areas we find peace and solitude and grandeur, but to others they are "God forsaken" bone chilling places. We don't need to force others to go to these places, but would gladly let others knows those places exist if they are interested.

 

I do like to visit such places, too. Not each cache needs to be educative to please me. I just feel that the type of virtual cache you describe above can relatively simply also offered at Waymarking while the type of virtual caches I am interested in does not have this property.

 

My own virtual cache from 2003 has an extremely strong educative focus - I am sure that would not like that cache as all (the same holds true for the associated non virtual caches). So already back when the virtuals still existed it was possible to come up with different sorts of virtual caches. This is not a new issue.

 

Cezanne

 

If you read what I posted you will see that I said Do NOT Require the history lesson or require a term paper to log them ALL. If someone wishes to post that type, then fine, but do not require everyone to submit that kind of virtual.

 

I also said that if you do not like virtuals, then exclude them from your pocket query, nothing was said or implied that someone couldn't or shouldn't do virtuals.

 

Since we need to work to have the funds to get out and do the things we enjoy, we don't want to waste time by being forced to learn some mediocre facts about an area. It's about priorities. But it all comes back to don't require everyone to enjoy virtuals the way others have tried to dictate.

 

John

Link to comment

I see virtuals as a good thing if they teach or share about a meaning full cultural/historical location. These locations could be places that many of us know about and visit regularly, but perhaps will learn something new. The process for logging them are not too different than some multi/Mystery caches. Go to said location and use clues/information to decode(learn) details to find the next location. In the case of virtuals the information needed to log said virtual instead of finding final of a multi/mystery cache with an actual log to sign. Seems clear to me, don't provide the correct answer, no "found it" log.....

 

[DennisMillerVoice]That's just my opinion though, I could be wrong [/DennisMillervoice]*might be lost on some

Link to comment

I don't understand you people. Complain, complain, complain.

 

We cache and benchmark hunt for the enjoyment of it. We really enjoy some of the places where it has taken us. We don't do this to learn about rocks, or learn the history of something, etc. We are in it for the grandeur of the places we find caches and benchmarks. We don't need to spend all the extra time and effort to log an earthcache or history cache. If some spot really gets our attention and we want to learn more about it, we will, but to be Forced to do so as part of finding the cache is ridiculous. If we wanted to be educated, then we would go back to school and take the specific classes for what we would like to learn. We do this for fun and relaxation and not for a mediocre education.

 

If you don't like virtuals exclude them from your pocket query. If you like to jump through hoops to log a cache, then do earthcaches, but try to force everyone else to do the things the same way they do things with earthcaches. There is no reason a virtual needs to force the cacher to learn about the history of an area. We know plenty of places that are amazing and awe-inspiring but there is little history to be learned from them, but they are worth the time to visit just for the sheer beauty of the area.

 

There are areas we find peace and solitude and grandeur, but to others they are "God forsaken" bone chilling places. We don't need to force others to go to these places, but would gladly let others knows those places exist if they are interested.

 

We hope virtuals come back in some form close to what the originals were.

 

John

 

[Applause]

This is exactly how I think of most ECs. I'm in it for the fun. When it starts to seem like work, I'll go do something else. If Virtuals end up being a simple variation of ECs, where I have to "learn" something, I'll probably end up skipping a lot of them.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

 

If you read what I posted you will see that I said Do NOT Require the history lesson or require a term paper to log them ALL. If someone wishes to post that type, then fine, but do not require everyone to submit that kind of virtual.

 

Until your clarification I have not been sure that you do not want to exclude such caches. My intention has never been been to require everyone to submit such virtuals. I not even said that I do not like virtuals that have no intellectual lesson (it is not true, anyway).

 

Since we need to work to have the funds to get out and do the things we enjoy, we don't want to waste time by being forced to learn some mediocre facts about an area.

 

Whether the facts are mediocre well depends on the cache, but as I said before it has not at all been my intention to force someone to do what he does not enjoy.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...