The Return of Virtuals

[+DragonsWest]

So it is mentioned the Going APE All Over Again will be a trip through the Snoqualmie Tunnel, marked with a Virtual to remember the late Mission 9: Tunnel of Light.

 

It's about time!

 

But geez, August.

 

I have a plan for a virtual, but haven't seen any guidelines. Has anyone seen anything which could give someone guidance in preparation for the return date?

[+captnemo]

Still waiting on the Lillypad and looking forward to the return.

[knowschad]

So it is mentioned the Going APE All Over Again will be a trip through the Snoqualmie Tunnel, marked with a Virtual to remember the late Mission 9: Tunnel of Light.

 

It's about time!

 

But geez, August.

 

I have a plan for a virtual, but haven't seen any guidelines. Has anyone seen anything which could give someone guidance in preparation for the return date?

 

Where did you see that?

[+lamoracke]

saw a lot of the WSGA and a few lackeys at the recent cache machine. They were keeping whatever secret they had there, a secret.

 

would make sense in a way, strangely.

Edited June 29, 2011 by lamoracke

[+JL_HSTRE]

So it is mentioned the Going APE All Over Again will be a trip through the Snoqualmie Tunnel, marked with a Virtual to remember the late Mission 9: Tunnel of Light.

 

Where did you see that?

 

I saw it too - I think it was Jeremy's Facebook page.

 

I still haven't seen anything about details for the rest of us. I doubt we'll hear anything until the August Block Party or close to it.

[+DragonsWest]

Guess I'll have to wing it and hope when they flip the switch my proposed virtual is ready and acceptable as I'd probably be in Seattle when they make the return official.

 

Foo.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Guess I'll have to wing it and hope when they flip the switch my proposed virtual is ready and acceptable as I'd probably be in Seattle when they make the return official.

 

Foo.

 

Because you'll like, die or something, if you don't get to publish your virtual within hours of them coming back?

[+PokerLuck]

Jeremy mentioned recently that virtuals will be back by the time of the Block Party in August. I've seen the announcement somewhere on Facebook, but it has scrolled off. Here's a reference that I did find:

 

Virtual Announcement

[+humboldt flier]

Still waiting on the Lillypad and looking forward to the return.

 

AMEN

[knowschad]

I see. If we chose to not watch his Facebook page, we get the news 2nd hand.

[+hzoi]

It's also in the feedback forum. While Jeremy's initial answer to the "bring back the virtuals" suggestion indicated they'd be back by late May, it changed to June/July or late August before the block party at the latest.

[+BuckeyeClan]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

[+d+n.s]

I really hope its something like a history cache, but the superguy thing makes me think it's something we haven't even fathomed yet... which is cool!

[+DragonsWest]

Guess I'll have to wing it and hope when they flip the switch my proposed virtual is ready and acceptable as I'd probably be in Seattle when they make the return official.

 

Foo.

 

Because you'll like, die or something, if you don't get to publish your virtual within hours of them coming back?

 

Yeah. I'll probably die. Be all dramatic 'n stuff, like one of those operas, the singing alone could go on and on. Nobody would like that.

 

Really, I just want some idea what requirements there will be, for when I scout GZ for stuff to include.

 

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

 

I think most of those are now called Waymarks. There's a place for lame-o stuff and I expect Virtuals to be a bit more like Earthcaches - more redeeming in some shape, where nothing geological or ecological is happening.

 

"This is the first Burger Peon, of which the chain numbers in the thousands, where it all began. Back then they had a simple menu and no toys or Captain Crumbcruncher Meals. Have your picture taken with an 8 foot statue of Roland O'Dolan (made from recycled polystyrene Meal Boxen, you can even see some old embalmed fries beneath the surface!) Tell me what you ate here and whether or not you became ill later."

Edited June 29, 2011 by DragonsWest

[+briansnat]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

 

Which means that probably 87.3 percent of virtual fans will be disappointed by the new virtuals.

[+DragonsWest]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

 

Which means that probably 87.3 percent of virtual fans will be disappointed by the new virtuals.

 

Virtual fans or fans of virtuals?

[+tozainamboku]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

 

Which means that probably 87.3 percent of virtual fans will be disappointed by the new virtuals.

 

Virtual fans or fans of virtuals?

That's the problem with calling them virtual caches. It makes it sound as if there is nothing really there. Might as well just post some coordinates and get credit for going to the coordinates and pretending to find the virtual cache that isn't really there. (Or sit at home on your couch and virtually travel to the coordinates to virtually find the imaginary cache).

 

Perhaps a name like Wonderts! would better describe them. These are places where there is a wonder to find - something that is so special a visitor might say "wow". Of course I think my local McDonalds is pretty wonderful and so is the Wal*Mart. Your wonderts may vary.

Edited June 29, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+dfx]

That's the problem with calling them virtual caches. It makes it sound as if there is nothing really there.

There sure as heck is no cache there. So why call them caches to begin with?

[Clan Riffster]

There sure as heck is no cache there. So why call them caches to begin with?

For the same reason that a streaming digital camera connected to the Internet can be a cache.

As can a bunch of geeks picking up garbage. As can a sinkhole. As can some nerds eating hotwings.

"'Cuz The Lily Pad says so"

[+geodarts]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

 

Which means that probably 87.3 percent of virtual fans will be disappointed by the new virtuals.

 

And 87.3 percent of the people who do not like virtuals will be equally disappointed. It seems like a long time ago when Jeremy stated that they hoped to bring back virtuals in a way that would make both camps happy: " [We] plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don’t want them back."

 

Which is why I believe it will take a Superguy - and maybe even a Supergal - to accomplish the task.

Edited June 29, 2011 by mulvaney

[cezanne]

That's the problem with calling them virtual caches. It makes it sound as if there is nothing really there.

There sure as heck is no cache there. So why call them caches to begin with?

 

Sure there is no cache container. Cache is however not equivalent to cache container. For my personal experience of a nice cache hike in the mountains finding the final container only contributes very little to my overall experience.

 

When I did this cache

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

(unfortunately the description is only in German) which I enjoyed enormously

I had to solve two preliminary puzzles in order to determine the names of 16 trees and then to

identify these trees in a large park in Graz. There are no coordinates given for these trees - so definitely

searching is necessary, but in a more intellegent way than just going to some coordinates and searching for a film canister.

The cache as it is set up is not a virtual as in the end one can compute coordinates and then go and find a micro.

This micro does not play any sort of essential role for what's the real experience of that cache.

Yet the cache does not fit at all in the waymark framework or the framework that nothing has to be searched/found or

the framework that one just gets some coordinates and then finds a "wonder" there and even less in the framework

that one can do the work from the sofa at home.

 

Everyone is free to dislike virtual caches, but most of the statements I read about virtual caches by those who

do not like them refers to a tiny subclass of virtual caches and does not take into account how much freedom the

concept could offer.

 

Cezanne

[+Coldgears]

Why does Groundspeak make people wait until the day of, or the day before, it is actually implemented before they release information about... Mostly anything! It's annoying, they know exactly how they are implementing them, it isn't in the "figuring it out" stage it is in the finalizing stage and they know they are implementing it, and what they are implementing.

 

So annoying!

[+cache_test_dummies]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

Further adding to the mystery is a post in the "Bring Back Virtuals" feedback topic from about a month ago in which Jeremy states "We'll likely launch the activity for Premium Members first in order to get feedback and adjust the concept as necessary. As it stands now, the new concept will not require a review process."

 

Intriguing! What kind of a virtual cache requires no review process? Perhaps locations from a previously established list?

 

Or maybe everybody (well, only Premium Members at first) get to choose 1 or 5 locations that they can list as Virtual Caches without any questions asked.

 

Who knows? Fun to speculate, though.

[+Coldgears]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

Further adding to the mystery is a post in the "Bring Back Virtuals" feedback topic from about a month ago in which Jeremy states "We'll likely launch the activity for Premium Members first in order to get feedback and adjust the concept as necessary. As it stands now, the new concept will not require a review process."

 

Intriguing! What kind of a virtual cache requires no review process? Perhaps locations from a previously established list?

 

Or maybe everybody (well, only Premium Members at first) get to choose 1 or 5 locations that they can list as Virtual Caches without any questions asked.

 

Who knows? Fun to speculate, though.

The fact that there is no review process leads me to believe there will be no find counts associated with it.

 

Maybe the list you choose come, comes from a pre-made database by another company, E.G. benchmarking.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Coldgears

[+d+n.s]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

Further adding to the mystery is a post in the "Bring Back Virtuals" feedback topic from about a month ago in which Jeremy states "We'll likely launch the activity for Premium Members first in order to get feedback and adjust the concept as necessary. As it stands now, the new concept will not require a review process."

 

Intriguing! What kind of a virtual cache requires no review process? Perhaps locations from a previously established list?

 

Or maybe everybody (well, only Premium Members at first) get to choose 1 or 5 locations that they can list as Virtual Caches without any questions asked.

 

Who knows? Fun to speculate, though.

Wait! This is all coming together now...

I imagine a "superguy or supergal" is probably allowed to place said caches. If so, I wonder what will decide who these cachers are? Maybe you can only place 1 for every 10 favorite points one of you caches accumulate?

Some sort of merit based virtual cache...

Edited June 30, 2011 by d+n.s

[+tozainamboku]

Who knows? It may even be one of my ideas to use locations that are already Waymarks in multiple categories or in certain categories that Groundspeak has blessed as "Wow". So if you have any places in mind, you better get going and get those waymarks accepted first.

[+dfx]

I get it now.

 

Everybody can publish virtuals, but they will be only visible to and loggable by whoever published them.

 

Problem solved!

[+lamoracke]

There are plenty of virtuals which have no useful information whatsoever. One asked for the info on a fire hydrant by a birth center. Another asked for how many toilets one person had in this yard. I think limiting the # of virtuals given the amount of cachers now vs 2002-03 is not a bad thing.

 

Personally I really wish the new virtuals would have a different icon than the old ones, but thats just me.

 

I also wish, and its a pipe dream, that Groundspeak would open up a small amount of Locationless caches (with owners consent of course), say 5, and let folks who choose to log them on a special day of the year. Be a nice reward for those folks who wish they could have them. Unlike the ape cache, its not like the original container has to be there.

[+releasethedogs]

I also wish, and its a pipe dream, that Groundspeak would open up a small amount of Locationless caches (with owners consent of course), say 5, and let folks who choose to log them on a special day of the year. Be a nice reward for those folks who wish they could have them. Unlike the ape cache, its not like the original container has to be there.

This.

I dunno why they keep them locked. Seems silly to me.

[+Castle Mischief]

Pro-virtual cachers might not want to get their hopes up too far. In the comments of the "super guy" emblem that he posted, someone suggested bringing back virtuals as they were before, and his response was "Oh for the love of everything that is holy, we're not bringing those nasty virtuals back."

Further adding to the mystery is a post in the "Bring Back Virtuals" feedback topic from about a month ago in which Jeremy states "We'll likely launch the activity for Premium Members first in order to get feedback and adjust the concept as necessary. As it stands now, the new concept will not require a review process."

 

Intriguing! What kind of a virtual cache requires no review process? Perhaps locations from a previously established list?

 

Or maybe everybody (well, only Premium Members at first) get to choose 1 or 5 locations that they can list as Virtual Caches without any questions asked.

 

Who knows? Fun to speculate, though.

 

Speculation: Virtuals will not be created by Random Joe Cacher and will be only created by Lackeys at Groundspeak for locations that they deem worthy of a Virtual. Hence, no review process. Further Baseless Speculation Grounded in Angst: There will be a higher concentration of new Virtuals in the Seattle area than any other location on the globe.

[+d+n.s]

There are plenty of virtuals which have no useful information whatsoever. One asked for the info on a fire hydrant by a birth center. Another asked for how many toilets one person had in this yard. I think limiting the # of virtuals given the amount of cachers now vs 2002-03 is not a bad thing.

 

Personally I really wish the new virtuals would have a different icon than the old ones, but thats just me.

 

I also wish, and its a pipe dream, that Groundspeak would open up a small amount of Locationless caches (with owners consent of course), say 5, and let folks who choose to log them on a special day of the year. Be a nice reward for those folks who wish they could have them. Unlike the ape cache, its not like the original container has to be there.

On a purely selfish aesthetic level, I hope it stays the little ghost guy.

Why?

Beacuse:

1) It's my favorite icon. It's pretty cute.

2) I feel like the # of icons is already a bit long and sloppy

[+hzoi]

Further Baseless Speculation Grounded in Angst: There will be a higher concentration of new Virtuals in the Seattle area than any other location on the globe.

 

Whaaaaaaa?

 

Come on, now. We all know there aren't any benefits available to Pacific Northwest cachers that aren't available to everyone else. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously just not getting enough rainy weather.