Jump to content

Virtuals Returning

maxkim

By maxkim
in United Kingdom and Ireland

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

keehotee

+keehotee

Posted
Posted

"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". Quote from the latest updates forum. Here's hoping... :rolleyes:

You missed.....

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............

Link to comment
keehotee

+keehotee

Posted
Posted

Not intriguing. Bad.

In what way?

To me it says we won't be able to publish virtuals - as that would require review. So there will be virtuals for people to find, but not hidden by the great unwashed ;)

 

Most of the feedback seems to be from people who like finding virts, because the ones they have found have been some of the best caches they've done (???) - NOT from people clammering to publish virts of their own....

Link to comment
Amberel

+Amberel

Posted
Posted
Most of the feedback seems to be from people who like finding virts, because the ones they have found have been some of the best caches they've done (???)
Splitting hairs here, but they can't be the best caches they've done because, by definition, they aren't caches at all!

 

I don't understand the drive to bring virtuals back to geocaching. I do understand that some folks might want to find things that aren't caches, and have no problem whatsoever with that, I just don't understand why it would be appropriate to list them on a geocaching site, especially when there are other, non-geocaching sites that already cater for them.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment
Hypnopaedia

+Hypnopaedia

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey there UK cachers, I'm here in Seattle and was checking out your forums and wanted to give you an update on virtuals.

 

The first virtual is reportedly going to be the Snoqualime Tunnel which is the tunnel referenced for Mission 9: Tunnel of Light.

 

One of the reasons I am pretty sure on this one is that I have received permission from Moun10bike and Groundspeak recently to place a Tribute Cache at the former location of Mission 9: Tunnel of Light.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=266985

 

and

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=277378

 

EDIT: It will supposedly be the day after the Block Party up at the event at the APE Cache location.

Edited by Hypnopaedia
Link to comment
Hypnopaedia

+Hypnopaedia

Posted
Posted

I'm just a random cacher like you, most of this info was posted on Jeremy's facebook from what I understand. No rules, guidelines or anything else have been released. The only other info that is floating around is that "Virtuals will not have a review process", which people are saying means only Groundspeak will be able to publish them.

Link to comment
NickandAliandEliza

+NickandAliandEliza

Posted
Posted

Not intriguing. Bad.

In what way?

To me it says we won't be able to publish virtuals - as that would require review. So there will be virtuals for people to find, but not hidden by the great unwashed ;)

 

Most of the feedback seems to be from people who like finding virts, because the ones they have found have been some of the best caches they've done (???) - NOT from people clammering to publish virts of their own....

 

I read your post on the tube home this morning through bleary eyes. I took it to mean that you could publish a 'My Favourite Dog-doo Bin of Southern Coventry' virtual without being asked by a kindly reviewer to maybe find somewhere a little more interesting....... :unsure:

Link to comment
bones1

+bones1

Posted
Posted

Oh great i have always loved virtuals,all the different types of caches have a unique message to all the varied cachers,there were never that many of them and of course it cant be about the numbers.happy happy caching to all of you out there.patandjeff=bones1.

Link to comment
HazelS

+HazelS

Posted
Posted

I took it to mean that you could publish a 'My Favourite Dog-doo Bin of Southern Coventry' virtual without being asked by a kindly reviewer to maybe find somewhere a little more interesting....... :unsure:

 

Oooh, sounds like such a great cache... I'll keep my eyes open for that one!

Link to comment
NattyBooshka

+NattyBooshka

Posted
Posted
Most of the feedback seems to be from people who like finding virts, because the ones they have found have been some of the best caches they've done (???)
Splitting hairs here, but they can't be the best caches they've done because, by definition, they aren't caches at all!

 

I don't understand the drive to bring virtuals back to geocaching. I do understand that some folks might want to find things that aren't caches, and have no problem whatsoever with that, I just don't understand why it would be appropriate to list them on a geocaching site, especially when there are other, non-geocaching sites that already cater for them.

 

Rgds, Andy

It's appropriate to list them here as Waymarking has basically failed. Oh, and someone else may make it work. Like the Wherigo caches in reverse, where GS decided to copy something that had already failed on iPhone.

 

My worry is the PM comment... I thought the premise was to be free to all, and PMO caches were, almost, the only exception. Here comes exception number 2... I have a premium account, but will drop it if regular members can't log new virtuals. I'm more than happy to give co-ords to non pm members... Just don't want to see a $ requirement to logging a find.

Link to comment
NattyBooshka

+NattyBooshka

Posted
Posted (edited)

When virtuals are brought back, who's going to be brave enough to put one outside Karens cafe in Wetherby ?

No worries... Just hoping I can add a requirement of photos of cachers in balaclavas and backpacks outside the cafe. Managed not to get arrested at an airport wearing boiler suit and gas mask... Of course, I did get some attention! Slipknot were in town and I thought I'd like to say hi.

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment
keehotee

+keehotee

Posted
Posted

It's appropriate to list them here as Waymarking has basically failed. Oh, and someone else may make it work. Like the Wherigo caches in reverse, where GS decided to copy something that had already failed on iPhone.

 

My worry is the PM comment... I thought the premise was to be free to all, and PMO caches were, almost, the only exception. Here comes exception number 2... I have a premium account, but will drop it if regular members can't log new virtuals. I'm more than happy to give co-ords to non pm members... Just don't want to see a $ requirement to logging a find.

 

The fact that something is "free for all" doesn't mean that every part of it should be free for all.

Breathing is free for all - breathing in my house isn't....

 

And - just as for PMO caches - giving the co-ords to a non PM is a breach of the terms and conditions for the site. You might get away with it occasionally - but if you made a habit of it someone might kick up (or try to get the T&Cs changed) ;)

Link to comment
Amberel

+Amberel

Posted
Posted
Most of the feedback seems to be from people who like finding virts, because the ones they have found have been some of the best caches they've done (???)
Splitting hairs here, but they can't be the best caches they've done because, by definition, they aren't caches at all!

 

I don't understand the drive to bring virtuals back to geocaching. I do understand that some folks might want to find things that aren't caches, and have no problem whatsoever with that, I just don't understand why it would be appropriate to list them on a geocaching site, especially when there are other, non-geocaching sites that already cater for them.

It's appropriate to list them here as Waymarking has basically failed.
That's a non-sequiteur. Whether they have failed or succeeded elsewhere has no relevance to whether something that by its very definition is NOT a cache should be listed on a geocaching site.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted

It's appropriate to list them here as Waymarking has basically failed. Oh, and someone else may make it work. Like the Wherigo caches in reverse, where GS decided to copy something that had already failed on iPhone.

Waymarking is happily chugging along. Just because many people on here don't find it interesting it doesn't mean it's failed. TBH many geocachers won't like Waymarking beacuse it's not about finding geocaches.

That's why people here were constantly complaining about virtuals when they were still expanding; because they're not caches.

 

It's only gone quiet on that front recently due to the lack of new ones. If the old-style virtual had been reinstated there'd be a cacophony of complaints on here. So I'm intrigued how Groundspeak are going to bring in a new type of virtual that doesn't replicate a Waymark and yet is totally different from the old virtual.

 

Perhaps I can give a couple of examples of problems with virtual caches.

 

1. In incidents similar to the Wetherby one, and in cases where there are problems with landowners, it's easy for physical caches to be banned: on the basis that virtual caches can be set instead. Sounds OK, but we'd end up with areas where there are no physical caches at all for miles around and just a lot of (mostly lame) virtuals. Because Waymarking is seen as separate, we don't get that problem as things are now. The Wetherby police are probably unaware of the five waymarks in the town centre. We had trouble with US National Parks where they basically said that caching was allowed but only virtuals; end of story. When virtuals were discontinued that option went away and negotiations could re-open. We might get the same problem in the New Forest, where the Forest officials decide that Vituals are their preferred way forward and we have to go and retrieve all the physical caches.

 

2. There have been endless discussions about what virtuals should be allowed. A tennis shoe in the woods, anybody? A two-thousand cache telegraph pole series? Reviewers weren't too happy about being obliged to judge whether a virtual had enough of a "wow factor". Waymarking got round that by forcing virtuals into categories, so if a category looks pointless to you, you just eliminate (hide) it. For instance, some waymarks are more useful points of interest than somewhere you'd want to actually log. Restaurants fall into that group. Quite a few others are for Americans only. You simply have a look at the category details and eliminate such things from your view, so you're no longer aware of them. So it's interesting to anticipate how the new virtuals will automatically only include locations which are going to "wow" people and yet have no physical cache presence.

 

I'll be watching this (virtual) space.

Link to comment
NattyBooshka

+NattyBooshka

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's appropriate to list them here as Waymarking has basically failed. Oh, and someone else may make it work. Like the Wherigo caches in reverse, where GS decided to copy something that had already failed on iPhone.

 

My worry is the PM comment... I thought the premise was to be free to all, and PMO caches were, almost, the only exception. Here comes exception number 2... I have a premium account, but will drop it if regular members can't log new virtuals. I'm more than happy to give co-ords to non pm members... Just don't want to see a $ requirement to logging a find.

 

The fact that something is "free for all" doesn't mean that every part of it should be free for all.

Breathing is free for all - breathing in my house isn't....

 

And - just as for PMO caches - giving the co-ords to a non PM is a breach of the terms and conditions for the site. You might get away with it occasionally - but if you made a habit of it someone might kick up (or try to get the T&Cs changed) ;)

Non PMs can log PMO caches... Nobody can tell them where they are unless they have PM status... So how else can they log them without a PM telling them? I have gotten away with it several times, and I'll continue to provide this service... To selected cachers. I will not share my PQs... Which is against the rules... But those who upload their my finds PQ to certain stats sites get away with it... Lots, and advertising themselves in the process.

 

What I do is not different, technically from a family with 3 accounts one of which is PM... All 3 accounts log PMO caches... So the PM account has told the other 2 where the cache is.

 

I have cached under 14 pseudonyms... 4 still active... 3 have logged in from this ip. The 4th may log PMO caches... If GS have a problem with that, which they don't, I can prove that all are me... And that I've paid to access the information that they would be denying me access to. Now, if I supply this information to 5 other players... How can it be proven not to be me? It can't.... There's no way to even pin me to either, say, the us or uk within a 10 second period of time, as I can appear to be in multiple places at once.

 

Having paid for PM for 8/9 years now, I can say that it's well worth the money. The few extra numbers you get by going to PMO caches means nothing compared to the PQ function.

 

So... Bring back virtuals... They're easier to ignore in PQs than the magnetic ones marking the presence of what must be an amazing street sign! Yeah, some virtuals are lame... But so are 20% of physical caches. I'd love the opposite of the favourites system!!!

 

How much do you charge your visitors to breath in your house?

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment
NattyBooshka

+NattyBooshka

Posted
Posted
Looks like they will just be in the USA then <_<
Speaking to Groundspeak's Bryan via Skype the other day, that wasn't the impression I was left with.

That's good news... :)

Yes... that's just made my day!!! :D

 

I suggest they then release to other countries one a year in alphabetical order... which as long as they keep referring to us as United Kingdom, should take up the rest of my life.

Link to comment
Bear and Ragged

+Bear and Ragged

Posted
Posted
Looks like they will just be in the USA then <_<
Speaking to Groundspeak's Bryan via Skype the other day, that wasn't the impression I was left with.

That's good news... :)

Yes... that's just made my day!!! :D

 

I suggest they then release to other countries one a year in alphabetical order... which as long as they keep referring to us as United Kingdom, should take up the rest of my life.

Or.

We could have them in England, before Ireland, Scotland and Wales get them... :ph34r:

Link to comment
NattyBooshka

+NattyBooshka

Posted
Posted
Looks like they will just be in the USA then <_<
Speaking to Groundspeak's Bryan via Skype the other day, that wasn't the impression I was left with.

That's good news... :)

Yes... that's just made my day!!! :D

 

I suggest they then release to other countries one a year in alphabetical order... which as long as they keep referring to us as United Kingdom, should take up the rest of my life.

Or.

We could have them in England, before Ireland, Scotland and Wales get them... :ph34r:

I could be happy in Wales... Or Zimbabwe come to think of it.

Link to comment
team tisri

team tisri

Posted
Posted

I found a few virtual caches in the Great Smoky Mountains. There aren't very many of them and they tend to be based on waterfalls or similar natural features. In an area that's basically thousands of acres of forests it's hard to see how even virtuals can work very well.

 

If there's a physical container there's something to find, if all you've got to do is comment on the tree then things aren't going to work so well.

 

There are some places where a virtual might work well but at the same time I think I favour the argument that says if virtuals are allowed then we'll see more and more places decide they don't want tupperware at all.

 

Even if every single Waymarking point were transferred to the geocaching site I'd hope it would be made easy enough to ignore the "take a photo of yourself grinning inanely outside Every Single McDonalds Outlet You Can Find" types. They might be good for the numbers but I think I'd get irritated at having hundreds of (IMO) pointless virtuals cluttering up my local map.

Link to comment
t.a.folk

+t.a.folk

Posted
Posted

I found a few virtual caches in the Great Smoky Mountains. There aren't very many of them and they tend to be based on waterfalls or similar natural features. In an area that's basically thousands of acres of forests it's hard to see how even virtuals can work very well.

 

If there's a physical container there's something to find, if all you've got to do is comment on the tree then things aren't going to work so well.

 

There are some places where a virtual might work well but at the same time I think I favour the argument that says if virtuals are allowed then we'll see more and more places decide they don't want tupperware at all.

 

Even if every single Waymarking point were transferred to the geocaching site I'd hope it would be made easy enough to ignore the "take a photo of yourself grinning inanely outside Every Single McDonalds Outlet You Can Find" types. They might be good for the numbers but I think I'd get irritated at having hundreds of (IMO) pointless virtuals cluttering up my local map.

 

But hopefully there would be strict guidelines like there are for Earthcaches and there would be a point to going to the location,like learning something or the puiblished co-ords enabling an easier "finding the way " to feature of interest with some history attached to it .

 

We recall having a little difficulty finding our to Sway Tower/Peterson's Folly the first time we went for a close up look.(pre g.p.s. days )

It is 218ft tall and an easily seen landmark from afar but as you get nearer it often disappears from view and you wonder which lane to take .

Link to comment
agentmancuso

+agentmancuso

Posted
Posted

 

But hopefully there would be strict guidelines like there are for Earthcaches and there would be a point to going to the location,like learning something or the puiblished co-ords enabling an easier "finding the way " to feature of interest with some history attached to it .

 

That makes sense.

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 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...