Jump to content

i thought virtuals were coming back


HHD
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I thought I read something earlier this year saying we were going to be getting virtuals back again. Was that not correct?

Virtual Caches never left. You are just no longer allowed to create new ones.

 

You can now create Challenges, which are kinda-sorta like the Virtual Caches, in the sense that both concepts have you capturing coordinates for a containerless location and then you ask people to go there and do something.

 

Two big differences:

 


  1.  
  2. Once you publish a Challenge you no longer own it.
  3. When someone completes a challenge (kind of like logging a find on a Virtual) it doesn't count towards their Geocaching.com "caches found" count.

Link to comment

I thought I read something earlier this year saying we were going to be getting virtuals back again. Was that not correct?

Virtual Caches never left. You are just no longer allowed to create new ones.

 

You can now create Challenges, which are kinda-sorta like the Virtual Caches, in the sense that both concepts have you capturing coordinates for a containerless location and then you ask people to go there and do something.

 

Two big differences:

 


  1.  
  2. Once you publish a Challenge you no longer own it.
  3. When someone completes a challenge (kind of like logging a find on a Virtual) it doesn't count towards their Geocaching.com "caches found" count.

 

So in other words it isn't caching?

Link to comment

So in other words it isn't caching?

Well, what is and isn't caching is really up to the individual.

 

In general terms, I personally think of geocaching as an activity in which I put coordinates obtained from the Geocaching.com web site into my GPSr and then, after going to that location, logging something on the Geocaching.com web site that describes what happened next.

 

But others have a different view of what caching is. Which is ok with me.

Link to comment

So in other words it isn't caching?

Well, what is and isn't caching is really up to the individual.

 

In general terms, I personally think of geocaching as an activity in which I put coordinates obtained from the Geocaching.com web site into my GPSr and then, after going to that location, logging something on the Geocaching.com web site that describes what happened next.

 

But others have a different view of what caching is. Which is ok with me.

 

I think it's finding a hidden container which of course negates the whole point of virtuals. Too bad. If I had to choose between two. color me old school.

Link to comment

hmm... I have a different view. Not saying that other views aren't just as valid.. this is just a different perspective:

 

I look at all of geocaching as a challenge in the first place.

In the "traditional sense", somebody's posting coords for a place on the map and challenging me to go out there and see if I can find what they hid there. Which is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed I get to feel like I accomplished something (however small) and tell them all about it. (If I don't succeed I also tell them about it.. but it's a different feeling)

 

A challenge is basically the same thing to me.

 

Somebody posts coords for a place on the map and challenges me to go out there and see if I can do what they did. (Let's hope they did it, anyways.) Which, again, is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed- same feeling, same deal with telling them about it. (If I don't, same deal yet same feeling as if I didn't succeed in finding a cache.)

 

I know there's some that feel differently, some that like it old school. That's alright... nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But as for me? I fail to see much of a difference, and if you only do the challenges that you would be interested in, it can be just as fun.

 

Then again, I've only successfully completed three challenges... and I LOVE the goofy ones.. So what do I know? :anibad:

Link to comment

hmm... I have a different view. Not saying that other views aren't just as valid.. this is just a different perspective:

 

I look at all of geocaching as a challenge in the first place.

In the "traditional sense", somebody's posting coords for a place on the map and challenging me to go out there and see if I can find what they hid there. Which is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed I get to feel like I accomplished something (however small) and tell them all about it. (If I don't succeed I also tell them about it.. but it's a different feeling)

 

A challenge is basically the same thing to me.

 

Somebody posts coords for a place on the map and challenges me to go out there and see if I can do what they did. (Let's hope they did it, anyways.) Which, again, is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed- same feeling, same deal with telling them about it. (If I don't, same deal yet same feeling as if I didn't succeed in finding a cache.)

 

I know there's some that feel differently, some that like it old school. That's alright... nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But as for me? I fail to see much of a difference, and if you only do the challenges that you would be interested in, it can be just as fun.

 

Then again, I've only successfully completed three challenges... and I LOVE the goofy ones.. So what do I know? :anibad:

 

Fair enough.

Link to comment

So in other words it isn't caching?

Well, what is and isn't caching is really up to the individual.

 

In general terms, I personally think of geocaching as an activity in which I put coordinates obtained from the Geocaching.com web site into my GPSr and then, after going to that location, logging something on the Geocaching.com web site that describes what happened next.

 

But others have a different view of what caching is. Which is ok with me.

 

I think it's finding a hidden container which of course negates the whole point of virtuals. Too bad. If I had to choose between two. color me old school.

It's fine with me if you don't think of Virtual Caches as geocaching.

 

Speaking of old school, I can still remember the first virtual cache I found (Four Corners Monument). I "found" it during a visit to Arizona in 2003, although that particular virtual cache had been listed on Geocaching.com about a year earlier.

 

The earliest virtual listed on Geocaching.com that I've been able to identify is Rift Valley, which was listed in June of 2000.

 

Still active, by the way.

Link to comment

So in other words it isn't caching?

Well, what is and isn't caching is really up to the individual.

 

In general terms, I personally think of geocaching as an activity in which I put coordinates obtained from the Geocaching.com web site into my GPSr and then, after going to that location, logging something on the Geocaching.com web site that describes what happened next.

 

But others have a different view of what caching is. Which is ok with me.

 

I think it's finding a hidden container which of course negates the whole point of virtuals. Too bad. If I had to choose between two. color me old school.

It's fine with me if you don't think of Virtual Caches as geocaching.

 

I don't even consider geocoins to be travelers.

Link to comment

So in other words it isn't caching?

Well, what is and isn't caching is really up to the individual.

 

In general terms, I personally think of geocaching as an activity in which I put coordinates obtained from the Geocaching.com web site into my GPSr and then, after going to that location, logging something on the Geocaching.com web site that describes what happened next.

 

But others have a different view of what caching is. Which is ok with me.

 

I think it's finding a hidden container which of course negates the whole point of virtuals. Too bad. If I had to choose between two. color me old school.

It's fine with me if you don't think of Virtual Caches as geocaching.

 

I don't even consider geocoins to be travelers.

:lol:

 

Fair enough!

Link to comment

hmm... I have a different view. Not saying that other views aren't just as valid.. this is just a different perspective:

 

I look at all of geocaching as a challenge in the first place.

In the "traditional sense", somebody's posting coords for a place on the map and challenging me to go out there and see if I can find what they hid there. Which is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed I get to feel like I accomplished something (however small) and tell them all about it. (If I don't succeed I also tell them about it.. but it's a different feeling)

 

A challenge is basically the same thing to me.

 

Somebody posts coords for a place on the map and challenges me to go out there and see if I can do what they did. (Let's hope they did it, anyways.) Which, again, is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed- same feeling, same deal with telling them about it. (If I don't, same deal yet same feeling as if I didn't succeed in finding a cache.)

 

I know there's some that feel differently, some that like it old school. That's alright... nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But as for me? I fail to see much of a difference, and if you only do the challenges that you would be interested in, it can be just as fun.

 

Then again, I've only successfully completed three challenges... and I LOVE the goofy ones.. So what do I know? :anibad:

That is not a bad explanation.

 

At first there was little doubt that geocaching was about hiding a container (or something else), and having other people find it using GPS. But even before the establishment of this website, Dave Ulmer was suggesting what he called the "Wondert Game", where just going to the location was the reward in itself.

 

In order to grow the game in the early years Groundspeak was much freer about what they listed on Geocaching.com. The idea of a virtual cache as way to allow the game to expand into areas where hiding a physical cache would be impractical or impossible was born and nurtured. Unfortunately allowing people to simply share locations this way caused its own set of problems. After a number of years of tweaking the guidelines to deal with various problems of virtual caches, Groundspeak determined that the best solution was to separate them out of geocaching. For practical reasons the existing virtual caches were grandfathered and allowed to remain as geocaches. (Also EarthCaches ended up remaining a part of Geocaching, after some negotiation between Grounspeak and EarthCache.org.)

 

Now, Waymarking should have ended up satisfying the need to share interesting places. Even though most Waymarking categories did not have the game dynamics or challenge aspect of most virtual caches, there were some attempts by individuals to start Waymarking categories along these lines. But these attempts at game play tended to get lost among what some saw as the clutter of Waymarking. Also there was no doubt that part of the popularity of virtual caches was that you could do them as part of geocaching. You didn't have to go to another site; virtuals were returned in your pocket queries along with physical caches; and finding a virtual cache added to you find count.

 

Challenges are Groundspeak's third attempt at finding a solution for virtual caches. It recognizes the need for game dynamics and uses the idea of a challenge to do this. Like hiding a physical cache and challenging someone to find it, challenges allow you to provide a action that must be done at a particular location and challenge others to go there and do it. Challenges are also listed on the Geocaching.com site, so they're no longer located on another site that some find hard to navigate. But so far challenges are not much better integrated with geocaching than waymarks are. You can't get the nearby challenges in a PQ along with geocaches; and while your completed challenge count appears with geocaching statistics, they don't count as geocache finds.

Link to comment

hmm... I have a different view. Not saying that other views aren't just as valid.. this is just a different perspective:

 

I look at all of geocaching as a challenge in the first place.

In the "traditional sense", somebody's posting coords for a place on the map and challenging me to go out there and see if I can find what they hid there. Which is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed I get to feel like I accomplished something (however small) and tell them all about it. (If I don't succeed I also tell them about it.. but it's a different feeling)

 

A challenge is basically the same thing to me.

 

Somebody posts coords for a place on the map and challenges me to go out there and see if I can do what they did. (Let's hope they did it, anyways.) Which, again, is challenging me to get up, get out, and do something. If I succeed- same feeling, same deal with telling them about it. (If I don't, same deal yet same feeling as if I didn't succeed in finding a cache.)

 

I know there's some that feel differently, some that like it old school. That's alright... nothing wrong with that whatsoever. But as for me? I fail to see much of a difference, and if you only do the challenges that you would be interested in, it can be just as fun.

 

Then again, I've only successfully completed three challenges... and I LOVE the goofy ones.. So what do I know? :anibad:

That is not a bad explanation.

 

At first there was little doubt that geocaching was about hiding a container (or something else), and having other people find it using GPS. But even before the establishment of this website, Dave Ulmer was suggesting what he called the "Wondert Game", where just going to the location was the reward in itself.

 

In order to grow the game in the early years Groundspeak was much freer about what they listed on Geocaching.com. The idea of a virtual cache as way to allow the game to expand into areas where hiding a physical cache would be impractical or impossible was born and nurtured. Unfortunately allowing people to simply share locations this way caused its own set of problems. After a number of years of tweaking the guidelines to deal with various problems of virtual caches, Groundspeak determined that the best solution was to separate them out of geocaching. For practical reasons the existing virtual caches were grandfathered and allowed to remain as geocaches. (Also EarthCaches ended up remaining a part of Geocaching, after some negotiation between Grounspeak and EarthCache.org.)

 

Now, Waymarking should have ended up satisfying the need to share interesting places. Even though most Waymarking categories did not have the game dynamics or challenge aspect of most virtual caches, there were some attempts by individuals to start Waymarking categories along these lines. But these attempts at game play tended to get lost among what some saw as the clutter of Waymarking. Also there was no doubt that part of the popularity of virtual caches was that you could do them as part of geocaching. You didn't have to go to another site; virtuals were returned in your pocket queries along with physical caches; and finding a virtual cache added to you find count.

 

Challenges are Groundspeak's third attempt at finding a solution for virtual caches. It recognizes the need for game dynamics and uses the idea of a challenge to do this. Like hiding a physical cache and challenging someone to find it, challenges allow you to provide a action that must be done at a particular location and challenge others to go there and do it. Challenges are also listed on the Geocaching.com site, so they're no longer located on another site that some find hard to navigate. But so far challenges are not much better integrated with geocaching than waymarks are. You can't get the nearby challenges in a PQ along with geocaches; and while your completed challenge count appears with geocaching statistics, they don't count as geocache finds.

True, they don't count as "cache finds" but they do count as "challenges completed".. and are listed right next to find counts. I actually really like the way it looks. It's also included in the logs..

Are people really unhappy with this setup?

And they have mentioned something about including Challenges in PQs in the future, right?

Link to comment

Challenges seem fine but due to the lack of integration I haven't really been thinking about them. It's too bad they decided against the virtual caches I was really looking forward to doing some fun history ones in my area. Maybe one day they will have a history cache.

Link to comment

 

The earliest virtual listed on Geocaching.com that I've been able to identify is Rift Valley, which was listed in June of 2000.

 

Still active, by the way.

 

I was going to call shenanigans on this one, as it would have to pre-date the existence of Geocaching.com itself. But you know what, that does sound as if it was always a virtual cache, and is indeed the worlds first ever virtual cache. And it DOES show up on the oft-linked list of the worlds 100 oldest Geocaches. I just never noticed it there.

 

The fact that your task is to find something the cache owner carved into a tree isn't exactly kosher by today's standards though. :lol:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

 

Two big differences:

 


  1.  
  2. Once you publish a Challenge you no longer own it.
  3. When someone completes a challenge (kind of like logging a find on a Virtual) it doesn't count towards their Geocaching.com "caches found" count.

 

In my opinion, another important difference is that there still does not exist the possibility to ask questions for log verification.

Moreover, the old virtuals allowed a lot of flexibility. For example, the current Earthcaches as well as other types of educational caches easily have fit in. It was also no problem at all to integrate multi and mystery elements into virtuals. This is neither true for waymarks nor for challenges.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I thought I read something earlier this year saying we were going to be getting virtuals back again. Was that not correct?

 

I thought virtuals were coming back, too. Instead of a resurrection, we got a zombie uprising.

 

That there is one funny line. Might even be signature material! :laughing: Probably not mine though, I actually like the Challenges. And being around as long as I have, I knew up front they'd NEVER bring back the old virtuals as they were. Despite the fact that seems to be what most people in the bring back virtuals movement wanted.

Link to comment

And being around as long as I have, I knew up front they'd NEVER bring back the old virtuals as they were. Despite the fact that seems to be what most people in the bring back virtuals movement wanted.

 

I also knew that they would never bring virtuals back in the way they were, but had hoped that they would come up with something very different from the challenge idea and something more flexible with respect to multiple location and puzzle elements than Waymarking.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Challenges seem fine but due to the lack of integration I haven't really been thinking about them. It's too bad they decided against the virtual caches I was really looking forward to doing some fun history ones in my area. Maybe one day they will have a history cache.

 

I'd be happy with a cache attribute for historic sites.

 

Challenges can be historical. Here is a history related challenge that I submitted.

Link to comment

 

Two big differences:

 


  1.  
  2. Once you publish a Challenge you no longer own it.
  3. When someone completes a challenge (kind of like logging a find on a Virtual) it doesn't count towards their Geocaching.com "caches found" count.

 

In my opinion, another important difference is that there still does not exist the possibility to ask questions for log verification.

Moreover, the old virtuals allowed a lot of flexibility. For example, the current Earthcaches as well as other types of educational caches easily have fit in. It was also no problem at all to integrate multi and mystery elements into virtuals. This is neither true for waymarks nor for challenges.

 

Cezanne

 

I integrated a multi element in this challenge

Link to comment

I've only been caching for a little over a year now...can anyone fill me in on the downfall of virtuals? I'm sure it was abuse and over use but I am interest in getting a short history lesson from those wiser then I.

 

There were several issues. One was that people were submitting the most mundane things as virtuals. Things like flagpoles, fence posts, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods and in one case the carcass of a rotting animal.

 

This resulted in Groundspeak introducing what was called the "wow factor". For a virtual to be published you had to 1. Prove there was no way to incorporate a real cache and 2. The virtual location had to be so incredible that you'd say "Wow!" when you saw it.

 

So for the first time the review team became the arbiters of cache quality. This put the reviewers in an uncomfortable position because it added a high level of subjectivity to the review process. It also generated a lot of angst in the geocaching community. These forums were filled with complaints about virtuals being turned down. Of course everyone thought their virtual was a "wow" and were upset when the reviewer didn't see it that way.

 

Once the wow factor was implemented it became nearly impossible to get a virtual published. I don't have the actual numbers but I'd be willing to bet that no more than a 2 or 3 dozen virtuals were published during the years the "wow factor" was in place.

 

Another issue was that many park systems didn't know what to make of geocaching. Was it a scourge, a benefit or somewhere in between? (there is still some of that today). Park systems would issue bans on geocaching. So local geocachers would meet with park officials to convince them to allow geocaching. Very often the park officials, uncomfortable with the idea of our leaving containers in the parks, would point out virtuals as a suitable compromise. Some geocachers enjoy virtuals but I don't think most thought much of this compromise. The existence of virtuals began to endanger traditional caching in many areas. By taking virtuals off of the table, negotiations could center on real caches.

 

Anther issue, and the final nail in the coffin was that TPTB didn't see virtuals as geocaching. They wanted to geocaching to be about finding a geocache, not a location. They felt that virtuals were essentially a different game and belonged on a different website.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I've only been caching for a little over a year now...can anyone fill me in on the downfall of virtuals? I'm sure it was abuse and over use but I am interest in getting a short history lesson from those wiser then I.

 

Listen to what BrianSnat said in the post above me. He is quite wise, you won't get a better explanation.

 

I do remember the "Wow factor" period well. Yes, the reviewers became "arbiters of quality" as he said. Some reviewers were more relaxed than others. I've said before it was impossible to get a virtual published in my State (we only had one reviewer then) during the Wow factor period.

 

You know what another problem was? If a person didn't hang around the forums, or didn't socialize with other Geocachers much, they had no clue the wow factor was in place. I mean there it was on the cache submission form, you could just check a box for virtual. I know a guy who spent about 16 hours researching, getting waypoints, and writing up a multi-virtual in 2004.

 

By the way, the Wow Factor period commenced in May 2003, and lasted until the Waymarking website went online in August, 2005. I consider myself to have been around a very long time, and the restriction on virtuals pre-dates me even. :o

Link to comment

I integrated a multi element in this challenge

I see that neither of the people who completed the challenge appears to have completed both parts. Which brings up another difference between challenges and virtuals: the verification process.

 

I don't know that they didn't complete it though neither photographed the first location as asked. One person indicated being at the first location many times and the other mentioned walking so I suspect he did complete the challenge. There is no need to leave your vehicle at either location to photograph them. The only reason for walking would be to walk between the two locations.

 

Challenges, at least photo challenges, do have a verification process. What I don't like is that the submitter has no ownership rights or control over the logs.

 

There is one photo challenge in my state that requires you to go to a specific location and photograph a specific object. Instead nearly every person who completed it did not go to that location. They instead found similar objects and photographed them, as if it were a locationless cache or worldwide challenge. Nearly every log on that challenge should be deleted but the person who submitted it can't do a thing about it.

Link to comment

Virtuals are one of my favorite parts of this game. I disagree with some of what Briansnat wrote about hiw they were a compromise that effected traditional caching. But in any event I looked forward to challenges as a replacement to the old virtuals. Unfortunately challenges missed the mark and I ended up deleting the few I completed.

 

In addition to the other issues raised in this thread, challenges do not require a site visit by the creator so we have some in our area that are unplayable as written. Then there are those that are so general that no gpsr is needed - go to a large area and take a swim. In general, challenges replace ALRs more than the old virtuals.

 

Challenges made me question whether I want to remain a premium member. They seem to represent a shift in Groundspeak from the "language of location" that was focused on focused tasks at specific locations to "go someplace, do something."

 

Of course with the worldwides you don't even need to do that - just get out a picture of a past hike.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

I integrated a multi element in this challenge

I see that neither of the people who completed the challenge appears to have completed both parts. Which brings up another difference between challenges and virtuals: the verification process.

 

I don't know that they didn't complete it though neither photographed the first location as asked. One person indicated being at the first location many times and the other mentioned walking so I suspect he did complete the challenge. There is no need to leave your vehicle at either location to photograph them. The only reason for walking would be to walk between the two locations.

 

Challenges, at least photo challenges, do have a verification process. What I don't like is that the submitter has no ownership rights or control over the logs.

 

There is one photo challenge in my state that requires you to go to a specific location and photograph a specific object. Instead nearly every person who completed it did not go to that location. They instead found similar objects and photographed them, as if it were a locationless cache or worldwide challenge. Nearly every log on that challenge should be deleted but the person who submitted it can't do a thing about it.

You got it! Lack of ownership spoiled what might have worked but doesn't. :sad: The Lilly Pad missed the mark by a mile with Challenges.

Link to comment

And being around as long as I have, I knew up front they'd NEVER bring back the old virtuals as they were. Despite the fact that seems to be what most people in the bring back virtuals movement wanted.

 

I also knew that they would never bring virtuals back in the way they were, but had hoped that they would come up with something very different from the challenge idea and something more flexible with respect to multiple location and puzzle elements than Waymarking.

 

Cezanne

There are a few Waymarking categories that are setup to allow multiple locations. It would not be hard to create categories with puzzle elements as well. People continue to miss the flexibility of Waymarking because they refuse to look beyond the "traditional" Waymarking categories that seem to be more catalogs of locations than some kind of game or challenge.

 

Hopefully, users will be suggesting new categories of challenges (beyond photo and action) to include other kinds of challenges - solve a puzzle, answer questions, learn something, ...

 

I've only been caching for a little over a year now...can anyone fill me in on the downfall of virtuals? I'm sure it was abuse and over use but I am interest in getting a short history lesson from those wiser then I.

This video is a bit long but explains the reasons virtuals can not longer be published. (I should update to include something on challenges).

Link to comment

There are a few Waymarking categories that are setup to allow multiple locations. It would not be hard to create categories with puzzle elements as well. People continue to miss the flexibility of Waymarking because they refuse to look beyond the "traditional" Waymarking categories that seem to be more catalogs of locations than some kind of game or challenge.

 

My idea of flexibility is not categorizing things. I'd like to combine multiple stages, mystery elements, topics like history, art, biology etc in one cache (or whatever term you would like to use) without having to put several labels on it.

 

Hopefully, users will be suggesting new categories of challenges (beyond photo and action) to include other kinds of challenges - solve a puzzle, answer questions, learn something, ...

 

It will depend on Groundspeak. The question type (again singular) has been mentioned months ago, but it does seem that anything will happen soon.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I personally like the challenges, the only thing that bothers me is that there's no official owner and anyone can just delete it....if enough people flag it I mean.

 

I also like the challenges. I would prefer that I had more control of those I created. But that doesn't mean I don't like the community control aspect. I think of it like three sources of authority that help to balance each other. The creator, the powers that be, and the community. It isn't a perfect balance, but it has advantages.

Link to comment

I personally like the challenges, the only thing that bothers me is that there's no official owner and anyone can just delete it....if enough people flag it I mean.

 

I also like the challenges. I would prefer that I had more control of those I created. But that doesn't mean I don't like the community control aspect. I think of it like three sources of authority that help to balance each other. The creator, the powers that be, and the community. It isn't a perfect balance, but it has advantages.

 

The problem is just that it can happen too fast.

My very first challange I created (though I admit it wasn't that grand) got 7 thumbs up, 2 down and got deleted from one day to another....I just noticed the next day, but how many flags could you need to achieve that?

1? 2?

 

It seemed a bit unfair to me....

Edited by Otis.Gore
Link to comment

And being around as long as I have, I knew up front they'd NEVER bring back the old virtuals as they were. Despite the fact that seems to be what most people in the bring back virtuals movement wanted.

 

I also knew that they would never bring virtuals back in the way they were, but had hoped that they would come up with something very different from the challenge idea and something more flexible with respect to multiple location and puzzle elements than Waymarking.

 

Cezanne

I have a multi / mystery waymark; Cregneash. Perhaps you mean that Groundspeak should have added special code to handle this type of thing?

If so I agree, but they should have added it to Waymarking.

"Challenges" baffle me because I can't see the difference from some Waymarking types, so I don't see why Groundspeak didn't add a few extras to Waymarking rather than develop a whole new interface (which to me looks inferior).

Link to comment

I have a multi / mystery waymark; Cregneash.

 

To me it looks like a pure multi. You provide the coordinates of the location in advance - there is no homework part involved to obtain the starting coordinates.

Moreover, you still had to categorize your waymark (in your case history museums) which I would not like to do for what I have in mind.

 

If so I agree, but they should have added it to Waymarking.

"Challenges" baffle me because I can't see the difference from some Waymarking types, so I don't see why Groundspeak didn't add a few extras to Waymarking rather than develop a whole new interface (which to me looks inferior).

 

Personally, I do not care where what I would like to have is implemented and how the resulting objects are called (virtual caches, waymarks, challenges etc). At the moment neither Waymarking nor challenges nor anything else that Groundspeak offers come close to the type of "virtual caches" I would like to see.

 

In any case I agree that at the moment the interface offered for challenges is even worse than the one for Waymarking which says a lot.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

If TPTB was worried about Virtuals having a wow factor, why don't they have the same concern about Challenges?

 

They decided to let the community evaluate the challenges and leave reviewers out of the process.

 

But unfortunately (from my perspective) they did a lot more than leaving out reviewers. The whole idea of challenges is very much directed to the audience of users of mobile applications who are wishing a very short text (thus excluding more detailed descriptions, even more if several languages are involved).

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

So in other words it isn't caching?

Well, what is and isn't caching is really up to the individual.

 

In general terms, I personally think of geocaching as an activity in which I put coordinates obtained from the Geocaching.com web site into my GPSr and then, after going to that location, logging something on the Geocaching.com web site that describes what happened next.

 

But others have a different view of what caching is. Which is ok with me.

 

I think it's finding a hidden container which of course negates the whole point of virtuals. Too bad. If I had to choose between two. color me old school.

I think that it's ironic that I own a virt thats been in the game longer than you have. It's 'old school'.

Link to comment

If TPTB was worried about Virtuals having a wow factor, why don't they have the same concern about Challenges?

 

They decided to let the community evaluate the challenges and leave reviewers out of the process.

 

But unfortunately (from my perspective) they did a lot more than leaving out reviewers. The whole idea of challenges is very much directed to the audience of users of mobile applications who are wishing a very short text (thus excluding more detailed descriptions, even more if several languages are involved).

 

 

Cezanne

I understand what you are saying. It is very difficult to create a challenge with multiple parts and tell a story or take people on on tour. It seems TPTB decided that challenges should only involve a single simple task. Geocachers have been creating puzzles and multi caches that are somewhat complex and often take multiple days to complete. If you wanted to a challenge like this it could be difficult. I suppose you could store the description on another site and link to it.

 

Waymarking on the other hand does allow long descriptions with HTML. In addition, a Waymarking Category can be set up with special variables to support multiple locations and other features to provide support for puzzles and complex multi-part waymarks. So far, few categories take advantage of these feature. I believe that Waymarking needs more people willing try out creative ways to use that site and not be discourage because most of what is there are catalogs of locations. Check out Waytours and some of the Coordinate-based Games categories to get an idea of what can be done.

Link to comment

It is very difficult to create a challenge with multiple parts and tell a story or take people on on tour. It seems TPTB decided that challenges should only involve a single simple task. Geocachers have been creating puzzles and multi caches that are somewhat complex and often take multiple days to complete. If you wanted to a challenge like this it could be difficult. I suppose you could store the description on another site and link to it.

 

Waymarking on the other hand does allow long descriptions with HTML. In addition, a Waymarking Category can be set up with special variables to support multiple locations and other features to provide support for puzzles and complex multi-part waymarks. So far, few categories take advantage of these feature. I believe that Waymarking needs more people willing try out creative ways to use that site and not be discourage because most of what is there are catalogs of locations. Check out Waytours and some of the Coordinate-based Games categories to get an idea of what can be done.

 

I have already been familiar with these two categories. While I certainly agree with you that Waymarking is more flexible than challenges, I still think that Waymarking is designed in a way that puts too many restrictions on possible designs due to nature of the underlying concept.

 

Caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=81098a38-4d21-4fdf-ab5d-70484df2b871

or my own cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

(in both cases ignore the container in the end)

are very different from what fits into Waymarking. Of course one could come up with new categories that would them make somehow fit, but then then the next idea will not fit etc

 

I agree that Wamarking has more potential than what is used at the moment, but the category concept makes it too inflexible for the type of ideas I have in mind.

 

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...