Why No More Virtual Caches

[+SaltyPirate]

I searched for a reason as to why there are no more virtuals and could not come up with anything. So I wrote to Groundspeak HQ for an answer and got the fololowing response...

 

"Thank you for writing to us. Some time ago Virtual caches as they once existed became problematic, both in the review and publication process and for cache owners to maintain. We ceased publishing new Virtuals, but grandfathered in existing Virtual caches.

 

However, because Groundspeak sees value in the virtual cache concept, we created a website at www.Waymarking.com to accommodate and perpetuate a variation of this cache type.

 

You may also want to look into Challenges, an addition to geocaching, which involves some virtual elements."

 

I am new to this but I do not see how a virtual would be problematic for the reviewer, and as far as owners what is there to maintain, it is a "Virtual".

 

With that said here is why I bring this up...

I live at the base of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There are many areas that are not listed in the visitors guides, hiking guides, etc. For instance, I know of a trail that leads to a waterfall and along this same trail are the remains of an old work camp fireplace, a model T car carcus, and other points of intrest. If someone travels to my area and wants to see things that are off the beaten path they only returns they will get are the "gransfathered" virtuals, and a multi cache or two. If they want to take more time they can go to the waypoint website and the search for challenges. To me this seems excessive for someone that is on vacation. The following is the response I sent back to Grounspeak HQ...

 

"Thanks you for your response. Ok here is another question. If I am in town visiting the GSMNP and I pull up the geocaching.com website and plug in the zip code to pull up local caches, and then I expand to the map of said caches, do these waypoints of challenges show up on the map? No, they do not.

 

I am not sure where the problem comes in with the reviewers. It should be no different than a regular cahce. And as for the maintenance of said cache, it is virtual, there is nothing to maintain. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I believe that by not having virtual caches anymore, that there is a very large "hole" in the service to us as members. If I go on vacation to Glacier National Park, and lets say a local or even past visiting geocacher knows of a great spot that he think others may be interested in the only way to direct them to it is by having them check several different places. It would be nice to just pull up the map portion of the park on the website and see the different virtuals. For example, waterfalls that may not be listed in the park guide, buildings caves, meadows with views, etc that may not make the tourist guides.

 

I appologize if this has been beaten to death before, but it seems to be a great disservice to the membership at whole. I hope that you can see my concerns and can point me in a direction that may allow the return of the virtual cache.

 

On another note, if I do make it a waypoint or challenge, do they count as smileys as I know alot of the cachers out there are out for the smiley.

 

Maybe if the virtual is out of the queston we can come up with a "National Parks" POI to replace the virtual cache so that when folks that are visiting pull up that map of the area they can see the POI's that others think they may be interested in.

 

Maybe a poll on the forums to get the memberships thinking on this.

 

Thank you again for your time."

 

I am just curious how everyone else feels about it?

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[BlueRajah]

What is a worthy virtual cache? Who should draw the line of a good one or a bad one, and how can you make it consistent?

[+terrkan78]

I believe the reason virtuals are gone is two-fold:

 

1. People started making virtuals at all sorts of mundane spots, trying to be funny, etc. I don't know if it devolved to the dumpster-behind-Walmart-virtual, but it was close. So to put a stop to that, they came up with a rule that new virtuals had to have a "wow" factor. The reviewers got to decide if submitted virtuals met this highly subjective "wow" factor. That's where the reviewer nightmare came in - people were peeved if their new virt was considered less than "wow."

 

2. National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

 

There could well be more considerations that went into the whole thing, but these are what I'm aware of.

[+geocat_]

If you do a forum search here, I can pretty much guarantee the equivalent of an encyclopedia's worth of opinion on this topic

[+briansnat]

I believe the reason virtuals are gone is two-fold:

 

1. People started making virtuals at all sorts of mundane spots, trying to be funny, etc. I don't know if it devolved to the dumpster-behind-Walmart-virtual, but it was close. So to put a stop to that, they came up with a rule that new virtuals had to have a "wow" factor. The reviewers got to decide if submitted virtuals met this highly subjective "wow" factor. That's where the reviewer nightmare came in - people were peeved if their new virt was considered less than "wow."

 

2. National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

 

There could well be more considerations that went into the whole thing, but these are what I'm aware of.

I think you summed it up nicely.

[+niraD]

Here's another summary:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=245965&st=0&p=4284964entry4284964

[+palmetto]

Thanks niraD for linking to Toz's great "all about virtuals" post, it's an excellent summary.

 

SaltyPirate, Geocaching.com decided to focus on using a GPS to find a hidden container.

It's not a repository of points of interest. (Yes, there are Earthcaches, I'm not clear on why, but it's the sole exception).

 

I think they made the correct decision to focus on the core of the Geocaching experience.

 

When virtuals were still being published, these forums were completely dominated by threads in which cachers complained about how "their special place" wasn't being published as a virtual cache.

Reviewers were making two calls on each virtual, both difficult:

1) could you place a physical cache - this would include the notion of using an off-set, bring the cachers to the POI, ask a question, using that to generate coords for a cache somewhere else.

 

2) did the coords highlight something unique, "wow" enough -> and the guideline specifically excluded the examples that you provide in your post - "buildings caves, meadows with views". From those guidelines, "a view is just a view".

[+gpicard]

I have seen some multi caches / unknown caches where the first stage(s) of the cache are located in extremely scenic spots where a physical stage can not be hidden. The directions to the final stage are very basic.

 

For these caches the first stage is worth the visit and the final may be worth only a smiley.

 

guy

[+randycoxclemson]

Thank you, SaltyPirate, for so logically bringing up this topic. It may have been hashed out before I came here, but I appreciate the recurrence of topics for the benefit of new blood and to sometimes shed new light for the "old blood."

1. People started making virtuals at all sorts of mundane spots, trying to be funny, etc. I don't know if it devolved to the dumpster-behind-Walmart-virtual, but it was close. So to put a stop to that, they came up with a rule that new virtuals had to have a "wow" factor. The reviewers got to decide if submitted virtuals met this highly subjective "wow" factor. That's where the reviewer nightmare came in - people were peeved if their new virt was considered less than "wow."

I have no sympathy for someone who submits a Wal*Mart dumpster and has it turned down for the lack of 'wow.' I suspect that most reviewers would gladly accept a true virtual (especially in national parks) which is accompanied by an image which shows that it is a wow place, indeed. I do not accept that it's a burden on reviewers. They get grief in so many other ways.

2. National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

False assumption alert. The toughest and most rewarding caches I have ever found were virtuals (including some in the GSMNP). Different strokes and all that, but I'd far rather take a hike to a wilderness area with a grand vista than pull up to an ATM looking for a nano.

 

I'm firmly in the camp that virtuals should be revived, nay, encouraged. Even average virtuals are thousands of times more satisfying than the typical micro/nano cache. And the notion that Earthcaches are the only exception is, of course, incorrect as long as we have meetups and CITO and the like counting as caches. Nothing I've heard or read indicates that it would be a burden or would sully the name of geocaching to allow grand virtuals to continue to be created. I, for one, would love to have looked for those hidden waterfalls and broken down Model T Fords out in the backwoods of our national parks.

[+briansnat]

I noticed the OP has been geocaching for some time so this doesn't belong in getting started

[+briansnat]

I have no sympathy for someone who submits a Wal*Mart dumpster and has it turned down for the lack of 'wow.' I suspect that most reviewers would gladly accept a true virtual (especially in national parks) which is accompanied by an image which shows that it is a wow place, indeed. I do not accept that it's a burden on reviewers. They get grief in so many other ways.

 

The "wow factor" was implemented because of the incredibly mundane submissions that were coming in. A sneaker in the woods, a fence post, flag poles and in one case, a rotting animal carcass. That made reviewers arbiters of cache quality which should not be part of their job description. Of course everyone who submitted a virtual thought theirs was special. Because most were declined as not meeting the "wow" standard the submitters became miffed and gave the reviewers a great deal of grief. They do get grief in so many other ways so one more significant source of grief isn't needed.

 

False assumption alert. The toughest and most rewarding caches I have ever found were virtuals (including some in the GSMNP). Different strokes and all that, but I'd far rather take a hike to a wilderness area with a grand vista than pull up to an ATM looking for a nano.

 

It's not a matter of difficulty. Nobody denies that they can be interesting and even challenging (BTW a grand vista was never allowed as a virtual), so that wasn't the issue. The issue was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. This endangered traditional geocaches in many places. By taking virtuals off the table as an option, negotiations could center on physical geocaches.

[+geodarts]

People started making virtuals at all sorts of mundane spots, trying to be funny, etc. I don't know if it devolved to the dumpster-behind-Walmart-virtual, but it was close. So to put a stop to that, they came up with a rule that new virtuals had to have a "wow" factor. The reviewers got to decide if submitted virtuals met this highly subjective "wow" factor. That's where the reviewer nightmare came in - people were peeved if their new virt was considered less than "wow."

 

I agree the wow factor was not workable and given what I have seen with many of the challenges, the possibility of "mundane" virtuals seems as it would be as real as the possibility of caches placed on the dumpster (or lamppost) behind the Walmart. Still, there might have been ways to approach the issue other than a complete ban -- limiting virtuals to specific focus requirements or specific types of locations, limiting cachers to placement of a single virtual, and the like. The time for that discussion, however, is long gone.

 

National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

 

This has never made sense to me. I think physical caches were banned because park administrators viewed them as litter or believed that they had significant environmental impact. They did not ban physical caches because virtuals were an alternative -- any more than they would ban a physical cache today because challenges, opencaching virtuals, Waymarking, earthcaches, ispy game missions. or any other location-based game presents alternatives.

 

Our local NPS administrator told me that physical caches would never be approved on his watch because of the problems that they had with them. And while caching is gradually making inroads in many places, it has nothing to do with whether virtuals are allowed or not. My state park system, for instance, had no problems in distinguishing between places where traditional caches are allowed (within certain limits) and those areas where only virtuals are permitted. In my experience, it is not, and has never been, and either/or situation.

 

I would regard virtuals as much of a "cache" as a nano hidden under a bench. Both might have little to do with how a cache was originally defined, but how the word is defined in the context of this game is another matter. I have appreciated virtuals for the way that they have extended this game in places where physical caches may not be appropriate -- from hoodoos of Bryce Canyon, granite domes of Yosemite, to Incan salt ponds.

 

But many of us asked for virtuals to be returned . . . and Groundspeak's answer was geocaching challenges . .. . That sort of says it all.

Edited May 16, 2012 by geodarts

[+Harry Dolphin]

It's not a matter of difficulty. Nobody denies that they can be interesting and even challenging (BTW a grand vista was never allowed as a virtual), so that wasn't the issue. The issue was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. This endangered traditional geocaches in many places. By taking virtuals off the table as an option, negotiations could center on physical geocaches.

 

So what prevents the land managers pointing to Waymarks as an acceptable substitute?

[+SwineFlew]

Thank you, SaltyPirate, for so logically bringing up this topic. It may have been hashed out before I came here, but I appreciate the recurrence of topics for the benefit of new blood and to sometimes shed new light for the "old blood."

1. People started making virtuals at all sorts of mundane spots, trying to be funny, etc. I don't know if it devolved to the dumpster-behind-Walmart-virtual, but it was close. So to put a stop to that, they came up with a rule that new virtuals had to have a "wow" factor. The reviewers got to decide if submitted virtuals met this highly subjective "wow" factor. That's where the reviewer nightmare came in - people were peeved if their new virt was considered less than "wow."

I have no sympathy for someone who submits a Wal*Mart dumpster and has it turned down for the lack of 'wow.' I suspect that most reviewers would gladly accept a true virtual (especially in national parks) which is accompanied by an image which shows that it is a wow place, indeed. I do not accept that it's a burden on reviewers. They get grief in so many other ways.

2. National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

False assumption alert. The toughest and most rewarding caches I have ever found were virtuals (including some in the GSMNP). Different strokes and all that, but I'd far rather take a hike to a wilderness area with a grand vista than pull up to an ATM looking for a nano.

 

I'm firmly in the camp that virtuals should be revived, nay, encouraged. Even average virtuals are thousands of times more satisfying than the typical micro/nano cache. And the notion that Earthcaches are the only exception is, of course, incorrect as long as we have meetups and CITO and the like counting as caches. Nothing I've heard or read indicates that it would be a burden or would sully the name of geocaching to allow grand virtuals to continue to be created. I, for one, would love to have looked for those hidden waterfalls and broken down Model T Fords out in the backwoods of our national parks.

 

Waymarking.com is the site for you.

[+jellis]

I believe the reason virtuals are gone is two-fold:

 

1. People started making virtuals at all sorts of mundane spots, trying to be funny, etc. I don't know if it devolved to the dumpster-behind-Walmart-virtual, but it was close. So to put a stop to that, they came up with a rule that new virtuals had to have a "wow" factor. The reviewers got to decide if submitted virtuals met this highly subjective "wow" factor. That's where the reviewer nightmare came in - people were peeved if their new virt was considered less than "wow."

 

2. National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

 

There could well be more considerations that went into the whole thing, but these are what I'm aware of.

I think you summed it up nicely.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe also they are trying to eliminate caches that you have to contact the owner because what do you do if the CO is no longer active or doesn't respond to the emails? Which are now a form of a ALRs.

Besides Earthcaches they are moving toward physical caches only which includes webcams too. This excludes Benchmarks and New Challenges which are not part of your counts.

Edited May 16, 2012 by jellis

[+randycoxclemson]

Waymarking.com is the site for you.

Not by a long shot.

 

I tried it. Even logged one or two, if you can call that "visited" thing logging. I just went back today to see everything in my local area. Other than my one or two visits, I saw nothing that had been visited in the past two-plus years. The entire first page or two of locations (ranging from historic markers to Subway sandwich shops) were placed by the same person, who probably knocked them out in one afternoon and then forgot about them. One that I saw had the coordinates off by about 20 miles--no wonder no one had ever visited it.

 

Now... if the waymarks were incorporated into the maps on geocaching.com, it would be a little bit better. But if the 'visits' don't count as 'finds' on geocaching.com, there is little point to a lot of people. It IS all about the numbers, you know.

National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

This has never made sense to me. I think physical caches were banned because park administrators viewed them as litter or believed that they had significant environmental impact. They did not ban physical caches because virtuals were an alternative -- any more than they would ban a physical cache today because challenges, opencaching virtuals, Waymarking, earthcaches, ispy game missions. or any other location-based game presents alternatives.

Well stated. No way that virtuals were the reason state and federal parks refuse to allow tupperware, sometimes with food in it, to be out in their parks.

[+briansnat]

It's not a matter of difficulty. Nobody denies that they can be interesting and even challenging (BTW a grand vista was never allowed as a virtual), so that wasn't the issue. The issue was that when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaching they often pointed to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. This endangered traditional geocaches in many places. By taking virtuals off the table as an option, negotiations could center on physical geocaches.

 

So what prevents the land managers pointing to Waymarks as an acceptable substitute?

 

Shhh nobody knows about Waymarking.

 

Well stated. No way that virtuals were the reason state and federal parks refuse to allow tupperware, sometimes with food in it, to be out in their parks.

 

You aren't quite right on that. I know people who were involved with various negotiations with land managers and were getting stonewalled with the "we don't want physical caches, but virtuals are fine" line. With virtuals off the table they were eventually able to get physical caches in those parks.

Edited May 16, 2012 by briansnat

[knowschad]

2. National parks (and other park systems, I believe) started banishing all caches except virtuals from their park systems. They didn't want actual containers potentially littering their parks so, hey, let's require virtuals instead. This was spreading. A lot. And you have to admit, as nice as virtuals are, they're not exactly a "cache."

False assumption alert. The toughest and most rewarding caches I have ever found were virtuals (including some in the GSMNP). Different strokes and all that, but I'd far rather take a hike to a wilderness area with a grand vista than pull up to an ATM looking for a nano.

 

I'm firmly in the camp that virtuals should be revived, nay, encouraged. Even average virtuals are thousands of times more satisfying than the typical micro/nano cache. And the notion that Earthcaches are the only exception is, of course, incorrect as long as we have meetups and CITO and the like counting as caches. Nothing I've heard or read indicates that it would be a burden or would sully the name of geocaching to allow grand virtuals to continue to be created. I, for one, would love to have looked for those hidden waterfalls and broken down Model T Fords out in the backwoods of our national parks.

What's the false assumption alert for? Terrkan78 didn't post any assumptions, false or otherwise. He also made no claims regarding the difficulty of virtual caches, nor expressed any opinions about their rewards. He simply said that they are not exactly a cache, which is a fact (a cache requires a container).

 

Virtuals are not coming back. This has been discussed ad infinitum in these forums. The new "Challenges" were/are Groundspeak's capitulation at giving back virtuals, but they seem to have pretty much been a flop.

[+randycoxclemson]

What's the false assumption alert for?...He simply said that they are not exactly a cache, which is a fact (a cache requires a container).

You found the false assumption. Do Earthcaches, CITO, Events, and Mega Events require a container?

The new "Challenges" were/are Groundspeak's capitulation at giving back virtuals, but they seem to have pretty much been a flop.

You can say that again.

[stldenise]

I'm newish here, but I'm thinking the challenges would be more popular if you could count them, or heck, even see them on the map.

[+briansnat]

Do Earthcaches, CITO, Events, and Mega Events require a container?

Other than Earthcaches the others are temporary social or community service events. Earthcaches were banished from here and sent to Waymarking for a time. TPTB eventually bought them back here, probably because moving them off this site violated an agreement with the GSA (TPTB never confirmed this, but it is assumed by many).

 

Salty Pirate wanted to know why virtuals were removed. Several people explained why. You may not agree with the reasoning behind it, but don't argue with us, we didn't make the decision.

[+Gustav129]

Virtuals are not coming back. This has been discussed ad infinitum in these forums. The new "Challenges" were/are Groundspeak's capitulation at giving back virtuals, but they seem to have pretty much been a flop.

 

I see that challanges are counted on your statistics and your log avatar. I don't mind that they "don't count" towards my find count, it's the same as bench marks. Trish didn't like the idea when I told her that the Challanges didn't count towards my find streak and that I still had to find a cache that day. It was pouring out.

 

As for the challenges, I think it would be nice to see them on the map. Or at least let you see all of them within 100 miles. I don't like that you have to type in a city name 30 miles away to see if there's any challenges there.

[+randycoxclemson]

Salty Pirate wanted to know why virtuals were removed. Several people explained why. You may not agree with the reasoning behind it, but don't argue with us, we didn't make the decision.

I'm not arguing with you (and the others). Quite the opposite. I was hoping to understand the logic behind the decision from those of you who might have been around here back then. I know you (collectively, and personally) did not make the rule, or at least I gather that from your comment, but I was hoping someone could explain the logic of the situation and it appears that maybe no one can. I guess that just means it's a decision that happens to be there and we abide by it.

[knowschad]

Salty Pirate wanted to know why virtuals were removed. Several people explained why. You may not agree with the reasoning behind it, but don't argue with us, we didn't make the decision.

I'm not arguing with you (and the others). Quite the opposite. I was hoping to understand the logic behind the decision from those of you who might have been around here back then. I know you (collectively, and personally) did not make the rule, or at least I gather that from your comment, but I was hoping someone could explain the logic of the situation and it appears that maybe no one can. I guess that just means it's a decision that happens to be there and we abide by it.

 

The main reason that I got from the discussions that followed the release of Challenges was that reviewing virtuals tied up the reviewer's time almost exclusively. There was the added work of checking for the possibility of offset, puzzle, etc. cache types, assessing the so-called "wow factor" (which was an attempted solution to extreme abuse of the cache type previously), and explaining/arguing with wannabe virtual cache owners about why their pet virutal was not being allowed. In other words... havoc and chaos reigned. When the subject came up again in the pre-Challenge discussions, apparently the reviewers were revolting were ready to revolt. They've got enough work to do without adding that burden.

[+SwineFlew]

I think the main reason of why virtual isnt coming back is because of reviewers getting death threats when their virtual dont pass the "wow" factor test.

 

The another reason is because alot of virtual become owner less.

 

Earlier this year, I friend of mine virtual log got deleted because the owner said she was armchair logging it when she wasn't. This type of actions is what GS is tried of. CO that are so worry about armchair logging and deleting logs too fast.

Edited May 16, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+DragonsWest]

What is a worthy [virtual] cache? Who should draw the line of a good one or a bad one, and how can you make it consistent?

 

See this is the root of the whole matter, remove the word virtual there and we're more than happy to publish thousands upon thousands of fire-and-forget caches. Some are truly regretable hides and get reported, but the one cache type we could hide anywhere and by that I include National Parks, isn't allowed because it's problematic.

 

Now we have Favorites, we could easily have Dislikes to weed out the weak or bad, but the decision has been taken from us and we have been given "Waymarking" and "Challenges" in exchange. Just never going to be the same thing.

 

As a volunteer I keep hearing from National Parks & Fish and Wildlife Service about how they are tickled pink we will come in and do CITO, but feel obligated to lecture us on how they only allow VIRTUAL caches (to audible grinding of my teeth) and I have to explain the Powers That Be say, "No more virtuals"

 

Earth caches are fine, but there are so many places they're not very applicable. Darn shame, really that we never got going on History caches or Culture caches, which would really be a boost for education.

 

Ah, well. I keep dreaming they'll see reason some day and let real virtuals make a return.

[+SaltyPirate]

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

I can see where the reviewers would have issues with people arguing with them over the virtual is not approved. So that part makes sense, I can see that.

 

Like a few folks chimed in, if waymarks and challenges counted toward your total count and showed up on the map the virtual may become a non-issue.

 

I guess my whole issue is with the fact that I want to share parts of the Smoky Mountains with visiting cachers without them having to search 3 different websites. It is called a vacation for a reason. For instance I have lived and visited Cades Cove for over 40 years and when I started caching I was introduced to part of Cades Cove I did not know was there, all because of a virtual cache.

 

I am not asking to bring back virtuals by any means. I am just asking if we can come up with an alternative that will show up on the map function of Groundspeak and count toward or totals. Especially in the National Parks. And on that note I can expand: From the District Ranger and the Super for the GSMNP. Both are very aware of what geocaching is. Here is what they have understood from their leadership in Washington. Top of the list is that national parks are protected areas, ie natural areas, so a cache would not be natural to the enviroment. Animals are protected in the park and some folks use old p-butter jars and no matter how well you clean them the oder is still there and the wildlife will come. On one of the caches I opened in from of them (not in the park) someone had placed a cigarete and midol. So I understand the USPS not wanted physical caches because there are those that just try to ruin a good thing.

 

So if I stroked some feathers that wrong way by asking an old question, I appologize. I just want to see it made simpler for the masses no matter what the answer to it is. Just place it on the map and allow the smiley.

[+Markwell]

I think where you'll ruffle the most feathers is "and allow the smiley"

[+randycoxclemson]

I want to share parts of the Smoky Mountains with visiting cachers without them having to search 3 different websites.

And on this topic, what if you created some multi-caches where each stage is a non-physical cache? I forget the terminology, but I created one like that where each step has you look to find some number (number of spokes on the broken down Model T's front passenger tire, e.g.). Then, after they get all the stages, which conveniently took them to the virtual cache sites you would like to create, they put the info together to calculate the mystery location (the final destination), which is back in Gatlinburg or wherever that's outside the confines of the GSMNP.

[+briansnat]

I want to share parts of the Smoky Mountains with visiting cachers without them having to search 3 different websites.

And on this topic, what if you created some multi-caches where each stage is a non-physical cache? I forget the terminology, but I created one like that where each step has you look to find some number (number of spokes on the broken down Model T's front passenger tire, e.g.). Then, after they get all the stages, which conveniently took them to the virtual cache sites you would like to create, they put the info together to calculate the mystery location (the final destination), which is back in Gatlinburg or wherever that's outside the confines of the GSMNP.

 

That can be done. I have a cache that starts on NPS property with a virtual stage. The virtual stage is the point that I wanted to highlight, an historic site with a great view. The cache itself is just outside the border of NPS property and a bit of an anticlimax. The point of the cache is the first stage, which is why I placed the cache, to bring people to that. The physical cache is just a formality.

 

Granted my final stage is less than .2 mile from the first stage. A cache in a cool area of a large national park might require 5, 20 or 40 miles of travel to get to the final. Not a lot of people would be up for that.

Edited May 16, 2012 by briansnat

[+JPatton]

I want to share parts of the Smoky Mountains with visiting cachers without them having to search 3 different websites.

 

You could ask the park manager if they would allow any physical caches in some areas of the park. The National Park Service has relaxed their prohibition on caches on their property. It is now up to the park manager to decide if caches are permitted. There are several series of caches in my area on NPS property. The NPS even wanted their logo on the cache pages.

[+Lil Devil]

Granted my final stage is less than .2 mile from the first stage. A cache in a cool area of a large national park might require 5, 20 or 40 miles of travel to get to the final. Not a lot of people would be up for that.

Here are two multi-caches where the finals are almost 10 miles from the starting, virtual stages. They are quite popular to visitors of the National Park. Granted, there is only one road in and out of this area, so you're going to drive by the finals anyway

[Mr.Yuck]

A quote from the closed "When were virtual caches outlawed?" thread:

 

November 2005 was the guidelines update that officially closed the door on both webcams and virtuals. This after the Waymarking site went live.

Virts changed character, from "anything goes" to needing to meet two standards in March 03:

1, only could be placed where a physical cache could not be (like around a state capitol, or in a National Wildlife Refuge),

2, had to have "wow factor". Also defined that virts needed to have some form of verification question or photo requirement.

 

Best I can tell, it was May 2003, not March 2003. Funny how you just have to rely on memories for that now. True, that was a couple months before I personally started, but that's when it appears to me that new ones suddenly almost completely dropped off the face of the earth. You will see an extremely rare one published in 2004 and 2005 during the "wow factor" period. November 2005 sounds about right for when the decree was made that there would be no more virtuals, even under the "wow factor" clause, and they would have to be Waymarks.

 

Of course some clever use of the Internet archive Wayback machine might yield the changes in the guidelines, if you feel like reading them all, and looking for the text. Bottom line, the last ever virtual cache, and it would have had to be a real good one to pass the "wow factor" test, would have been published in 2005.

[+tozainamboku]

First of all, thanks to those who posted a link my history of why virtual caches are no longer allowed. You can watch a video of it, if you search for "Virtual Caches" on YouTube.

 

As the response from Groundspeak to the OP indicate, they recognize that many people enjoy virtual caches. Some find they're more likely to take you to interesting places, and they allow geocaching to occur in places where a physical cache might not be allowed or appropriate. They also provide a way for geocachers to share places where they cannot place a cache.

 

The problem has always been that not everyone has the same idea of what is an interesting place. And many people prefer a narrower definition of geocaching, one in which there is a object to be found and a log of some sort to verify you found the object. These people feel that virtual caches often did not involve finding anything. The "hider" of the viftual cache is so intent on bringing you to a "cool" place that the only thing there is the place itself - a view, a mountain top, a beach, a building. And even when there is something to find at the location, the verification method is not very good. These tend to allow armchair logging, as answers can be found on the Internet, and photos require cachers to bring a camera (though nowadays with most cellphones having cameras this is not so difficult).

 

Groundspeak has now made two attempts to provide an alternative for those how have interesting places to share as replacement for virtual caches. Waymarking and Challenges each have their pros an cons. The main issues seem to be that they don't count as finds, they don't show up on geocaching maps or in pocket queries, and the "quality" isn't as good a virtuals. Addressing each of these:

 

1. Don't count as finds: Personally I would have no problem if waymarks and challenges were counted. However there is a vocal minority of the geocaching community that is obsessed with "verification". They seem to want to treat the find count as a score and are concerned with people posting bogus logs. For virtual caches, waymarks, and challenges the verification methods that have been tried are weak. People can find answers on the internet and there are disputes whether or not a photo meets the requirements. Many have no verification at all. The puritans don't seem to want to accept any logs like this as counting.

 

2. Not on maps or in pocket queries: I have long lobbied for Groundspeak to better integrate Waymarking data with geocaching. I suppose there are technical issues. And of course there will be many who will want to ignore all non-physical caches simply because they are not interested in finding them. Originally virtual caches were subject to the same .1 mile density rule as physical caches. This kept the map from being saturated with virtual caches on top of physical caches. When virtual caches were grandfathered, the saturation guideline for virtual caches was eliminated. There was never a guideline for Waymarks or Challenges. It's possible there may be some areas with so many of these that it would interfere with the geoaching map.

 

3. Quality not as good: Any perceived difference in quality only demonstrates the effort involved in implementing a "wow" guideline. Despite text making it clear that virtual locations should be special, the reviewers dealt with submissions like you see throughout Waymarking and Challenges. Only a small fraction of virtual cache submissions were published after the "wow" requirement took effect. What you are seeing is the cream of the crop. And it took the reviewers substantial time to deal with the correspondence explaining why each virtual cache was turned down.

[Keystone]

A quote from the closed "When were virtual caches outlawed?" thread:

 

November 2005 was the guidelines update that officially closed the door on both webcams and virtuals. This after the Waymarking site went live.

Virts changed character, from "anything goes" to needing to meet two standards in March 03:

1, only could be placed where a physical cache could not be (like around a state capitol, or in a National Wildlife Refuge),

2, had to have "wow factor". Also defined that virts needed to have some form of verification question or photo requirement.

 

Best I can tell, it was May 2003, not March 2003. Funny how you just have to rely on memories for that now. True, that was a couple months before I personally started, but that's when it appears to me that new ones suddenly almost completely dropped off the face of the earth. You will see an extremely rare one published in 2004 and 2005 during the "wow factor" period. November 2005 sounds about right for when the decree was made that there would be no more virtuals, even under the "wow factor" clause, and they would have to be Waymarks.

 

Of course some clever use of the Internet archive Wayback machine might yield the changes in the guidelines, if you feel like reading them all, and looking for the text. Bottom line, the last ever virtual cache, and it would have had to be a real good one to pass the "wow factor" test, would have been published in 2005.

The "wow factor" test was invented by my (then) nine year old daughter on May 24th 2003, in my first week as a cache reviewer. The exact exchange, as I paraphrased for the reviewer group that day:

 

I put this question to Little Keystone over breakfast. Her response, as close to a quote as I can:

 

quote:Is this supposed to be a virtual cache? If it is, it's lame. A virtual cache has to make me go "wow" when I see it. A cemetery just creeps me out.

 

I think you are taking this approver thing way too seriously, Daddy.

 

There you have it. I propose that all virts have to be run past my daughter to see if she goes "wow."

Edited May 17, 2012 by Keystone

[+Mr.Benchmark]

And many people prefer a narrower definition of geocaching, one in which there is a object to be found and a log of some sort to verify you found the object. These people feel that virtual caches often did not involve finding anything. The "hider" of the viftual cache is so intent on bringing you to a "cool" place that the only thing there is the place itself - a view, a mountain top, a beach, a building. And even when there is something to find at the location, the verification method is not very good. These tend to allow armchair logging, as answers can be found on the Internet, and photos require cachers to bring a camera (though nowadays with most cellphones having cameras this is not so difficult).

 

What's really ironic in all of this - and I have no axe to grind here, I swear - is that the last few virtuals I've found have:

• been better than every LPC I've found - with the possible exception of an LPC I found on the site of a former virtual
• been a more interesting place than many of the traditional caches I've found
• had more rigorous and difficult logging requirements than any traditional cache I've done (traditional caches are mostly not even verified.)

There are now trails of hundreds of essentially identical trivial caches one can find now if one so chooses. I don't even know what the find count means anymore - it is meaningless! (Well, it is only a count of the number of times you've logged "found it".) Virtuals get shut down periodically for lack of verification / absentee owners. I've seen missing caches / COs that don't get archived and people just log away on them...

 

The lamest virtual I've found recently (and it really was kind of lame in my opinion) was still more interesting than discovering the cache hidden in "Tram-Law - <insert town name here>"

 

It's like everything we were afraid of about virtuals has come to pass anyway.

 

I can only imagine how difficult arbitrating the "wow factor" and verification of the virtual's logging requirements must've been.

 

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, I heard that virtual caches were discontinued so that there would be an endless stream of entertainment in the forums.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

The "wow factor" test was invented by my (then) nine year old daughter on May 24th 2003, in my first week as a cache reviewer. The exact exchange, as I paraphrased for the reviewer group that day:

 

I put this question to Little Keystone over breakfast. Her response, as close to a quote as I can:

 

quote:Is this supposed to be a virtual cache? If it is, it's lame. A virtual cache has to make me go "wow" when I see it. A cemetery just creeps me out.

 

I think you are taking this approver thing way too seriously, Daddy.

 

There you have it. I propose that all virts have to be run past my daughter to see if she goes "wow."

 

What I wouldn't do to be allowed to log into, and browse that top-secret hidden forum for just one day.

 

Speaking of which, I wouldn't doubt reviewers have access to every version of the guidelines ever put out. I seriously doubt they're like in a MS Word document that gets written over every time. I mean questions come up all the time. "When were virtuals outlawed"? "When was the moratorium on Locationless enacted"? "When were ALR's outlawed"? "When was it made illegal to write coordinates under a picnic bench with paint marker"?

[Mr.Yuck]

First of all, thanks to those who posted a link my history of why virtual caches are no longer allowed. You can watch a video of it, if you search for "Virtual Caches" on YouTube.

 

BZZZZZZTT. Wrong answer. You're not getting away with just telling people to search YouTube for that video. It's much too awesome to not be posted right here.

 

[+dakboy]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe also they are trying to eliminate caches that you have to contact the owner because what do you do if the CO is no longer active or doesn't respond to the emails? Which are now a form of a ALRs.

For both virtuals & earthcaches, I always log my "find" and immediately follow up with the required email to the CO (if it's required). I see no reason to sit on the log waiting for an inactive CO to respond, and if they are active and don't feel that I've completed the required tasks they, can delete my log.

[+tours4u]

Virtual caches are, and always have been, our favorite type cache. The thing my wife and I like most about Geocaching is that it sometimes takes us to interesting places we may not otherwise have ever known about. Virtual caches are perfect for that. Challenges are also good for that but they’re not integrated into the geo mapping protocol and you don’t get smileys. We’d love to see Virtuals brought back.

[+DragonsWest]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe also they are trying to eliminate caches that you have to contact the owner because what do you do if the CO is no longer active or doesn't respond to the emails? Which are now a form of a ALRs.

For both virtuals & earthcaches, I always log my "find" and immediately follow up with the required email to the CO (if it's required). I see no reason to sit on the log waiting for an inactive CO to respond, and if they are active and don't feel that I've completed the required tasks they, can delete my log.

 

Some COs are better than others. Most say, "Go ahead and log your find and send me the info, if I see an issue with it we'll resolve it together", they really want you to be successful.

 

I have encountered a couple of COs who insist they review your answers before you can log a find, which is a bit of a drag. I'm often pretty beat when I get back from a run with some Earthcaches to log, along with photoshopping some pictures from the trip and dealing with a bureaucratic CO isn't high on my list - I skipped logging a find on one because of this sort of behavior, just not that important, considering I nearly suffered heatstroke at GZ.

 

The ALR concern does bug me. TPTB are deciding what I can and cannot do as a finder or Cache Owner. If there were any one thing GC does which rubs me the wrong way it's this -- they make all the decisions, there's no democracy among geocachers.

[+SwineFlew]

Heres a owner less virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GCE55

 

Just log it!

 

This is one of the reason GS doesnt want virtual, it becomes owner less.

[+bflentje]

There are now trails of hundreds of essentially identical trivial caches one can find now if one so chooses. I don't even know what the find count means anymore - it is meaningless! (Well, it is only a count of the number of times you've logged "found it".)

 

@Knowschad: regarding a private conversation, I am glad I am not alone in this thinking..

[+DragonsWest]

Heres a owner less virtual.

 

http://coord.info/GCE55

 

Just log it!

 

This is one of the reason GS doesnt want virtual, it becomes owner less.

 

I may be a loonie, but I have my self respect - if I cheat by logging a find I didn't find then I'm cheapening my own experience in geocaching and should consider a different pasttime.

 

That said, I'm a big fan of virtuals and will seek them out wherever I go. I was greatly dismayed to realized I've passed through ORD not once, not twice, not thrice, but fource(!) and not logged the Virtual there (especially considering the HUGE amounts of layover time I've twiddled my thumbs in that place.)

[+CTC42]

There are many places it’s not appropriate to place a cache container. It’s not just National Parks, National Cemeteries and archeological sites. There are environmentally sensitive areas such as the largest park in the United States, the 6.5 million acre Adirondack State Park. There are some caches there with containers, but our view is that there are many interesting places that are environmentally sensitive and cache containers don’t belong there. By not making virtual caches available you are encouraging cacher’s to place actual cache containers that really do not belong there. We have enjoyed virtual caches more than many caches with cache containers. National cemeteries with plaques, and public cemeteries have lots of history that just don’t need containers. There are also high traffic areas that would be well suited to virtual caches. We’ve seen cache containers in some very inappropriate and dangerous places. For example on an open 440 volt electric box on a canal gate in FL. Those are the caches that should be policed and moved.

 

We would like to see the return of virtual caches. We are RV’ers that travel throughout the USA. We’d like to place some caches, but feel that because we travel extensively we should not place caches with containers because we cannot maintain them for several months a year while we are traveling. For us it isn’t the thrill of finding the cache container, nor trading items, it’s the places geocaching takes us. By removing virtual caches, Geocaching is not allowing geocachers to share those great interesting places.

Waymarks do not appear in the list of geocaches. I guess we just don’t get it, What is Groundspeak protecting? You can guess we are more than a little annoyed that virtual caches are no longer being allowed to be placed!

[+Markwell]

...our view is that there are many interesting places that are environmentally sensitive and cache containers don’t belong there.

I wonder how encouraging people to go to the same spot over and over and over will affect the environment? It's the people - not the container - that cause damage. If there shouldn't be a box in the area because of environmental issues, then we probably shouldn't be encouraging hundreds of people to make the trek to the same location.

 

This argument has been made ever since there were no new virtuals posted in 2005. I don't think we're going to be changing Groundspeak's mind after seven years.

[+Manville Possum]

I really love virtuals. Waymarking is on life support, but is a great way to list virtuals. EarthCaches are too limited as what GSA will accept, and challanges here are more abused than used properly, we have no control over them. Some of the other geocaching sites still allow virtual listings, and that is the route that I have taken to list my work, but as we all know Groundspeak is still the most popular geocache listing site. I don't understand why Groundspeak does not still allow virtuals to be listed, other than they don't want bothered with reviewing them and enforcing guidelines. As a peer reviewer on Waymarking I see some nice listings in review, but on one of the other sites it's crazy what people will submit. I now have a better understanding of what reviewers on this site have to deal with, at least they have bricks to throw and the support of TPTB to throw them. Last week I submitted a geocache for review and the local reviewer could not approve and asked me to contact appels because the listing is in a fee area which is a OHV Park and the link I posted was to a commercial site. I'm not sure how things would have worked out with appeals, maybe the link could have been left out and I could have just stated that it was a fee area. I'm not sure, but when I was granted permission I failed to get names of the persons. I'm sure I could send a few more emails and do some more leg work, but I have been through this with GSA before and I'm just not willing to put forth all the effort to see my listing rejected when I can list it elsewhere with no questions asked, other than I have permission to list a geocache at the site.

[knowschad]

There are now trails of hundreds of essentially identical trivial caches one can find now if one so chooses. I don't even know what the find count means anymore - it is meaningless! (Well, it is only a count of the number of times you've logged "found it".)

 

@Knowschad: regarding a private conversation, I am glad I am not alone in this thinking..

 

2bflentje: I hear you!

[+DragonsWest]

...our view is that there are many interesting places that are environmentally sensitive and cache containers don’t belong there.

I wonder how encouraging people to go to the same spot over and over and over will affect the environment? It's the people - not the container - that cause damage. If there shouldn't be a box in the area because of environmental issues, then we probably shouldn't be encouraging hundreds of people to make the trek to the same location.

 

This argument has been made ever since there were no new virtuals posted in 2005. I don't think we're going to be changing Groundspeak's mind after seven years.

 

I fail to see a direct connection between virtuals and environmental harm which does not also exist for traditionals.

 

Placement should be considered for all caches, not favoring one over another.

 

Many areas where a physical cache isn't allowed, I hear over and over how the Park or Refuge people are open to, and encourage, the placement of Virtual Caches. Parks people are highly encouraging people to visit their parks and experience them. Anyone who places a cache in a poorly chosen setting needs to have it reported no matter park, city or wetland.

 

When I see state parks working with local geocachers to place caches, to attract more visitors I'm getting a clear message here - they want visitors, because without them their park may be closed to to lack of use and budget concerns.