Why No More Virtual Caches

[+tozainamboku]

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!

The argument that a special place needs a cache to bring people to it is a bit week. Many people visit these special places as they travel around the country without needing a cache to find them (or a smiley on geocaching.com to get them to stop).

 

Wanting to use geocaching to share interesting places is a noble desire. But if the only reason for a cache is to get someone to visit, then this probably isn't enough of a reason to put a cache (virtual or physical) there. The idea is provide something specific to find using a GPS and some way to verify this.

 

Too many people were placing virtual caches just to share interesting places. Often they did this in places where (with a little bit of effort) you could get permission for placing a physical cache or where you could create an offset cache where you visit the location to get some information used to find a physical cache hidden nearby.

 

Waymarking was developed as a site for sharing places that didn't require finding a cache (or anything else). Challenges have been developed to allow people to list places on geocaching.com and ask visitors to perform some challenge at the place. There is no good reasons to bring back virtuals to do something they were not intended for in the first place.

 

Many RV'rs and others who travel a lot, have asked for virtuals to be brought back as a way for them to place caches where they might not be able to maintain a physical cache. When a virtual cache has a specific object to find and a specific verification requirement (things that would make them different than most waymarks or challenges), it turns out that being local and being able to check on changes at the location is important. Many of the grandfathered virtuals don't require much onsite maintenance, but these are virtuals that might be better done as waymarks. Another issue is that local cachers are more likely to make an effort to get permission to place a physical cache. Vacationers leaving many virtual caches in an area they believe there is a gap because physical cache can't be placed there, don't help when people try to make a pitch to a land manager to allow physical caches. While virtual caches might be appropriate in some areas, my fear is that too many will be placed by people just trying to find a easy way to hide a cache that then don't need to maintain and they don't need to get permission for.

[+DragonsWest]

Some of the most memorable places I've visited, off the beaten path, are marked by Virtuals. Someone found a long lost or seldom visited spot and wants to share it with Geocachers, so the placed a virtual. Well done them.

 

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

[+dprovan]

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

The lack of quality.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

There are many things that could be improved with challenges, including being able to see them on the map, but disagree on being being able to count them being an improvement. First of all, I don't equate "more popular" as being an improvement. One might even suggest that being able to count virtuals, in part, led to their demise. Because every virtual found added to ones find count lots of lame virtuals could be created to achieve a higher count for others and we saw things like street corner signs as virtuals. If we were able to count challenge completion (i.e. a completion would add to ones geocache find count) it's not hard to imagine that their might be "take a picture of a fence post" power trails.

 

IMHO, Challenges should not be about how many challenges one completes, but about how one completes challenges. Awhile back, Jeremy posted something about working on something that would allow "favoriting" a completion log. There are a lot of challenge logs which have a quickly taken photo and "completed challenge", but the more interesting completion logs have a photo that shows that they took a little more time trying to get a good picture and have tried to write something interesting or humorous about what they did to complete the challenge.

[cezanne]

Waymarking was developed as a site for sharing places that didn't require finding a cache (or anything else).

 

Indeed, places and objects and not activities like a hiking tour (listing hiking trails by their start or end points is not what I have in mind), guided city tours etc. The latter are much more cache-like than Waymarking like.

 

Challenges have been developed to allow people to list places on geocaching.com and ask visitors to perform some challenge at the place.

 

But in a very restricted manner. So far only photo challenges are available and even when QR challenges show up that is more akin to munzees than to the full freedom of virtual caches.

 

Challenges do not have owners, their description is ridiculously short, there are no D/T-ratings, no attributes, no multi stage and mystery elements etc

Challenges are intentionally different from geocaches.

 

I neither could implement my virtual caches

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=a7f277de-e3bd-4550-99cb-b07e5baad7f6

as waymark nor as challenge.

 

The same is true for this physical cache

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

that I would have loved to set up a virtual cache as having to hide a container was only a burden. The container and the hideout are the part of

this cache I really hate and the necessity to hide a container was the reason that I had delayed the implementation of this cache for more than 6 years.

 

I am definitely not too lazy to maintain a physical cache, but there are locations where I neither like to search for caches nor hide caches (even though it is not forbidden).

 

There is no good reasons to bring back virtuals to do something they were not intended for in the first place.

 

 

Many of the grandfathered virtuals don't require much onsite maintenance, but these are virtuals that might be better done as waymarks.

 

Not necessarily. My virtual could not be implemented as waymark in a reasonable way-

 

Another issue is that local cachers are more likely to make an effort to get permission to place a physical cache.

 

That argument applies to countries and caches where such a permission is necessary. For a virtual cache along a public hiking trail no permission would be required in my country (there are no land managers) while of course for placing a container a permission is required (at least from the legal point of view), but very hard to obtain in most cases. So it ends up with most caches being hidden without knowledge of the property owner. Also from this point of view containerless caches might be helpful in these regions as a further option.

 

Actually, personally I do not care that much how the concept is called - if waymarks, challenges or XYZ offers a chance to implement what I have in mind, they are all welcome. Right now they are absolutely useless for me.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

Is this Waymarking thing for real? I went on there and looked at my area. It was all 'take a picture of a Subway' or 'eat inside this Dunkin Donuts'. Really? Lame.

[+randycoxclemson]

The argument that a special place needs a cache to bring people to it is a bit week. Many people visit these special places as they travel around the country without needing a cache to find them (or a smiley on geocaching.com to get them to stop).

 

Wanting to use geocaching to share interesting places is a noble desire. But if the only reason for a cache is to get someone to visit, then this probably isn't enough of a reason to put a cache (virtual or physical) there. The idea is provide something specific to find using a GPS and some way to verify this.

This is very interesting.

 

I don't think of the idea being to provide a specific thing to find. Sure, it's the stated mechanic for the 'game,' but I'm not out there trekking up mountains or through city parks to find the plastic bauble. I do it, and sign it because it's part of the mechanic again, but the reason I'm there is to see whatever the person is trying to bring me to.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I choose caches to find because they will take me to something I've never paused to check out. Not major sites like the Washington Monument or LeConte Lodge, but the side venues or interesting buildings whose stories I never knew before. When we hiked LeConte recently (and nabbed the three virtuals available), I would have loved to have been told that by walking a few feet off the trail at a certain point, I could see the remnants of a Model T ford or an old one-room schoolhouse foundation. That would be rewarding and a perfect, repeat perfect, use of geocaching. It would have nothing to do with the Tupperware.

 

Anyway, this got me to thinking. If a person places a cache at a great spot--some place you want others to have a chance to visit because it's never going to be published in the summary level Michelin guides--and wants to get people there, couldn't they follow the rules and create a traditional cache? Then, if the cache goes missing or gets taken by a bear, people would still go looking for it. Now, someone would report that it needs maintenance, but because no one is a local to these remote environs, couldn't the cache owner just update the listing to say "If you got to the site, go ahead and log your find, and next time I make it up I'll place a new cache"? Instant virtual virtual. It accomplishes the goal of getting "vista seekers" to the proper place, follows the rules of placing a cache, but allows for logging during the intermittent times when the physical bauble is not available. Has that been done before?

[+randycoxclemson]

It accomplishes the goal of getting "vista seekers" to the proper place, follows the rules of placing a cache, but allows for logging during the intermittent times when the physical bauble is not available. Has that been done before?

Or maybe a better way of asking this is, "What percentage of cache owners actually confirm finds against the physical paper log?" I suspect it is fairly low.

[+Glenn]

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

The lack of quality.

Waymarking is set up in to categories. If a particular category doesn't appeal to you then simply ignore it. This is something that Geocaching doesn't do and probably why some people feel they have to find all the geocaches in a particular area no matter what type of hide it is.

[+Glenn]

Is this Waymarking thing for real? I went on there and looked at my area. It was all 'take a picture of a Subway' or 'eat inside this Dunkin Donuts'. Really? Lame.

 

It seems that you are cherry picking waymarks that you find "Lame" to make a point. So here are cherry picked waymarks in your area that I find internetsting.

 

WM1TB0 - Lotus Garden at Wickham Park - Japanese Gardens

WM4RY7 - Bell - Firefighter's Memorial

WM4RYM - W6 Memorial

WM1T8X - Wickham Park view of Hartford, Connecticut

WM46X1 - Laurel Marsh Trail

 

Yes, there is a cinema, McDonalds, Dollar Tree, Fire Station, and Brewing Co on that page but they are easily ignored if you don't like them. However some people do like to visit these because they have been loged too.

[+nikcap]

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

The lack of quality.

 

While agree that the quality of Waymarks need much to be desired, however, we must realize that the users are responsible for the marks listed there.

 

Nothing says you need to complete every Waymark.

 

Nothing is stopping you from placing quality Waymarks, or Waymarks that you find interesting.

 

This also applies to the new Geocaching Challenges. Nothing is stopping you from placing quality Geocaching Challenges. Perhaps leading by example is the way to go.

[+DragonsWest]

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

 

Effectively, it's not Geocaching. It may as well be OpenCaching, Munzee or anything else out there because it doesn't register in any way on your Geocaching Stats. Having the same Parent Company as Geocaching is the only connection most users will ever see.

 

It's a catchall for marking places of interest or creating lame challenges, with some being quite good to some being utterly without merit. As there's no tie between Geocaching and Waymarking it does nothing to fill the gap left after Virtual publishing ended.

 

It bears considering this phrase: Geocaching means different things to people.

 

Trying to put everyone into one-size-fits-all box doesn't work. Some of us like to amass numbers. Some like to do Geocaching challenges, i.e. find one cache in each USGS Quadrangle for an area. Some just like to find a cache now and then while traveling. Some like to trade geocoins and find very few caches. Some like to go to events. Some are hardcore outdoors adventurers and look for caches in highly challenging locales. Some like caches which take them somewhere special. And many fit one or more of those categories, while yet more fit none of them at all, but their own particular goals.

 

The primary issue I have with Waymarking, as well as Challenges, is they are not Geocaching. I'm particularly dismayed by the way Groundspeak got our hopes up, telling us Virtuals were coming back and then rolling out Challenges, yet another not-a-geocaching activity.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

... some people feel they have to find all the geocaches in a particular area no matter what type of hide it is.

 

Not for me. There are a lot of places that simply don't have that many caches. If you start excluding certain types of hides it doesn't take very long before there are no caches to be found without traveling a distance that can effectively eliminate the possibility of caching during lunch, before/after work, or on any day when you've got less than a couple of hours free to go caching. Yes, that means that you'll occasionally find a cache that might be pretty lame, but the alternative is not caching at all.

 

BTW, I *almost* went to find your Webcam cache in Boulder a couple of days ago but both times I was in the area it was a bit too late to call my wife to login and capture an image on the webcam. I've been caching for over 5 years and still haven't managed to log a webcam cache. I'm hoping to do that with a webcam at Zurich Airport next month.

[knowschad]

It accomplishes the goal of getting "vista seekers" to the proper place, follows the rules of placing a cache, but allows for logging during the intermittent times when the physical bauble is not available. Has that been done before?

Or maybe a better way of asking this is, "What percentage of cache owners actually confirm finds against the physical paper log?" I suspect it is fairly low.

Very low. Even amongst those that would like to, bleeding ink, smeared pencil and torn logs make it nearly impossible to accurately audit the logs.

[+DragonsWest]

It accomplishes the goal of getting "vista seekers" to the proper place, follows the rules of placing a cache, but allows for logging during the intermittent times when the physical bauble is not available. Has that been done before?

Or maybe a better way of asking this is, "What percentage of cache owners actually confirm finds against the physical paper log?" I suspect it is fairly low.

Very low. Even amongst those that would like to, bleeding ink, smeared pencil and torn logs make it nearly impossible to accurately audit the logs.

 

And anyone who does actively audit them will be burned out by the experience. Not fun.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Effectively, it's not Geocaching. It may as well be OpenCaching, Munzee or anything else out there because it doesn't register in any way on your Geocaching Stats. Having the same Parent Company as Geocaching is the only connection most users will ever see.

 

...

 

The primary issue I have with Waymarking, as well as Challenges, is they are not Geocaching. I'm particularly dismayed by the way Groundspeak got our hopes up, telling us Virtuals were coming back and then rolling out Challenges, yet another not-a-geocaching activity.

 

Thanks. I've noticed that they've split out things like benchmarks and challenges from your geocaching find count. Is it the fact that waymarks don't count as a "find", or that they aren't integrated into the geocaching.com site, and thus whatever caching workflow you might use, or both? (The latter is an issue for me, fwiw.) Or is the problem that the Waymarking "game" just isn't compelling and fun? I've looked around on the Waymarking site, and while I like to take photos and explore places, for whatever reason - and I can't quite put my finger on it - it doesn't inspire me to either find or place waymarks.

 

BTW, for people who are embarrssed about answering the first part of my question about "counts as a find", I guess if it matters to you and you answer honestly, you open yourself up to the chorus of "oh, so it's all about the numbers then?" (I presume this would be said in the snarkiest possible tone.) I don't really understand this concern - the find count, as a score, is completely dimensionless and in and of itself doesn't signify much except for the number of times someone has logged "found it" minus the number of times their "found it" logs have been deleted (generally 0).

 

The main logic I can see for disallowing virtuals, btw, is to prevent them from overwhelming physical caches and turning this site into effectively nothing but Waymarking.

[+Manville Possum]

Is this Waymarking thing for real? I went on there and looked at my area. It was all 'take a picture of a Subway' or 'eat inside this Dunkin Donuts'. Really? Lame.

I felt the same way when I first viewed the site. There was Pizza Hut and a pay phone. Bruce S told me about some other categorys that I found interesting, like old cemeterys and I became a Waymarker. Sad thing is there are only two of us in about a 100 mile radius, so my Waymarks seldom if never get logged. I have been able to convert some to virtual listings on other geocaching sites. I still submit some Waymarks that I find of interest, and I'm not logging any thing I find to be lame, which is 95% of the Waymarking site.

[4wheelin_fool]

Is this Waymarking thing for real? I went on there and looked at my area. It was all 'take a picture of a Subway' or 'eat inside this Dunkin Donuts'. Really? Lame.

I felt the same way when I first viewed the site. There was Pizza Hut and a pay phone. Bruce S told me about some other categorys that I found interesting, like old cemeterys and I became a Waymarker. Sad thing is there are only two of us in about a 100 mile radius, so my Waymarks seldom if never get logged. I have been able to convert some to virtual listings on other geocaching sites. I still submit some Waymarks that I find of interest, and I'm not logging any thing I find to be lame, which is 95% of the Waymarking site.

 

I was told that most Waymarkers are all about listing them, most have no real intention of drawing visitors. Why would I take a picture of myself going to the Dunkin Donuts and then later to the Post Office? Later, I'll stop at McDonalds. Who would document this, and why?

 

Rumors are that categegories such as watertowers are only so that sensitive infrastructure could be found easily during the Chinese takeover of 2013.

[+randycoxclemson]

Is it the fact that waymarks don't count as a "find", or that they aren't integrated into the geocaching.com site, and thus whatever caching workflow you might use, or both?

That's exactly it for me--the workflow. I go to geocaching.com, click on interesting caches (or waymarks, if they were there) and click the "dowlonad GPX" button. After doing this for awhile, I import them into GSAK and upload to my GPS and print out what I need (since 30 characters isn't enough to go paperless).

 

That whole process doesn't work on Waymarking.com. In fact, I just cannot navigate that site. I put in a city and see that there are probably a half-dozen 'categories' I'm interested in, and three dozen categories I care nothing about. No way I've found to see a composite map of only waymarks in those half-dozen categories (there is often overlap between categories). And within the decent categories, I will sometimes find the same landmark listed three times in different ways (Miller House, House - Miller, Site where James Miller was Shot). The quality control isn't there (reviewing) and the quality isn't there (all-in-one mapping or any sort of large format mapping, for that matter) and the popularity/quantity isn't there (almost every waymark I've investigated has 0 or 1 visit and none in the past 2 years). It just doesn't flow and while you're there, there is a huge 'ick' factor, as though you're wandering around aimlessly in a ghost town when you could be doing something more productive.

The main logic I can see for disallowing virtuals, btw, is to prevent them from overwhelming physical caches and turning this site into effectively nothing but Waymarking.

If that were the issue, then there could have been many other options to avoid allowing that to happen, like make the virtual 528 rule be a 1056 rule (or more), or allowing users to add virtuals only at a certain rate, like earning the right to add a virtual only after hiding 3 or 4 traditional caches. I can't imagine that such logistics were the main driving factor in removing them. Just sounds like purists disagreeing with the concept to me (not that there's anything wrong with that).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I was told that most Waymarkers are all about listing them, most have no real intention of drawing visitors. Why would I take a picture of myself going to the Dunkin Donuts and then later to the Post Office? Later, I'll stop at McDonalds. Who would document this, and why?

 

I'm guessing that you've never used Twitter.

[+BruceS]

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

The lack of quality.

 

And you call a power trail with a micro every .1 mile is quality?

 

I have been around long enough to remember the virtuals being the scourge of geocaching. That virtuals were going to destroy geocaching. That if you found virtuals you were not really geocaching.

 

Take any negative thread that you have seen about micros and there was a time that the same was being said about virtuals.

 

The virtuals that are there today in general are the cream of the crop of virtuals.

Edited May 18, 2012 by BruceS

[+Manville Possum]

or allowing users to add virtuals only at a certain rate, like earning the right to add a virtual only after hiding 3 or 4 traditional caches.

 

That seems to have worked on another site. The only virtuals near me are ownerless, and they are allowed to remain active on this site. I'm sure that there are quite a few of them here that have been grandfathered, but the owners left the game long ago.

[+Manville Possum]

Is this Waymarking thing for real? I went on there and looked at my area. It was all 'take a picture of a Subway' or 'eat inside this Dunkin Donuts'. Really? Lame.

I felt the same way when I first viewed the site. There was Pizza Hut and a pay phone. Bruce S told me about some other categorys that I found interesting, like old cemeterys and I became a Waymarker. Sad thing is there are only two of us in about a 100 mile radius, so my Waymarks seldom if never get logged. I have been able to convert some to virtual listings on other geocaching sites. I still submit some Waymarks that I find of interest, and I'm not logging any thing I find to be lame, which is 95% of the Waymarking site.

 

I was told that most Waymarkers are all about listing them, most have no real intention of drawing visitors. Why would I take a picture of myself going to the Dunkin Donuts and then later to the Post Office? Later, I'll stop at McDonalds. Who would document this, and why?

 

Rumors are that categegories such as watertowers are only so that sensitive infrastructure could be found easily during the Chinese takeover of 2013.

You could be right, I like listing Waymarks. It's a good place to store my photos. Right now I'm working on a Revoltionary War soliders grave site, and I have done some research on the person. When I'm done you can google the man's name and it may show a link to Waymarking.com if anyone were ever interested. Maybe I'll go log a port-o-let later, I think there is a category for them, but if not there is always a McDonalds.

[+nikcap]

or allowing users to add virtuals only at a certain rate, like earning the right to add a virtual only after hiding 3 or 4 traditional caches.

 

Actually, in reference to Waymarks, I always though that some kind of nominating/voting system would be interesting.

 

The best Waymarks could be nominated and with enough visits or votes, be migrated to the Virtual Cache category on the main site.

 

--the workflow. I go to geocaching.com, click on interesting caches (or waymarks, if they were there) and click the "dowlonad GPX" button. After doing this for awhile, I import them into GSAK and upload to my GPS and print out what I need (since 30 characters isn't enough to go paperless).

 

I do this with Waymarking and GSAK, it works great.

 

That whole process doesn't work on Waymarking.com. In fact, I just cannot navigate that site. I put in a city and see that there are probably a half-dozen 'categories' I'm interested in, and three dozen categories I care nothing about. No way I've found to see a composite map of only waymarks in those half-dozen categories (there is often overlap between categories). And within the decent categories, I will sometimes find the same landmark listed three times in different ways (Miller House, House - Miller, Site where James Miller was Shot). The quality control isn't there (reviewing) and the quality isn't there (all-in-one mapping or any sort of large format mapping, for that matter) and the popularity/quantity isn't there (almost every waymark I've investigated has 0 or 1 visit and none in the past 2 years). It just doesn't flow and while you're there, there is a huge 'ick' factor, as though you're wandering around aimlessly in a ghost town when you could be doing something more productive.

 

The site is a little overwhelming, but that doesn't mean there isn't an wheat to be found from the chaff. I find that searching for categories that you're interested in and downloading the GPX of those sites pretty easy to do. I load about 10 categories into GSAK and create a Waymark.gpx that I load into my GPS. If one pops up in the when I'm in the area, I check it out.

 

I understand that if you primary goal is to get another smilie and/or clear out and entire area, that Waymarking is not for you. Essentially, you have to be fine with leaving unfound Waymarks on the table.

 

Just to re-iterate, if you think the current existing Waymarks are lame, get out there and change it!

Place some good/interesting Waymarks. I really sympathize with a previous posted about being only one of two Waymarkers within 100 miles.

[+randycoxclemson]

--the workflow. I go to geocaching.com, click on interesting caches (or waymarks, if they were there) and click the "dowlonad GPX" button. After doing this for awhile, I import them into GSAK and upload to my GPS and print out what I need (since 30 characters isn't enough to go paperless).

I do this with Waymarking and GSAK, it works great.

The problem is a) the lack of a navigable, large map and b ) the inability to see several selected categories at one time (and not the other categories).

 

Then, you're right, I could use Waymarking.com just like geocaching.com. Right now, they're separate and not equal.

I understand that if you primary goal is to get another smilie and/or clear out and entire area, that Waymarking is not for you.

I have no desire to find all the smilies or complete an area. I don't do that for caches, either. I just really, really live by that "Map this location" feature for the caches and without it for waymarks, I can't navigate well.

I really sympathize with a previous posted about being only one of two Waymarkers within 100 miles.

That must be the case around here as well. I see one person who has listed all the waymarks and one person who, back in 2009 or 2010 found a few. Edited May 18, 2012 by randycoxclemson

[+briansnat]

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.

 

If you can't maintain a regular cache you won't be able to maintain a virtual. Even when virts were allowed you couldn't just drive around the country listing virtuals. You needed to prove you could maintain it like any cache. Virtuals are destroyed, moved and verification info can disappear or change. If something like that happens you need to respond just as quickly as you would to a physical, to scope out the situation and make changes.

 

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!

In most cases we can all still share great, interesting places through the placement of a physical cache. Placement of virtuals largely ended in 2003 with the introduction of the "wow factor". That's three years before you even started geocaching. I don't get the annoyance about not being able to do something that you were never able to do in the first place and due to your transient lifestyle, couldn't do today even if virtuals were still allowed.

[+Manville Possum]

I really sympathize with a previous posted about being only one of two Waymarkers within 100 miles.

 

 

Yeah, it's just me and vhasler here in the Kingsport, Tenessee area. I enjoy history and geneology, and the only place I had to list my photos and research was our Countys Historical Society. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vaschs2/

I won't list or log things that are not of interest to me, like McDonalds and such. I like veterans memorials and related things like Tanks and Howitzers, old cemeterys. I also enjoy waterfalls and springs, some I was able to have GSA approve as EarthCaches. I have not listed any waymarks lately, and I have played around with challanges. I have listed some nice virtuals on other geocaching sites, I had two Native American Mounds that I was going to try and list as EarthCaches but I did not fill that I could list them as EarthCaches so I listed them as virtuals on another site and one on Waymarking. At first glance I strongly disliked the Waymarking site, but Bruce S that is a moderator here pointed out to me that there were catagorys that may interest me and I learned to navagate the site. Now I manage a catagory and I'm a member of quite a few.

I enjoy listing geocaches more than I do seeking them, but it takes members like me to keep the game in play, and I try to keep it interesting.

[+SaltyPirate]

Okay alot of good arguements.

 

How is a Challenge suppose to replace anything? There is a local Challenge here that is one sided...Literally. It is an easy cheat if you live in N Carolina because all you have to do is go to the sign and take the picture proving you were there. Those of us on the Tennessee side actually have to drive the 318 curves in 11 miles (US129 "The Dragon")to get to the sign for a picture, unless we want to cheat and drive over the Smokys on US441 2.5 hours more. So how is that a Challenge, where is the challenge? Now with that said, Abrams Falls Challenge, there are a few ways to get to the Falls located in Cades Cove of the GSMNP but you have to hike there, one way or the other, so I can see the Challenge there.

 

Everyone has made alot of valid points on both sides and I know reviewers are volunteers. But I volunteer on several levels in my community and I give it 100% and someties I am criticised about how I do it. It is part of the job whether voluntary or not.

 

I am just asking that maybe we could see some form of cache that can be list in state/federal parks that do not allow caches. It is for everyones enjoyment. I doubt very seriously that you will find a Dunken Doughnuts, Walmart loading dock, or any other non-worthy "virtual" cache within park boundries. What if we called them "Park Caches" so that virtual is not a part of it.

 

I know I have only been active here over the last month and a half. But I see real potential for increasing the popularity of caching. But when you place stiff rules that do not allow for expansion... you end up with a good ol boys club, just because a few do not like a particular type of cache.

 

On the note of ownerless caches: How can you say a traditional cache has an owner? Just because a user name is attached doesnt mean anything. For instance I just logged a cache to day that has so many logs in it that is will barely close. Where is the owner? Why isn't he/she checking on it. So that is a lame excuse as far as I am concerned when it come to the OLD VIRTUALS. At least they didn't have paper hanging out of them. (and yes I removed some of the logs so they would not become trash on the ground.) It was obvious that the owner of the cache was not concerned. I could have logged it as a find and not even visited it. Understand?

 

As of yet I have not placed any caches because I know at the present time I do not have time to keep up with them due to school and work. But I am almost done with school and scouting some fun spots to place a cache.

 

I have read and took into account many of the negative responses to bringing back virtuals, and I have tried to see your point of views. Fortunately there were just aas many good arguements to bring them back. I truely believe that if Groundspeak polled the caching community, that they will find more are for than against the idea of a "virtual" type cache in parks that do not allow traditional physical caches.

[GOF and Bacall]

Who else wants to take a whack at it?

 

[+tozainamboku]

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

The lack of quality.

Like every geocache out there is quality. If you you are finding the the grandfathered virtuals seem to be "better" places than the majority of waymarks, thank the "wow" requirement. Once that was place reviewer would publish only a tiny fraction of the waymarks submitted. What you are seeing are the ones some reviewer thought was "wow" enough.

 

Of course not everyone may agree 100% of the time with that reviewer. There were probably a few "quality" virtuals that got turned down and certainly a few that were published where you might wonder what the reviewer was thinking. But on the whole their gate keeping resulted in a better overall quality.

 

Waymarking was developed as a site for sharing places that didn't require finding a cache (or anything else).

 

Indeed, places and objects and not activities like a hiking tour (listing hiking trails by their start or end points is not what I have in mind), guided city tours etc. The latter are much more cache-like than Waymarking like.

 

I'm not convince of this. Certainly you were able to create virtual cahches what were multipart or that had a puzzle component to them. But ther fact is that people could have started Waymarking categories that allowed these features. In the start, when Groundspeak was putting some development effort into Waymarking there was even a chance to get changes made to support this sort of waymark. People managed to create categories like Waymark Tours and Best Kept Secrets.

 

What happened is that most categories were simply set up to catalog locations in that category. And that attracted a lot of people who get some enjoyment out of cataloging things. The opportunity is still there to create categories that are game like with goals to meet besides cataloging McDonalds Restaurants or Austrian National Heritage Sites.

 

Is this Waymarking thing for real? I went on there and looked at my area. It was all 'take a picture of a Subway' or 'eat inside this Dunkin Donuts'. Really? Lame.

Waymarking takes a different approach than the subjective "wow" requirement of virtuals caches (at least for most categories). Categories are created by group who are interested in that category. For many categories, the interests is mainly in cataloging something. Most of the commercial categories are like this. Because it's relatively easy to find places in these categories they tend to have a lot of a waymarks.

 

However Waymarking is set up to allow you to ignore categories and even whole groups of categories. The thing to do is to explore the list of categories and find what categories interest you then ignore everything else. I suspect you will find plenty of interesting places to visit.

 

If you know of an interesting location yuu want to share you need to scan the list of categories to find one it will fit in. It there isn't you can still submit an uncategorized waymark that will get moved to a category is on is later created for it.

 

I don't think of the idea being to provide a specific thing to find. Sure, it's the stated mechanic for the 'game,' but I'm not out there trekking up mountains or through city parks to find the plastic bauble. I do it, and sign it because it's part of the mechanic again, but the reason I'm there is to see whatever the person is trying to bring me to.

This is a debate that started just a few months after the first geocache was placed. None other than Dave Ulmer, who hid the first cache in what many though was not all that spectacular of location, suggest that the game would be better if we didn't hide anything and if the reward was simply visiting the location. He called these locations wonderts. After much uproar by people who felt there should be a cache to find, Dave announced he was going off to start his wondert game elsewhere. Apparently he never registered www.wondert.com though.

 

In any case many claim that the what they enjoy most about geocaching is that it takes them to new and interesting places. It certainly seem to me that if that is what you enjoy, there are other website that work better at filtering places that you might find interesting and which include places that don't have a geocache there. The calls to bring back virtuals are asking to turn geocaching.com into another wonderts.com. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Anyway, this got me to thinking. If a person places a cache at a great spot--some place you want others to have a chance to visit because it's never going to be published in the summary level Michelin guides--and wants to get people there, couldn't they follow the rules and create a traditional cache? Then, if the cache goes missing or gets taken by a bear, people would still go looking for it. Now, someone would report that it needs maintenance, but because no one is a local to these remote environs, couldn't the cache owner just update the listing to say "If you got to the site, go ahead and log your find, and next time I make it up I'll place a new cache"? Instant virtual virtual. It accomplishes the goal of getting "vista seekers" to the proper place, follows the rules of placing a cache, but allows for logging during the intermittent times when the physical bauble is not available. Has that been done before?

This was commonly done in the past. In fact when I joined geocaching.com, users could still change the type of there cache. People were getting around the "Wow" requirement by hiding a traditional and as soon as it went missing, changing it to a virtual. Voila. Instant nothing to maintain any more. The proper thing to do if you have a cache a good location you aren't going to maintain is to either adopt it out to someone who can, or archive it so someone else can place a cache there.

 

There are still cache owners who post that if their cache is missing you can log it as find. The reviewers have problem with this because there is no cache to find (some players expect there to be a cache to find, no matter how interesting the location itself may be), and there is little to pressure the owner to go and maintain their cache. Reviewers will disable caches like this and archive them if they owner doesn't perform the maintenance.

Edited May 19, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+DonB]

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."

And challenges are? From what I've seen so far I'll take the worst virtual over the best challenge. Just my opinion.

[+briansnat]

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

 

No smileys.

[cezanne]

Waymarking was developed as a site for sharing places that didn't require finding a cache (or anything else).

 

Indeed, places and objects and not activities like a hiking tour (listing hiking trails by their start or end points is not what I have in mind), guided city tours etc. The latter are much more cache-like than Waymarking like.

 

I'm not convince of this. Certainly you were able to create virtual cahches what were multipart or that had a puzzle component to them. But ther fact is that people could have started Waymarking categories that allowed these features. In the start, when Groundspeak was putting some development effort into Waymarking there was even a chance to get changes made to support this sort of waymark. People managed to create categories like Waymark Tours and Best Kept Secrets

 

I'm aware of these categories (and have looked at them), but I do not feel that they well support activities and I feel that the concept of dividing everything up in categories results in a big loss of flexibility (also with respect to having diverse choices for log verification and not being dependent on what the group has decided).

 

I simply feel that Waymarks have never been really intended to implement containerless caches, but just to share locations.

So trying to use it for something else, is quite tiresome and needs a lot of energy and compromises.

 

 

Cezanne

[+briansnat]

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

The lack of quality.

 

And you call a power trail with a micro every .1 mile is quality?

 

I have been around long enough to remember the virtuals being the scourge of geocaching. That virtuals were going to destroy geocaching. That if you found virtuals you were not really geocaching.

 

Take any negative thread that you have seen about micros and there was a time that the same was being said about virtuals.

 

The virtuals that are there today in general are the cream of the crop of virtuals.

 

I remember the same thing. Virtuals were not hugely popular among geocachers when they were allowed. There was a small segment of geocachers who claimed to enjoy them and sought them out but they were in the minority. There were some good virtuals, but virtuals for the most part were submitted by lazy cache owners who thought they could own caches without the responsibility of maintenance. Most of these have been weeded out over the years so we're left for the most part with a "best of".

[cezanne]

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

 

No smileys.

 

That's not my reason why neither waymarks nor challenges attract my interest.

 

That's the local offer for waymarks resp. challenges. I do know all locations and the activities to perform (if any) do not attract my interest.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=47.070714&lon=15.439504&t=3&id=graz&wo=True&p=2&sg=fd632985-e421-4ddf-8fd4-a5ecee3c76ef&st=2

 

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/search.aspx?st=loc&q=graz&lat=47.070714&lng=15.439503999999943

 

I see no way at all to implement caches like those (where the container can easily be done away and where this definitely would make sense) as waymarks or challenges. There are many more examples of this type.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bf1fbe4b-3df6-44e3-80ad-1ef4a93543be

 

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

 

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

 

 

Cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

 

No smileys.

 

Most virtual caches tended to be a surprise to discover something unusual. When you arrived, there was something previously unknown that you noticed.

 

With Waymarking there is mostly no hidden surprise. Everything is organized neatly, but in a certain way that draws frequent complaints from outsiders, but is understood by those that frequent the place. Most of the Waymarks have no intention of being visited, and many of the categories only serve to pad someone's listing stats. It appeals to a certain type of OCD, who tend to collect things that are never used, and to organize and label everything around them.

Edited May 19, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+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."

And challenges are? From what I've seen so far I'll take the worst virtual over the best challenge. Just my opinion.

 

Actually I've seen challenges that mimic specific virtuals so I don't see how the best challenge could be worse than the worst virtual. And well thought out challenges do everything that a virtual did, short of earning a smiley.

[+McDeHack]

I am the owner of a virtual. GC22E5 It was first listed 16th October 2001. It has had 896 visits and last visited a few days ago.

It is in what I believed an interesting part of London that not many visitors to London would have on the normal tour.

As many of the 'finders' have stated that they would not have known of of this place if not as a cache.

As proof of their visit there are questions that must be answered about it.

Is this enough proof that virtuals should be allowed?

[cezanne]

Actually I've seen challenges that mimic specific virtuals so I don't see how the best challenge could be worse than the worst virtual.

 

I agree, but it still can happen that the best challenge in a region is worse than the worst virtual there.

 

And well thought out challenges do everything that a virtual did, short of earning a smiley.

 

I do not agree. As challenges are regarded: Lack of ownership, very short descriptions, no D/T-ratings, only photo challenges available, no multi and mystery aspects involved, only PM can create them etc. That's much more important than smileys for me.

 

Cezanne

[+briansnat]

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

 

No smileys.

 

Most virtual caches tended to be a surprise to discover something unusual. When you arrived, there was something previously unknown that you noticed.

 

With Waymarking there is mostly no hidden surprise. Everything is organized neatly, but in a certain way that draws frequent complaints from outsiders, but is understood by those that frequent the place. Most of the Waymarks have no intention of being visited, and many of the categories only serve to pad someone's listing stats. It appeals to a certain type of OCD, who tend to collect things that are never used, and to organize and label everything around them.

 

Not quite true. Someone brought this up before. I picked out 50 virtuals at random and over half of them explained what the object was ahead of time. The surprise factor was just under 50% in my unscientific poll.

 

As far as the intent, I don't know a waymarker who lists them without the intent of them being found. I'm delighted when people log mine because I listed them to highlight a place that I found interesting.

[+Glenn]

I am the owner of a virtual. GC22E5 It was first listed 16th October 2001. It has had 896 visits and last visited a few days ago.

It is in what I believed an interesting part of London that not many visitors to London would have on the normal tour.

As many of the 'finders' have stated that they would not have known of of this place if not as a cache.

As proof of their visit there are questions that must be answered about it.

Is this enough proof that virtuals should be allowed?

I can't answer your question because quite frankly I don't understand it.

 

I do however have this to add to the conversation. I had listed a now archived virtual, GC3EF9, that I now have listed as a Waymark, WM90. While the Waymark gets fewer visitor logs than the Virtual cache did I still think that the listing works better as a Waymark than it did as a Virtual cache. Popularity doesn't necessarily equate to success in all cases. While my Virtual listing brought people to an interesting location where it would be difficult to impossible to place a physical cache, it also blocked the surrounding area from having a physical cache placed. Now a physical cache can be placed nearby.

[+randycoxclemson]

well thought out challenges do everything that a virtual did, short of earning a smiley.

Nope. They don't show up on the unified map which currently shows gobs of different types of caches (traditional, meetups, etc).

 

I think almost all concerns about virtuals would go away if one thing happened--they appeared on the geocaching.com map (and if the found ones had little smiley faces, all the better). Granted, there would need to be a few more map filtering options (like how you can turn off those pesky events and multi-stage and mystery caches), so that each category of 'waymark cache' could also be turned off.

 

But if the map were unified, I think there would be no more whining about the lack of virtuals. (Unless, of course, existing virtuals got thrown into the 'waymark cache' icons.)

[+Glenn]

well thought out challenges do everything that a virtual did, short of earning a smiley.

Nope. They don't show up on the unified map which currently shows gobs of different types of caches (traditional, meetups, etc).

 

I think almost all concerns about virtuals would go away if one thing happened--they appeared on the geocaching.com map (and if the found ones had little smiley faces, all the better). Granted, there would need to be a few more map filtering options (like how you can turn off those pesky events and multi-stage and mystery caches), so that each category of 'waymark cache' could also be turned off.

 

But if the map were unified, I think there would be no more whining about the lack of virtuals. (Unless, of course, existing virtuals got thrown into the 'waymark cache' icons.)

Because of the extensive use that Waymarking makes of it's category system Waymarks wouldn't fit well in to Geocaching. Especially if you try to lump all Waymarks under a single cache type. You would need a different cache icon for each category. Currently Waymarking has 1041 categories. However, Geocaching would fit nicely as a Waymarking category of it own with subcategories for each cache type.

[cezanne]

But if the map were unified, I think there would be no more whining about the lack of virtuals. (Unless, of course, existing virtuals got thrown into the 'waymark cache' icons.)

 

I still would miss them. I do not care at all about maps.

 

I think that neither Waymarking nor challenges are flexible enough to compensate for what got lost by the abolishment of virtuals.

 

Another example, additional to those I have already provided,

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4f65df53-4ae5-4ceb-a50e-3718b0a0263a

 

I'd like to see an activity (however it is called) that allows something like the cache above just without the boring film container at the end where this is replaced by sending in the obtained answers.

 

The cache above is in German, but even without understanding the language it should become clear that it does not fit into Waymarking or challenges. The stages except the first and thus also the route to be followed are not known in advance and this surprise factor is something that offers part of the attraction. That's something very different from listing a marked bicycle path on Waymarking where it is known beforehand what's the destination. While there exist categories like Best Kept secrets, setups like the above do not fit.

Well, of course one might try to play around and come up with a new category but that would be needed for every single idea and that's annoying.

 

Cezanne

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Now we are told to use Waymarking, but Waymrking != Geocaching. It simply isn't and no amount of arguing is going to ever make any Waymark == a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

What is it about Waymarking that leaves people cold?

 

No smileys.

 

Most virtual caches tended to be a surprise to discover something unusual. When you arrived, there was something previously unknown that you noticed.

 

With Waymarking there is mostly no hidden surprise. Everything is organized neatly, but in a certain way that draws frequent complaints from outsiders, but is understood by those that frequent the place.

 

I think the lack of surprise is why I haven't been too attracted to Waymarking yet. I've looked over the site, but haven't looked for a waymark. There seems to be something missing from it that keeps it from being a game.

[+Glenn]

But if the map were unified, I think there would be no more whining about the lack of virtuals. (Unless, of course, existing virtuals got thrown into the 'waymark cache' icons.)

 

I still would miss them. I do not care at all about maps.

 

I think that neither Waymarking nor challenges are flexible enough to compensate for what got lost by the abolishment of virtuals.

 

Another example, additional to those I have already provided,

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4f65df53-4ae5-4ceb-a50e-3718b0a0263a

 

I'd like to see an activity (however it is called) that allows something like the cache above just without the boring film container at the end where this is replaced by sending in the obtained answers.

 

The cache above is in German, but even without understanding the language it should become clear that it does not fit into Waymarking or challenges. The stages except the first and thus also the route to be followed are not known in advance and this surprise factor is something that offers part of the attraction. That's something very different from listing a marked bicycle path on Waymarking where it is known beforehand what's the destination. While there exist categories like Best Kept secrets, setups like the above do not fit.

Well, of course one might try to play around and come up with a new category but that would be needed for every single idea and that's annoying.

 

Cezanne

 

Have you looked at the Scavenger Hunt feature on the Waymarking website. Except for the requirement to email answers to someone it sounds like what you are describing. Groundspeak has denied every request to implement a system where a geocacher can enter a code to prove that they visited a cache but there are some other geocaching sites have this feature.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Most virtual caches tended to be a surprise to discover something unusual. When you arrived, there was something previously unknown that you noticed.

 

With Waymarking there is mostly no hidden surprise. Everything is organized neatly, but in a certain way that draws frequent complaints from outsiders, but is understood by those that frequent the place. Most of the Waymarks have no intention of being visited, and many of the categories only serve to pad someone's listing stats. It appeals to a certain type of OCD, who tend to collect things that are never used, and to organize and label everything around them.

I think this varied somewhat from area to area. Some reviewers did a good job of not only judging "wow" but in getting virtual owners to set up there cache where you had to seach out and discover something in order to be able to answer the verification question, to write up the page so that there wouldn't be a spoiler as to what is was you discovered.

 

However, it is true that for the cataloging style categories of Waymarking, this is just the opposite of what is desired. When adding a waymark to a catalog style category, the idea it to provide all the information about the location, including the value for the category defined fields. Creating a surprise for visitors goes against this goal.

 

This is one of the main reasons we created the Best Kept Secret category. The purposes here was to replicate this aspect of virtual caches. People visiting a Best Kept Secret should discover something. Waymark submitters are encouraged to write up a description that doesn't give away everything and encourages the curious to visit and find out.

 

Now, I don't know if it's all the catalog style categories, of if it just than most people who want to share an interesting location simply don't want to take the time to make it an adventure of discovery. More than half of the submission we get are denied because they fail this test, and I suspect that virtual submissions were similar.

 

I am the owner of a virtual. GC22E5 It was first listed 16th October 2001. It has had 896 visits and last visited a few days ago.

It is in what I believed an interesting part of London that not many visitors to London would have on the normal tour.

As many of the 'finders' have stated that they would not have known of of this place if not as a cache.

As proof of their visit there are questions that must be answered about it.

Is this enough proof that virtuals should be allowed?

So this early virtual seems to have understood the reasons for virtual caches and the aspects needed to distinguish them from a waymark. It may account for some of popularity of virtual caches, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what got submitted and didn't get published.

 

I like to wonder what would have happened if Waymarking was developed before geocaching. Sure, Waymarking would have first attracted the collectors who create catalogs in different categories. But someone, I think, would have seen the ability to create games using the Waymarking infrastructure. A category call "Hidden Containers" could have been created where people hide a container with a logbook and trade items and list the coordinates as a waymark. The goal would be to find the container, trade items, and sign the log book.

 

Perhaps nobody would play that. One problem that Waymarking has is that it's setup to favor those cataloging categories. It's hard to find the games and challenges and to view your statistics from these games separately from the rest of Waymarking.

 

I'd like to see a portal to Waymarking Games from Geocaching.com so that people who want to play games and challenges involving places can see these categories presented in a way that appeals more to geocachers, without having to wade through the catalog stuff. (Instead Grounspeak implemented challenges )

[+SaltyPirate]

I am the owner of a virtual. GC22E5 It was first listed 16th October 2001. It has had 896 visits and last visited a few days ago.

It is in what I believed an interesting part of London that not many visitors to London would have on the normal tour.

As many of the 'finders' have stated that they would not have known of of this place if not as a cache.

As proof of their visit there are questions that must be answered about it.

Is this enough proof that virtuals should be allowed?

 

This is my point exactely!!!

[+SaltyPirate]

I am the owner of a virtual. GC22E5 It was first listed 16th October 2001. It has had 896 visits and last visited a few days ago.

It is in what I believed an interesting part of London that not many visitors to London would have on the normal tour.

As many of the 'finders' have stated that they would not have known of of this place if not as a cache.

As proof of their visit there are questions that must be answered about it.

Is this enough proof that virtuals should be allowed?

I can't answer your question because quite frankly I don't understand it.

 

I do however have this to add to the conversation. I had listed a now archived virtual, GC3EF9, that I now have listed as a Waymark, WM90. While the Waymark gets fewer visitor logs than the Virtual cache did I still think that the listing works better as a Waymark than it did as a Virtual cache. Popularity doesn't necessarily equate to success in all cases. While my Virtual listing brought people to an interesting location where it would be difficult to impossible to place a physical cache, it also blocked the surrounding area from having a physical cache placed. Now a physical cache can be placed nearby.

 

I bet if it were a Virtual again it would have a higher visit rate simply because it is on "the map". My arguement "for" virtuals is mainly in places where they cannot place a physical cache so the second part of your statement is mute. But on the fact that it is in a location where a physical cache may be placed I understand your point.