Jump to content

An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals


Recommended Posts

I should add that unlike briansnat I enjoy caches related to memorials or historic signs, but there are lots of those to choose from with offsets, multis, etc.

 

Yes, there are caches at such locations, but more than once I do feel uncomfortable to search at such places (e.g. at location with a religious relevance) and I even less would want to hide a container there while I enjoy if a well done and educative virtual activity (whatever name you might want to associate to it) leads me there.

 

At most Earthcache locations I am familiar with one could place a container. This neither means that it is a good idea to search at such places for a container nor does it mean that the search for a container offers the same chance to educate people than Earthcaches do.

 

Regardless of one's stance on virtuals and whether virtuals are geocaching or not, it seems evident to me that cache containers are not an ideal solution for all sorts of situations.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

You arent getting it, if they allow all virtual like geocaches, everybody will do it since its cheap way to do it and not have to worry about their caches getting muggled.

 

Isn't that what a very high percentage of caches have devolved to? There are tons of micros out there with NM flags or that the community has been maintaining due to absentee owners.

 

That's not a good reason to open the door to more of that sort of behavior by re-opening virtuals. If what you say is true, then those "micros out there with NM flags or that the community has been maintaining due to absentee owners" need to be shut down.

Link to comment

You arent getting it, if they allow all virtual like geocaches, everybody will do it since its cheap way to do it and not have to worry about their caches getting muggled.

 

Actually, I do not think that if virtuals had their separate category on gc.com, but like challenges did not count towards the find/hide count on gc.com,

everybody would refrain from hiding/searching for caches with containers.

 

It certainly might be true that some land managers would not allow physical containers if there existed virtuals as well, but that's a different aspect and not related to what you write about.

 

Challenges cannot get muggled and are cheap, but they are very far from what you describe above. If challenges were more cache-like, I do not think that they would endager classical geocaching, but instead of trying to appeal to some imaginative smartphoner who is keen on cool activities they would appeal in a better way to the fraction of the traditional geocaching audience who is also interested in containerless cache-like activities.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I should add that unlike briansnat I enjoy caches related to memorials or historic signs, but there are lots of those to choose from with offsets, multis, etc.

 

Yes, there are caches at such locations, but more than once I do feel uncomfortable to search at such places (e.g. at location with a religious relevance) and I even less would want to hide a container there while I enjoy if a well done and educative virtual activity (whatever name you might want to associate to it) leads me there.

 

At most Earthcache locations I am familiar with one could place a container. This neither means that it is a good idea to search at such places for a container nor does it mean that the search for a container offers the same chance to educate people than Earthcaches do.

 

Regardless of one's stance on virtuals and whether virtuals are geocaching or not, it seems evident to me that cache containers are not an ideal solution for all sorts of situations.

 

Cezanne

 

I wasn't trying to include religious places and think you may have misunderstood in part. I wanted to emphasize the idea of offsets so that no searching for a container at a memorial/historic site would be necessary. Any search for information should be similar and limited to what visitors are expected to do (e.g. read markers). I don't want containers hidden at such places, nor do I desire the return of virtuals. For offsets, the container should be hiddenn off such property, perhaps just a short distance, but sometimes miles away. I read the OP's thoughts on but don't feel it's a sustainable argument for the issues he listed, but IMO didn't successfully resolve, especially if claiming to speak for the community.

Link to comment

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

That does not sound quite like this statement: "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

 

Your second statement (well known but for the few that don't know, the quote is from briansnat and I wholeheartedly agree with it) would suggest that a physical container is not necessary for you to enjoy the experience of "geocaching"

 

I put it this way: geocaching allows me to leverage the local knowlege of people all over the world to bring me to interesting places I might otherwise miss.

 

I just checked my list of found virtuals. Of the 67, about 75% took me to places I would have missed and would have wanted to see(or, like Lucy the Elephant, I knew about but would not have wanted others to miss.) That's a higher percentage than all the other cache types I've found.

 

Unfortunately, I do not have a reasonable solution that would bring them back. I would settle for an adoption process that would allow the ones that remain to stay viable indefinitely.

Link to comment

You arent getting it, if they allow all virtual like geocaches, everybody will do it since its cheap way to do it and not have to worry about their caches getting muggled.

 

Isn't that what a very high percentage of caches have devolved to? There are tons of micros out there with NM flags or that the community has been maintaining due to absentee owners.

 

That's not a good reason to open the door to more of that sort of behavior by re-opening virtuals. If what you say is true, then those "micros out there with NM flags or that the community has been maintaining due to absentee owners" need to be shut down.

 

Good idea. Got any idea of how to get that done? Nevermind. That's another topic and I don't even feel like creating that thread. :(

Link to comment

I think the percentage of enjoyable older (grandfathered) virtuals is high because their value is more apparent to the individual, especially since he/she selected them.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think that would be likely in today's caching world with subjective "wow" factors for virtuals, creating unnecessary cacher vs. reviewer issues, even if a virtual review committee existed. Recalling those days, it's not worth it IMO, and would exacerbate more problems than it would solve: more complicated reviews, more fake logs, more caches with no maintenance. Yes, these issues may already exist, but why make things worse when there are other solutions already in place? Of course, I like offsets and numbers aren't a big deal to me. :)

Link to comment

I wasn't trying to include religious places and think you may have misunderstood in part.

 

No, I do not think that I misunderstood you. I just replied in a wider context and used religious places only because they are among the examples of container placements which I feel uncomfortable with and also because the only two existing virtual caches in Austria (one is my own) do have some religious context (not exclusively in my case). Back then one of the requirements for getting through a virtual was that no container could be placed at the location and at that time for example a nano fixed to a cross or a container hidden directly behind a statue of a saint would not have accepted by the community. Nowadays such placements have become common in my region. There are hardly any places left where not someone feels that a container can be placed.

 

I wanted to emphasize the idea of offsets so that no searching for a container at a memorial/historic site would be necessary.

 

I am of course familiar with the concept of offsets, but there are two drawbacks. The first one is that in urban settings in cache dense areas there is often not much space available and second often there is no suitable nice location nearby even if saturation does not pose an issue. For example, my last hidden cache was on my to do list for more than six years and I very much would have wanted to implement it as virtual. I hate the hideout and it is the only part of the cache that I really do not like at all. I searched for a hideout I would like better for many years and the one I ended up with is the best I could find, but I still hate it. I think the main issue is that I do enjoy virtual caching in urban settings if the cache is done appropriately, but neither like to search nor to hide containers in urban settings. Moreover, I hate nanos and the annoying logging experience associated with them. The next green spot is, however, often several kilometers away and modern geocachers are not willing any longer to cover such distances. Back in 2003 I could hide urban caches in such a way with a distance of 3km and more between a stage and the final. Nowadays every other log at least would contain a complaint.

 

Any search for information should be similar and limited to what visitors are expected to do (e.g. read markers). I don't want containers hidden at such places, nor do I desire the return of virtuals. For offsets, the container should be hiddenn off such property, perhaps just a short distance, but sometimes miles away.

 

As explained above, unfortunately this is however not the way it works out in the modern world of geocaching, at least not in my area.

I cannot speak for the OP, I can only explain why I would like to have some virtual alternative whatever it is called. Challenges and waymarks are not what I'm looking for.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

We can continue to beat the "bring back virtuals" dead horse and we can continue to write things like "challenge are stupid" or if we want to play a game which involves finding virtual objects we can do something more constructive and figure out what it's going to take to evolve Challenges into something that more people are going to enjoy.

 

This is really the answer.

 

Really wanting virtuals isn't going to bring them back.

Really hating challenges isn't going to make them go away.

 

The reality is....challenges are the answer to the virtuals. So if we are all interested in that kind of game, then challenges need to improve and evolve (which is a work in process).

Link to comment

I wasn't trying to include religious places and think you may have misunderstood in part.

 

No, I do not think that I misunderstood you. I just replied in a wider context and used religious places only because they are among the examples of container placements which I feel uncomfortable with and also because the only two existing virtual caches in Austria (one is my own) do have some religious context (not exclusively in my case). Back then one of the requirements for getting through a virtual was that no container could be placed at the location and at that time for example a nano fixed to a cross or a container hidden directly behind a statue of a saint would not have accepted by the community. Nowadays such placements have become common in my region. There are hardly any places left where not someone feels that a container can be placed.

 

I wanted to emphasize the idea of offsets so that no searching for a container at a memorial/historic site would be necessary.

 

I am of course familiar with the concept of offsets, but there are two drawbacks. The first one is that in urban settings in cache dense areas there is often not much space available and second often there is no suitable nice location nearby even if saturation does not pose an issue. For example, my last hidden cache was on my to do list for more than six years and I very much would have wanted to implement it as virtual. I hate the hideout and it is the only part of the cache that I really do not like at all. I searched for a hideout I would like better for many years and the one I ended up with is the best I could find, but I still hate it. I think the main issue is that I do enjoy virtual caching in urban settings if the cache is done appropriately, but neither like to search nor to hide containers in urban settings. The next green spot is, however, often several kilometers away and modern geocachers are not willing any longer to cover such distances. Back in 2003 I could hide urban caches in such a way with a distance of 3km and more between a stage and the final. Nowadays every other log at least would contain a complaint.

 

Any search for information should be similar and limited to what visitors are expected to do (e.g. read markers). I don't want containers hidden at such places, nor do I desire the return of virtuals. For offsets, the container should be hiddenn off such property, perhaps just a short distance, but sometimes miles away.

 

As explained above, unfortunately this is however not the way it works out in the modern world of geocaching, at least not in my area.

I cannot speak for the OP, I can only explain why I would like to have some virtual alternative whatever it is called. Challenges and waymarks are not what I'm looking for.

 

Cezanne

 

Sigh...now I'm sure you misunderstood me or simply wanted it to fit your context, but it's not worth the explanation. I tried. <_<

 

The one thing I would state is that in my "modern world of geocaching" the offsets work fine. Because offsets use existing markers instead of containers, those stages are not bound by the saturation guidelines, only the container stage(s). Thus, the cache density regardless of area would be similar if there's only one stage other than the marker. For many, I think they just don't want to spend the time (as noted by the OP) and in many cases simply want to add to their numbers more quickly. That's fine, but that's why we have all types...with no need for virtuals IMO :), though I realize some disagree and are entitled to do so.

 

Sorry you don't care for offsets/challenges/waymarks as alternatives. I don't see virtuals returning and don't want them for reasons I already explained. Perhaps as Cathy explained, challenges will continue to evolve into something you will enjoy.

Link to comment

This is really the answer.

 

Really wanting virtuals isn't going to bring them back.

Really hating challenges isn't going to make them go away.

 

The reality is....challenges are the answer to the virtuals. So if we are all interested in that kind of game, then challenges need to improve and evolve (which is a work in process).

 

I agree with your second and third sentence, but not with the rest of your post My personal goal is neither to have the old virtuals back in the same form as before nor to make challenges go away - I do not hate them, but are not interested in what they are mainly targeted at.

 

Let's translate your statements to some food language. Wanting lemon ice cream will it not bring back if the new vendor only wants to offer chocolate and vanilla ice cream. If I do not like these flavours, I will not be interested to help the vendor improve its vanilla ice cream.

 

I might try to convince them to try to offer strawberry ice cream which I do not like as much a lemon ice cream, but which might be a compromise for me.

 

My hope that challenges will ever develop into something attractive for myself is close to zero.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

All I am saying is based on a mature and intelligent discussion - and allowing Groundspeak to let ALL of us vote (because these forums do not represent the community as not everyone even logs into the forums, nor does geowoodstock represent the entire community because not everyone goes to it). If the majority votes to keep virtuals away, great. If they vote them back, great.

 

And again, all of this based on the words Kathy used - let the community decide.

 

Again, Groundspeak - if you are true to that - than let the community decide - lets have an up or down vote on it membership wide. What say you?

 

And again, Groundspeak stated their words "let the community decide" so I amn throwinf the guantlet down - let the community decide - how about an email vote?

 

You keep asking to let the community decide. The community already had a chance to decide. The community decided that trying to list tennis shoes and animal carcasses were viable virtual caches. Tell me you don't think that the same type of thing would occur again if virtual caches were published again.

 

As has been said, a lot of the virtual caches that remain today are the cream of the crop. If that is so, isn't it reasonable to think that anything that would make a great virtual cache is already a virtual cache? Or was a virtual that got archived? Unlike geocaches, virtual caches are buried and that's where they should remain.

 

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

+2 I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

+3 or more...

 

 

+4

I do virtual and earthcaches because they are available. If they no longer were listed, I'd simply keep finding actual geocaches.

Link to comment

Sigh...now I'm sure you misunderstood me or simply wanted it to fit your context, but it's not worth the explanation. I tried. <_<

 

The one thing I would state is that in my "modern world of geocaching" the offsets work fine. Because offsets use existing markers instead of containers, those stages are not bound by the saturation guidelines, only the container stage(s).

 

Yes, I am aware of that, but the lack of space and the need to place a container motivate people to place containers where they would not have placed containers back then. In my country one additionally has to take into consideration the high percentage of mystery caches in urban areas (can be more than 30%) which means that a lot of locations near interesting historic places cannot be used. Virtual caches would also adress this issue.

Have a look e.g. at this cache map showing Vienna

http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=48.20838&lng=16.36735

 

 

 

Thus, the cache density regardless of area would be similar if there's only one stage other than the marker.

 

Yes indeed, but the barrier to place a cache at a location gets lower in my experience if less choices are available and a cache container needs to be placed.

What I wrote is an empirical observation.

 

 

Sorry you don't care for offsets/challenges/waymarks as alternatives.

 

As offsets are regarded, that's not true in the way you wrote. One of my existing caches would be a virtual if possible, but exists as a multi/mystery combination with a container. I'm ok with my other non-virtual caches. I dropped, however, a couple of cache projects because I could not come up with a reasonable hideout that I'm pleased with and I'm still interested to implement these projects. It is not my life that depends on those projects.

It is clear, however, that neither an offset nor Waymarking nor challenges can be used to implement what I have in mind. So until nothing new happens, the projects will not get implemented. It's as easy as that. I am not whining, I'm just arguing that something is missing for me after the abolishment of virtuals that yet has to return.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Let's translate your statements to some food language. Wanting lemon ice cream will it not bring back if the new vendor only wants to offer chocolate and vanilla ice cream. If I do not like these flavours, I will not be interested to help the vendor improve its vanilla ice cream.

 

I might try to convince them to try to offer strawberry ice cream which I do not like as much a lemon ice cream, but which might be a compromise for me.

 

Cezanne

 

I love analogies! I could go on all day....

 

You love lemon ice cream. You crave lemon ice cream. They stop making lemon ice cream. You stomp your feet, shout in the streets, and fill endless pages of web forums demanding ice cream back. How dare they stop making lemon ice cream!!!

 

If you want to have ice cream, and you beg for ice cream, and the vendor really doesn't want to sell ice cream, but spends a lot of money and time making new ice cream just to appease you, then either:

 

a-You suck it up, enjoy chocolate and vanilla.

 

b-Or you work with the vendor to see how you can make the chocolate and vanilla into a flavor that many people can enjoy.

 

But, there are NO MORE LEMONS. Lemon ice cream is GONE. And it's been gone for years.

 

 

I, personally, happen to be in the "challenges are the stupidest thing ever" category. This is no suprise to anyone who was on the user voice forums and even here. I even had the opportunity to let Jeremy know that when I attended the GS block party. That's when I demanded an apology from him for the way his company treated me and others those few days. And that's when he gave me one.

 

But. Just because I think they are lame, and a terrible excuse for the replacement of the virtual, doesn't mean anything. I've read the writing on the walls, I've fought the good fight. This is here now, this is what it is.

 

So, if you are the kind of person who really likes ice cream, then like ice cream. Work with the main ice cream vendor and learn to like chocolate. Or, go with the smaller vendors out there.

 

Or, give up on eating ice cream. Afterall, nothing is as good as lemon.

 

 

 

.

Edited by JesandTodd
Link to comment

 

I do virtual and earthcaches because they are available. If they no longer were listed, I'd simply keep finding actual geocaches.

 

If searching for containers is at the centre of what attracts you to geocaching, this is a consistent approach.

For those for whom the container at the end is mainly just a proof for having been there and being eligible to report about one's experience and for whom the location and the experience play the main role, the situation might be different.

 

This EC for example

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=1dda667d-5700-4dfc-8bac-e06ecb421ee0

cannot be replaced by searching for a film canister at this monument. The cache is not there to show people the Goethe monument, but to teach people about granite and make them look at this statue from a point of view most of them never will have applied before,

That's an activity very much different from Easter egg hunt like games. I do not care whether ECs completions add up with the find count, but I'd miss them very much and I very much would like to have EC-like constructions for other areas of science as well.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

You love lemon ice cream. You crave lemon ice cream. They stop making lemon ice cream. You stomp your feet, shout in the streets, and fill endless pages of web forums demanding ice cream back. How dare they stop making lemon ice cream!!!

 

I guess that this analogy does not fit me. I did not stomp my feet and I did not demand virtuals back. I wrote several times that I understand why the virtuals have been abolished and also that I'm convinced that a return in the old form would not work.

 

That said, I still dare to say that I'm missing something that has been available back then and which is not offered by Waymarking and challenges and also not by competitors of Groundspeak.

 

a-You suck it up, enjoy chocolate and vanilla.

 

b-Or you work with the vendor to see how you can make the chocolate and vanilla into a flavor that many people can enjoy.

 

None of the two ways fits me since I'm a minority person. I can only speak for what I enjoy and not for what "many people" can enjoy - I simply do not know about the many .....

 

So my solution is rather this: Give up eating ice cream for the moment (this was among your alternatives) and reconsider this decision in case a new flavour might show up. Additionally, I take the liberty to voice my disagreement if someone claims that chocolate ice cream is a perfect replacement for lemon ice cream.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

There isn't anything inherent in the Challenges system which prevents someone from creating an awesome challenge, although as I'm sure Cezanne will point out there are limitations in the system which prevent creating certain types of challenges (i.e. Challenges with multiple stages).

 

While I personally miss multi and mystery elements as I have explained in other threads, I think there are many aspects inherent in the system that prevent many people from coming up with challenges that I'd find interesting. Having no control over the description (I'm not talking about the completion logs) and the very rigid length limit serve as a constant source of demotivation for coming up with challenges other than go to location X and take a photo of it.

I have many geocaches with virtual stages and once in a while I need to change something. This is not possible for challenges and this is inherent in the system. The concept there is to archive the challenge and come up with a new one. The concept of challenges as it is serves well the purpose of more or less short life cycle ideas or rather simple ideas like take a photo of a 100 old fountain which probably will exist also in 100 years from now on.

 

Even in case they come up with something like educational challenges, the set up simply does not fit. It would be way easier to accomodate e.g. Earthcaches in Waymarking (it has been there anyway for a short period of time) than in the challenge system which is so different from all what is available for geocaches.

 

I haven't encountered the description length limitation that you describe but I can see how that effectively impede ones ability to create an elaborate challenge. I also hadn't seen something from Jeremy indicating that the limitation would not be changed. I would bet, however, that it may be a lot easier to convince Jeremy (and require much less development time) to extend the maximum length of the description than it would be to "bring back virtuals". I don't want to make too much of the "let the community decide" statement repeated in this thread often, but something that might facilitate improvements with Challenge would be to create a separate "Feature Discussions and Suggestions" forum within the Geocaching Challenges section. The Challenges forum are very low traffic while the existing Features forum is busy enough that Challenge feature suggestion will get lost with all the other topics being discussed.

 

I've read your discussion before about how Challenges do not serve the type of virtual caches that you might prefer to see such as educational challenges, historical challenges, multi-location virtuals, etc. However, I think the types of virtuals that you're describing are the exception to the norm and that *most* virtual caches could be implemented as Challenges and provide a similar user experience. I also that if Challenges *do* evolve (based on our suggestions) that the types of virtual caches you describe could be replicated.

 

I understand GS's rationale for not allowing a challenge creator to edit descriptions after they've been published (and either accepted or an amount of time has elapsed) and agree that archiving and recreating a challenge isn't a very good solution. I'm not sure what the solution is but I hope that GS has an open mind to our suggestions.

 

I agree with you that the system allows to come up with awesome challenges, but not with the type of objects many fans of virtual geocaches are missing.

You have mentioned several times that challenges are different than geocaches and I agree. This can be seen as a vice and as a virtue. It depends on one's point of view.

 

Let me provide you with two examples of local challenges to further explain my point.

 

Take this challenge

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/CX3F55_Shared_Space_Graz

It points to the centre of a so called shared space near the University of Graz. Until last year there has been a roundabout there and everyone had to respect the normal traffic rules. Now there is anarchy there and each time when I pass the area by bicycle my anger about this stupid project and the huge amount of money that has been invested wakens up again.

I think that the challenge who asks people to take a chair, put it in the middle of the area, sit down there and take a photo of it, is a good example of what Jeremy had in mind when he wrote about a fun activity and about the room for people to come up with creative and funny completion photos/logs.

 

Another example of that type is that one here

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/CX47DF_Wnsche_an_die_steirische_Politik

There you have to visit the building of the regional government and take a photo of yourself there with a sign stating one of your wishes directed to the

local politicians. (There are no security concerns and there would not be any troubles for people complying with this wish).

 

While both challenges lead to a point of interest and also ask for something which deviates from the standard "Go there, take a picture of yourself" pattern, neither of them (and actually also not other local challenge) has anything to offer for me that would attract my attention (not in my home town and even less in a foreign town). I also would not enjoy reading completion logs for such challenges while I love e.g. to read the experience reports of people having went for a multi day hike. I like to read about what they experienced on their hike and what needs to be taken into account when going on the same hike. I'm interested in the serious part and in photographs of the scenery and not in creativity, jokes and cool ideas. I simply feel that challenges are directed to a different audience.

 

 

I think I can sum up the types of challenges that you're not interested in one word: whimsical. Perhaps some might describe them as silly, but again I think this is something that can be addressed through an evolution of how Challenges are implemented. In an subsequent thread you mentioned QR Challenges. It's pretty much a mystery how they'll be implemented but I do know one thing. If a QR Challenge type is created and they don't give use the ability to filter them out from other types of challenges, it's probably not going take more than a few minutes after the features is launched before we see a "QR Challenges are HORRID!" thread.

 

That implies to me that if Challenges are going to evolved we're going to need the ability to filter out or in the types of Challenges we want to do. That way if you don't want to do whimsical challenges you can filter them out or if someone else wants to act a little silly and is not interested in educational challenges they can choose what they want. Unlike Geocaches, Challenges do not have attributes. I'd either start thinking about what types of attributes would be appropriate or replace attributes with some sort of tagging mechanism (using a robust controlled vocabulary).

Link to comment

You love lemon ice cream. You crave lemon ice cream. They stop making lemon ice cream. You stomp your feet, shout in the streets, and fill endless pages of web forums demanding ice cream back. How dare they stop making lemon ice cream!!!

 

I guess that this analogy does not fit me. I did not stomp my feet and I did not demand virtuals back. I wrote several times that I understand why the virtuals have been abolished and also that I'm convinced that a return in the old form would not work.

 

That said, I still dare to say that I'm missing something that has been available back then and which is not offered by Waymarking and challenges and also not by competitors of Groundspeak.

 

a-You suck it up, enjoy chocolate and vanilla.

 

b-Or you work with the vendor to see how you can make the chocolate and vanilla into a flavor that many people can enjoy.

 

None of the two ways fits me since I'm a minority person. I can only speak for what I enjoy and not for what "many people" can enjoy - I simply do not know about the many .....

 

So my solution is rather this: Give up eating ice cream for the moment (this was among your alternatives) and reconsider this decision in case a new flavour might show up. Additionally, I take the liberty to voice my disagreement if someone claims that chocolate ice cream is a perfect replacement for lemon ice cream.

 

 

Cezanne

 

Cezanne, I think you and I feel the same way about the same topic.

Also, when I said 'stomp your feet' I didn't mean you. I meant me. I made a big fat ol stink over challenges. BIG STINK.

 

I also still dare to say what I think.

 

I just happen to think that I will enjoy the few remaining virtuals left. I will not enjoy the challenges, no matter what they are morphed into. But I just can't spend any more energy hoping that I'll get what I want in this situation. Because the fact is, everyone is right. It's hard to argue against why virtuals were banned. It makes sense. And I want them back too....but I just can't see any way it will work.

 

I'm saying...the most viable option here is to work with challenges to make them into something that will work for the majority. I also feel that we won many battles over the challenges. My one beef was that they were included in your find count. Since GS backed down on so many issues related to challenges (they really did acutally) then I acknowledge that I too must back down. I can't get everything the way I want it, all the time.

 

And those of us who prefer lemons will just have be the minoriy.

Link to comment
why not form a virtuals review committee similar to earthcaches?

Thus why a review committee not too unlike earth caches could help with that.

So I would point to how earth cachesa are done,

 

Just skimming this thread, and I grabbed these statements by nthacker66, the original poster.

 

Earthcaches aren't reviewed by committee, they're reviewed by individual Earthcache reviewers.

 

Earthcache reviewers may discuss a cache submission in their forum, just as regular reviewers do with physical caches. However, Earthcaches are reviewed by the same process as other cache types.

 

A bit late in this thread, but I wanted to clarify that.

 

I questioned that, and it got lost in the shuffle, but thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment

My only preferences with existing virtuals is that 1. they should be able to be adopted when the CO wants to give it up, and 2. archived virtuals that still exist be unarchived if someone wants to be the new CO. Other than that, no, don't bring them back. I still have over 3800 existing virtuals to find in the U.S. With only 138 logged so far, it's gonna take some time :laughing:

Link to comment

I am writing an open letter to Groundspeak on behalf of a large portion of the geocaching community.

I am responding to an open letter to Groundspeak on behalf of a large portion of the geocaching community.

 

Before we go down the canned answer “this is what Waymarking is for” Let us be honest – how many of us actually go to Waymarking.com?

This just screams "If it doesn't increase my smiley count then I don't want to do it." This may be difficult for you to answer since you've never logged a waymark. What makes you think you'll like doing virtuals if you don't like doing waymarks?

 

Listed are some of the “issues” I have seen in the past and a way to counter those issues with virtual caches:

...

|I know that isn’t every issue folks have had with virtuals, but it think it covers the major points.

Those aren't even the major issues. Those are minor issues that make those that oppose your point of view sound like whiny children.

The major issue is that a virtual can be placed ANYWHERE. What no one has been able to answer yet is how to limit the number of virtual caches that can be placed and be fair about it. The "WOW factor" was as close as we got but it ended up being too subjective to be a working solution. All someone has to do is come up with a solution that works and we'll be heralding the return of virtual caches.

 

Well Kathy, the community is speaking, the community wants virtuals back, is Groundspeak listening?

It is very presumptuous of you think that you are speaking for "the community".

Link to comment

Given the propensity for geocachers to place pointless traditional caches, I wouldn't hold out much hope that they would suddenly only list even mildly interesting 'New Virtuals'.

 

You can wax nostalgic about the good ol' days if you want, but they ain't comin' back, boys.

Twenty-five cents a gallon gas and the $1 matinee are things of the past.

 

The best that can be done is to try and make something worthwhile out of Whymarking and those challenge thingies.

Link to comment

Just so that everyone on THIS page sees Cathy's response, and I'll highlight a key phrase:

I was one of two lackeys representing Groundspeak at GeoWoodstock this past weekend and I believe I can clear some of this up.

 

nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. It is easy to think the "good old days" were better than they actually were if you weren't there to see them for yourself. Along with some great locations, there were submissions for dog poop, decaying animal carcasses, stop signs, and shoes tossed up into trees, among other things. Groundspeak tried to limit the publishable submissions to "quality" locations with a "wow" factor, but that quickly became a slippery slope that caused tremendous stress for the reviewers. It was not fair to them to have to arbitrarily decide where the line would be for every virtual cache submission and have to deal with the inevitable argument that would come from the owner of every cache that was not published.

 

Groundspeak has been hearing the calls to bring them back, but the problem was how to do it without bringing back all the problems that made them go away. They couldn't come back the same way. That is why Challenges were created. Virtual locations can be published without a review process, and the community over time determines the "wow" factor. Challenges that the community likes will filter to the top of the list, and those that are not well-received by the community will filter to the bottom and eventually disappear. They are tracked on Geocaching.com, so you don't need to go to another website. Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

Waymarking can be used to highlight virtual locations, but its primary purpose was to replace the Locationless Caches. Locationless caches were more of a scavenger hunt and they were moved to their own site so that geocaching could stay true to bringing people to specific locations. We acknowledge that scurrying about to find examples of various categories is fun too, and that is why we created Waymarking instead of archiving the locationless caches and never looking back.

Link to comment

Just so that everyone on THIS page sees Cathy's response, and I'll highlight a key phrase:

I was one of two lackeys representing Groundspeak at GeoWoodstock this past weekend and I believe I can clear some of this up.

 

nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. It is easy to think the "good old days" were better than they actually were if you weren't there to see them for yourself. Along with some great locations, there were submissions for dog poop, decaying animal carcasses, stop signs, and shoes tossed up into trees, among other things. Groundspeak tried to limit the publishable submissions to "quality" locations with a "wow" factor, but that quickly became a slippery slope that caused tremendous stress for the reviewers. It was not fair to them to have to arbitrarily decide where the line would be for every virtual cache submission and have to deal with the inevitable argument that would come from the owner of every cache that was not published.

 

Groundspeak has been hearing the calls to bring them back, but the problem was how to do it without bringing back all the problems that made them go away. They couldn't come back the same way. That is why Challenges were created. Virtual locations can be published without a review process, and the community over time determines the "wow" factor. Challenges that the community likes will filter to the top of the list, and those that are not well-received by the community will filter to the bottom and eventually disappear. They are tracked on Geocaching.com, so you don't need to go to another website. Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

Waymarking can be used to highlight virtual locations, but its primary purpose was to replace the Locationless Caches. Locationless caches were more of a scavenger hunt and they were moved to their own site so that geocaching could stay true to bringing people to specific locations. We acknowledge that scurrying about to find examples of various categories is fun too, and that is why we created Waymarking instead of archiving the locationless caches and never looking back.

 

Saw it. Don't agree with it; especially the part in red. But definitely saw it.

Link to comment

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

+2 I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

+3 or more...

 

As others have chimed in, I'm a member of the geocaching "community" since 2003 and I don't want virtuals back. I was sitting on the left-side corner of the stage throughout the reviewer forum at GW, including when you raised the issue. I disagreed with your position at the time and still do. To base my perspective on anecdotal evidence of those around me, they also disagreed with you, but I don't think just chatting at that time/place provides a true indicator of the community. Though the pro-virtual argument is frequently raised, so is the "no virtuals" view.

 

I should add that unlike briansnat I enjoy caches related to memorials or historic signs, but there are lots of those to choose from with offsets, multis, etc.

 

I think you are misinterpreting my post. Geocaching from its very beginning was about finding a container. Those containers have brought me to some incredible places over the years. Some of those places involved memorials, historic markers, oddities, the kinds of places that I enjoy visiting. Yet I can't think of a single virtual that I've found where a real cache could not be worked into the process somehow.

 

I've seen some sentiment here saying forget about the "wow factor" and allow lame virtuals the same way we allow lame LPCs. I suspect that after visiting a few dozen manhole covers, fence posts and random piles of litter many of the most ardent virtual fans will grow tired of them. At least with the lamest geocache there is still a container to find and a log to sign. Do we really want to be able to list or log a beer can in the corner of a parking lot? OK, I know the numbers hounds among us would log a pile of horse dung as long as it gave them a +1, but we aren't all numbers hounds.

 

Most of the virtual fans gush over the cool places that the virtuals bring them. Yet the overwhelming majority of the time a physical could be hidden there. At GWX I logged my first virtual in a few years. Cool spot. I loved it, but there is no reason a real cache could not have been worked into it somehow, either with a micro at the site or using an offset. I would have experienced the cool site and still had a cache to hunt.

 

The original point of virtuals was to allow "caches" in places where you couldn't hide a physical cache. This was before anybody thought of micros (nanos weren't a gleam in geocachers eyes back then). With the advent of micros and nanos, there is no good reason for virtuals. Want to list them in parks where geocaches aren't allowed period? Some park managers have banned all "GPS games" including virtuals and Waymarking.

 

In the end if you were to examine all of the remaining virtuals there is no reason a physical cache can't be hidden at probably 90 percent of those locations now that we have micros and nanos. So what is the real point outside encouraging additional laziness among hiders?

Link to comment

First, I haven't read any of the responses yet because I want to respond to the OP's letter for now.

 

My initial thought was "Wow" another plea to bring back virtuals. (Just to show how easy it is to meet the criteria of "wow".) However the list of points is pretty good and I feel like each needs a response

1) “Virtual caches can be real caches, just place a micro on them or near them” – Well this is more of a counter issue – many of the virtuals, such as places in DC or pretty much most national historical park type places would not allow a cache to be placed there. So it is not as simple as putting a film can in a crevice.

True enough there are some locations where physical caches are not allowed (and virtuals might be). There are also some location where you might be able to hide a nano nearby but there isn't a good spot or hiding would be "inappropriate". It's terribly hard to judge whether a location is one where you can place a cache or not, so the reviewers would be forced either to accept the claim of the person placing a virtual or requiring some proof that permission for a physical cache was requested and turned down. A few parks may have "geocaching policies" that state no physical caches but virtuals are welcomed, but I'm certain people will want to place virtuals in other places. In addition an argument can be made that geocachers have been able to get permission for physical caches in parks where they were previously not allowed.

2) “Virtuals locations can be part of a puzzle cache or multi” – Why? In all honesty and bluntness, this is a silly idea simply because a cache like that can get lost in the mix of the other icons. I almost passed up “cacher at the bat” in downtown Louisville (which was a multi that made you read information outside of the Louisville bat factory and museum and took you a block or so away to the final) simply because I didn’t want to take too much time with a multi. I did it regardless. Virtuals seem to stand out more, and we know exactly what they are about. Answer – Bring back the virtual icon holding a green container to let people know it is a virtual that has a final somewhere if we MUST have a physical cache near it”

I understand that people pass up multis that take you to an interesting site to get some information. People may also pass up a traditional cache at such a location. It seems like most people interested in virtuals like them because the tend to take them to interesting place. I've long thought that a attribute such as "Historic Site" or "Place of Interest" would help people locate such caches. Favorite votes might also help to identify such locations.

3) “But it is easy to log a virtual without doing anything if the CO doesn’t log on to verify your answers” – Answer - Fine, have a mechanism in place that for all NEW virtuals, a CO must log in at least every 30 days to GC or else his/her virtual gets disabled.

It's amazing how many people who placed virtuals in the past had no interest in responding to emails and verifying finds. Most people hid virtual caches because the had an "interesting place" they wanted to share. Most simply wanted you to visit this place and certainly weren't about to delete your Found It log if you were unable to read the date off some historic marker. Others went in the other direction and allowed find if you could answer the question through research, without ever visiting the site.

 

You could deal with owners who stop logging in or who fail to answer emails by archiving these virtuals, but you're not going to stop owners who allow anyone to log a find. Waymarking and challenges deal with this by not counting in the geocaching statistics, so perhaps a solution could be found by simply not counting virtual finds.

4) (Here is my favorite) but this is what Waymarking/challenges are about – To paraphrase the general consensus bluntly – challenges are stupid. In fact, they go against just about everything Groundspeak has spoken out about virtuals. There is no real logging ability, no stories to tell, and they simply serve no purpose. Waymarking, again as stated above, just gets overloaded with garbage (and doesn’t apply to our numbers) nor does anyone really do it.

I wonder why this is your favorite. Perhaps because your rebuttal to it is so weak. Of course Waymarking and challenges do provide an alternative of some sort to virtual caches. They both allow you share locations you find interesting with other people. They provide ways for people to go and visit these location and write about their experiences online. There are be specific issues that differ from virtual caches as you view them (I will address the issue of quality below). It's true that these haven't caught on widely with geocachers. Other than not counting as geocaching finds, I will admit that Waymarking and challenges have not been integrated well with Geocaching. For example, while you can get a Pocket Query with both physical and virtual caches, you can't include waymarks or challenges. If you use a smartphone app to geocache, you need a separate app for challenges or waymarks. A lot of people who didn't care much for virtuals went and found them because they would show up with all the other geocaches (and usually were a quick and easy find).

5) “But virtuals can be anything anyone wishes to make, so they can be equally as silly” – Answer – Have more restrictive listing requirements. A reviewer has the power to accept or deny caches based on rules right? Worried that virtual listing can be subjective? Well everything is subjective. I think we trust our reviewers enough that they have been caching a long time and can use subjectivity to make sure a virtual being listed is worthy of such an icon. Have the requirements for listing a virtual take you someplace with significance or truly unique. Make the virtual listing require photos and answer “why is this cache worth posting” – again, we trust our reviewers to use their experience.

I don't know what definition of "Wow" you can use that would work.

 

The people who want to bring back virtuals just wave their hands and say that more restrictive requirements would somehow result in only "good" virtuals being submitted. They don't realize just how much work the reviewers did publishing only the virtuals that met the previous "Wow" requirement. They look at the exisiting virtuals and find that nearly all of the are something really cool that makes them say "Wow". Well, this was tiny percentage of what was submitted. If they find that challenges are "stupid" and most waymarks are "lame" they blame it on these not being calle "virtual caches". The fact is, you are seeing what was submitted regularly as vrrtual caches. Reviewers had to tell people this wasn't "wow".

 

And this is not easy. Someone had that bridge that their granddaddy riveted. To them it was a special place, no less so that then the family plot that was now in the middle of a suburban parking lot. Who decides which is "wow" and how do you explain it to the person whose cache got turned down?

 

Many who want to bring back virtuals say that if the current volunteers are not interested in deciding what is significant enough to deserve a virtual cache, they would be more than willing to volunteer for the job. For them I have a suggestion. They may not like it because it involves Waymarking. However, what I am suggesting is nothing less than what I did with the Best Kept Secrets category. Start a Waymarking category where you give your requirements for what makes a good virtual cache. See what people submit to your category. Get some experience what it takes to control what you think is "wow". Since Waymarking isn't that popular, you won't need to spend much of your time. We only get a few Best Kept Secret submissions a month. After you've done this for awhile then come back and claim the keeping the quality of virtuals up to your standards will be easy.

Link to comment

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

+2 I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

+3 or more...

 

As others have chimed in, I'm a member of the geocaching "community" since 2003 and I don't want virtuals back. I was sitting on the left-side corner of the stage throughout the reviewer forum at GW, including when you raised the issue. I disagreed with your position at the time and still do. To base my perspective on anecdotal evidence of those around me, they also disagreed with you, but I don't think just chatting at that time/place provides a true indicator of the community. Though the pro-virtual argument is frequently raised, so is the "no virtuals" view.

 

I should add that unlike briansnat I enjoy caches related to memorials or historic signs, but there are lots of those to choose from with offsets, multis, etc.

 

I think you are misinterpreting my post. Geocaching from its very beginning was about finding a container. Those containers have brought me to some incredible places over the years. Some of those places involved memorials, historic markers, oddities, the kinds of places that I enjoy visiting. Yet I can't think of a single virtual that I've found where a real cache could not be worked into the process somehow.

 

I've seen some sentiment here saying forget about the "wow factor" and allow lame virtuals the same way we allow lame LPCs. I suspect that after visiting a few dozen manhole covers, fence posts and random piles of litter many of the most ardent virtual fans will grow tired of them. At least with the lamest geocache there is still a container to find and a log to sign. Do we really want to be able to list or log a beer can in the corner of a parking lot? OK, I know the numbers hounds among us would log a pile of horse dung as long as it gave them a +1, but we aren't all numbers hounds.

 

Most of the virtual fans gush over the cool places that the virtuals bring them. Yet the overwhelming majority of the time a physical could be hidden there. At GWX I logged my first virtual in a few years. Cool spot. I loved it, but there is no reason a real cache could not have been worked into it somehow, either with a micro at the site or using an offset. I would have experienced the cool site and still had a cache to hunt.

 

The original point of virtuals was to allow "caches" in places where you couldn't hide a physical cache. This was before anybody thought of micros (nanos weren't a gleam in geocachers eyes back then). With the advent of micros and nanos, there is no good reason for virtuals. Want to list them in parks where geocaches aren't allowed period? Some park managers have banned all "GPS games" including virtuals and Waymarking.

 

In the end if you were to examine all of the remaining virtuals there is no reason a physical cache can't be hidden at probably 90 percent of those locations now that we have micros and nanos. So what is the real point outside encouraging additional laziness among hiders?

 

Based on his explanation with the offset and nano options, I am now in complete agreement with briansnat once again. I had the opportunity to meet and shake his hand at GW and compliment him on his cachers' greeeting from years ago. Regretfully, there was no need to act it out since it was already a cache event.

Link to comment

...They couldn't come back the same way. That is why Challenges were created. Virtual locations can be published without a review process, and the community over time determines the "wow" factor. Challenges that the community likes will filter to the top of the list, and those that are not well-received by the community will filter to the bottom and eventually disappear. They are tracked on Geocaching.com, so you don't need to go to another website. Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

I'll admit that I looked at the Challenges when they first appeared and thought they were lame, and especially the ones which could be done anywhere.

 

However, I just took another peek at the ones in my area right now and thought that they seemed pretty interesting and much different then when they first appeared. They definitely are a valid substitute for virtuals, and even much better. That site looks great. B) After reading all this, my opinion is different from earlier. I'd like to see all existing virtuals archived, and the sooner the better. Challenges are not perfect, but they are a definite improvement over virtuals. I suspect the virtual icon worshippers will not go away silently though..:D

Link to comment

Geocaching from its very beginning was about finding a container.

 

Personally for me it never has been about finding a container in the first place. Due to geocaching I went for beautiful hikes and bicycle tours I would not have went for without geocaching. The log book in the container just serves the purpose for me to make me eligible to write up my experience on gc.com. Very often the actual search and in particular retrieving the cache and logging are a real burden to me and what I enjoy happens mainly before and thereafter.

I also enjoy reading logs for caches I never will get to visit.

 

Neither challenges nor Waymarking have any offer for me int his respect, neither from the active point of view nor from the passive point of view (there are hardly any interesting experience reports there).

 

There are lots of multi caches where I enjoyed everything except the end, namely searching and logging the container.

Unfortunately, there is no other offer for the part I do enjoy. There is no interactive part for hiking guide books, no one to ask, no log experiences etc

Waymarking and challenges do not fit either.

 

At least with the lamest geocache there is still a container to find and a log to sign.

 

Yes, indeed, but that's the boring part of the whole thing for me. With nanos and with stealth caches it is even more than that - a real burden.

I like to visit some of these places and look around them, research about them to learn more than the 0815 knowledge, but I do not like to search at such places for containers.

 

 

Do we really want to be able to list or log a beer can in the corner of a parking lot?

 

I would neither want to log a beer can nor to list one. I do not care what others do if I can sort it out.

A beer can is at the same ignorance level for me than a Mc Donalds or supermarket parking lot (regardless of whether a container is hidden there and how cool that container might be to some).

 

 

 

Most of the virtual fans gush over the cool places that the virtuals bring them. Yet the overwhelming majority of the time a physical could be hidden there.

 

I agree, but this does not imply that I want to search for a container at the majority of these locations.

 

With the advent of micros and nanos, there is no good reason for virtuals.

 

It depends on your personal definition of good. If you like searching and logging containers, then you a container will always be better for you than no container.

If you hate nanos, stealth caches etc, but still like the experience which is offered by multi/mystery caches in such areas until up to the point before a container needs to be searched, you would argue differently.

 

I can fully understand that the reviewers do not want to deal with virtuals and I can fully understand that cachers like you prefer to search for containers instead of for virtual geocaches (or whatever name one attributes to these objects). But please do accept that not everyone has the same preferences.

I am not demanding anything from Groundspeak. They are a company and are free to decide what they are going to offer.

All what you and others who are not interested into virtual caches write will not change the fact that I am missing something for which no reasonable offer exists.

 

 

In the end if you were to examine all of the remaining virtuals there is no reason a physical cache can't be hidden at probably 90 percent of those locations now that we have micros and nanos. So what is the real point outside encouraging additional laziness among hiders?

 

As I have mentioned, there are people like me who hate nanos and small micros where logging takes me 10 minutes and more and who hate searching for containers in areas where stealth is required or where my idea about respectfullness says "Stop - no search there". (E.g. facades of churches, lanterns on graves etc)

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Personally for me it never has been about finding a container in the first place.

 

Without a cache to find, you are just Geo-ing. :)

 

For me personally, earthcaches, virtuals, or any other type of "cache" that doesn't have a cache, are a different game. Not saying they shouldn't exist, just that the game started out with a cache, (really it was a stash. B) ). That is why it is Geocaching. If your not really into finding a container, the way you are playing is not what a lot of us play this for. Nothing wrong with that, different strokes for different folks.

 

The well hidden box is what I'm looking for, anything else is just a bonus. That is why I don't have many earthcaches, or virtuals in my stats.

Link to comment

Personally for me it never has been about finding a container in the first place. Due to geocaching I went for beautiful hikes and bicycle tours I would not have went for without geocaching. The log book in the container just serves the purpose for me to make me eligible to write up my experience on gc.com. Very often the actual search and in particular retrieving the cache and logging are a real burden to me and what I enjoy happens mainly before and thereafter.

If searching for a container isn't enjoyable, then why do it? If the only reason you do it is so you can write up your experiences on gc.com, then you can do that with "Write Note" logs.

Link to comment

Geocaching from its very beginning was about finding a container. Those containers have brought me to some incredible places over the years. Some of those places involved memorials, historic markers, oddities, the kinds of places that I enjoy visiting. Yet I can't think of a single virtual that I've found where a real cache could not be worked into the process somehow.

Just to play devil's advocate on this specific claim: what about the Mall in Washington, DC? As I understand it, it's just flat out entirely illegal to put any kind of physical cache anywhere on it, hence there are a string of virtuals that allow one to cache along the Mall. Are you suggesting that the better approach would to have each and every one of those take you off the mall somewhere where a container is allowed? (Not particularly easy, either, since the area's surrounded by federal buildings.)

 

I'm not suggesting this example supports the idea of bringing virtuals back, but I don't see how a real cache could be worked in. I'll grant that's a rare, possibly unique, exception, but I'm wondering if you've consider that case.

Link to comment
Personally for me it never has been about finding a container in the first place.

 

Without a cache to find, you are just Geo-ing. :)

 

For me the cache is the activity and not the container at the end. The most common type of multi cache in my area consists of x question to answer stages (x can be as large as 10 or even much larger and the stages in hiking multi caches can be distributed over large distances not even coverable within one day) and one container at the end. Leaving out the container at the end does not change the character of the activity that much.

 

I agree that if you consider a traditional, the character changes much more by removing the container. For caches at boring locations, it's almost exclusively about the container then.

 

Anyway, the name of the activity I have in mind does not play a role for me. I could live with any other name as well.

I also do not care at all about smileys on gc.com.

 

Whatever name is used for the activity, what I wish to have is however many features that are offered for geocaches.

 

The well hidden box is what I'm looking for, anything else is just a bonus. That is why I don't have many earthcaches, or virtuals in my stats.

 

I prefer hideouts that I can recognize already from 10-15m away. That again demonstrates that our approach to geocaching is quite different.

I'm aware that for many the searching is the main attraction and that they enjoy it. That's perfectly fine for me - it's just not my personal approach.

I'm aware that I belong to a minority group in geocaching and I freely admit it.

 

I like well done Earthcaches and virtuals, but I do not have many in my stats as well as there are not many such caches around in my region

(I own one of only two virtuals in the whole country). If I were Groundspeak, I would not include any containerless caches in the find/hide count on gc.com

and would offer separate counters for containerless caches.

 

I do not like briansnat's argument that associates virtuals with lazy hiders that do not want invest the work to place a container.

His argument that almost everywhere a container can be placed feels a little bit like turning down every series of two or more traditionals as one always could

put out just one multi cache instead. The reason why still many people want to put out the traditionals is that they prefer it that way.

Certainly there are not many locations where on could place a nano, but not everyone enjoys searching and finding nanos. While a small or regular container in the forest is nothing needed for my caching experience, but well tolerable, the situation changes with urban nanos: When a nice cache ends with a nano, this immediately ruins my day and caching experience. This is not intended as a complaint about nanos, just to explain that in these cases leaving out the container and replacing it by some other form of log validation would rescue the positive experience for me. If you do not like the term caching for the resulting activity, I have no objections. I would be happy with any other name as well. The issue is just that no site currently offers something along the lines of what I would like to see.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Personally for me it never has been about finding a container in the first place. Due to geocaching I went for beautiful hikes and bicycle tours I would not have went for without geocaching. The log book in the container just serves the purpose for me to make me eligible to write up my experience on gc.com. Very often the actual search and in particular retrieving the cache and logging are a real burden to me and what I enjoy happens mainly before and thereafter.

If searching for a container isn't enjoyable, then why do it? If the only reason you do it is so you can write up your experiences on gc.com, then you can do that with "Write Note" logs.

 

First let me try to answer your question about writing notes:

 

Writing notes has many disadvantages, one of the important ones is that other cachers cannot easily follow my experiences.

They have easy access to my finds, but not to my other log types.

 

Another drawback occurs for myself: Finding a cache gets it of my list. If I still had all caches in my area on my list, I would not be able at all to make a choice at all and keep track about which listings I want to print out for later use (maybe months later). Moreover, it also makes it hard for myself to distinguish between activity logs and just remarks. For example, I like to browse through what I have done in some month in the year xy and looking at finds and DNFs allows me to get what I want to find out quickly.

 

Moreover, it is harder to get reestablished a write note log that gets deleted than a "found it" log. In case of a "found it" log, Groundspeak is willing to act. For a write note it gets much harder and cache owners are much less reluctant to delete found its than notes.

 

 

Second, let's for the moment ignore why the write note approach is not convenient for me. I think that the fact that I could refrain from searching for containers does not imply that necessarily containerless caches (or whatever you want to call them) are not interesting for a group of people. With the currently existing offers trying to find containers for a few minutes and giving up if I fail within this time frame is the best compromise I could come up with. This could change if a new activity gets introduced.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Geocaching from its very beginning was about finding a container. Those containers have brought me to some incredible places over the years. Some of those places involved memorials, historic markers, oddities, the kinds of places that I enjoy visiting. Yet I can't think of a single virtual that I've found where a real cache could not be worked into the process somehow.

Just to play devil's advocate on this specific claim: what about the Mall in Washington, DC? As I understand it, it's just flat out entirely illegal to put any kind of physical cache anywhere on it, hence there are a string of virtuals that allow one to cache along the Mall. Are you suggesting that the better approach would to have each and every one of those take you off the mall somewhere where a container is allowed? (Not particularly easy, either, since the area's surrounded by federal buildings.)

 

I'm not suggesting this example supports the idea of bringing virtuals back, but I don't see how a real cache could be worked in. I'll grant that's a rare, possibly unique, exception, but I'm wondering if you've consider that case.

 

As I said in my earlier post, with probably 90 percent of virtuals a real cache can easily replace the virtual. These are in that 10 percent and a rare exception. Even here though an offset is possible with the physical cache a good distance away.Not the best solution, but a solution. That said, there will always be places where we can't engage in our sport. That alone in my opinion is not a good enough reason to bring back virtuals and I hope that

TPTB always share that opinion.

Link to comment

As I said in my earlier post, with probably 90 percent of virtuals a real cache can easily replace the virtual.

 

But in many cases at the expense of offering an annoying experience for people like myself, and with ignoring that in many places of the world the majority of containers is placed without permission (with the background that in way more than 50% of the cases permission would not be obtainable). Containerless caches do not need a permission in many countries. So also from that point of view, I do believe into the potential of containerless geocaching.

 

 

That alone in my opinion is not a good enough reason to bring back virtuals and I hope that

TPTB always share that opinion.

 

I think bringing back the virtuals as they have been will not work anyway.

Your argument that a container can be placed almost everywhere does not convince me, however, that there is no good reason to provide

an offer for people who like containerless geocaches and are not placed by the location sharing sites Waymarking and challenges.

 

Groundspeak is a company. They can simply say that they do not wish to come up with an offer for fans of containerless geocaching and they do not need to provide any reason for it.

 

The arguments of cachers like yourself who are apparently not interested into containerless geocaches are however not convincing at all.

We have Waymarking and challenges where no containers are hidden, but no real offer for containerless geocaching. Waymarking and challenges exist even though one could place a container at most locations. So why link containerless geocaches to the possibility of placing a container?

 

If containers are important for the majority, why do you even bother to be worried that most people would decide not to hide containers any more? The only reason could be a joint find/hide statistics, but I have mentioned many times before, that I'd suggest to separate caches with containers from containerless ones.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Most of the virtuals on the DC mall can be replaced with a Challenge which would require you to do nearly the same thing. Offset multis with a virtual 1st stage could be placed also.. There really is no need to have virtuals exist anymore, except that people clamor for the unique icon. Give offset multis a unique icon, and most would be satisfied. They really should just archive the remaining virtuals, but keep the pages unlocked (except in the frequent cases where the CO is not responsive to verification emails)

Link to comment

Offset multis with a virtual 1st stage could be placed also.. There really is no need to have virtuals exist anymore, except that people clamor for the unique icon.

 

You can believe me that I do not care at all about icons and have never ever cared about them. Even if I cared about icons, this would not change anything as I have the icon for virtuals anyway.

 

They really should just archive the remaining virtuals, but keep the pages unlocked (except in the frequent cases where the CO is not responsive to verification emails)

 

I typically reply within 1-2 hours to mails regarding my virtual, almost never I need more than a day. If someone archived my virtual, I would immediately archive the mystery cache that deals with the same topic right away and I'm sure that many local cachers would react with sadness. The mystery is not dependent on the virtual (rather the virtual depends on the mystery), but I feel that the two caches belong together.

 

I'm convinced that neither you nor anyone else can come up with an approach to implement such virtuals as mine within Waymarking or challenges.

If you think that I'm wrong, try to convince me.

 

 

Moreover, I think that in some countries in Europe containerless forms of geocaches (whatever they are called) could be an answer to

geocaching bans like

http://www.gocacher.de/?p=1598

(unfortunately, the stuff is in German) - it is about a ban of geocaching by a German municipality as a reaction to excessive geocaching in the area due to powertrail forming the text Geocaching Forever on the map). There are other similar bans and new ones will come in the years to come.

 

Already more than a year ago a German geocacher wrote a story where a grandfather tells his grandson about geocaching, a game played many years ago that has been forgotten meanwhile due to having been banned. The text can be found here, but again it is in German only

http://www.9gradost.de/geocaching/das-spiel-der-grossvaeter/

The story has been written before the bans have been installed that I have mentioned above.

A large group of geocachers in German speaking countries believes that sooner or later the story of the grandfather will come true.

 

In any case, I believe that in countries like Germany and Austria where there are no land managers (except in some rare cases like national parks) and where the growth rates of geocaching are exponential, the situation cannot compared to the situation in the US where it really might be that the existence of virtuals harms the world of geocaches with containers. In countries like Germany and Austria I think that containerless forms of caching could be the only remaining remedy for many areas.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
For me the cache is the activity and not the container at the end.

 

Without a container, you have no "cache". You may very well have an activity, and I'm sure you enjoy it. However, a cache is a container. The word cache is a noun not a verb. :)

Link to comment

Without a container, you have no "cache". You may very well have an activity, and I'm sure you enjoy it. However, a cache is a container. The word cache is a noun not a verb. :)

 

Yes, I know that it is a noun - activity is also a noun, like hike, bicycle tour etc are (also) nouns. Since I began geocaching back in 2002 I always associated the whole experience from starting out until going back to my starting point with the geocache that made me start into my endeavour. I always use the term cache container when I mean the container. The container for me is just one component of a cache with a container, it's not the same as the cache itself.

In particular for multi-caches this view seems much more consistent to me. It would somehow feel odd to me e.g. to do a long distance hiking multi cache into which I invest several days or weeks of my life and then only regard searching for a box in the very end as being the cache.

 

I'm sure that no one will do e.g. this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=9e649f3d-7a10-43d8-ad2f-6db609c1a574

to find a plastic container in the end after a month or more of hiking. Read the logs (some are in English) and you will see what fascinated the people.

Compare the type of logs such a cache gets with what you can find in hiking trail groups of Waymarking and you will notice a really big difference.

The cache is not about telling people that a trail from Munich to Venice exists and not about people posting photos of themselves on some arbitrary point of the trail, but really about walking the whole trail and exchanging experiences with cachers who did the same.

There are other caches of that type as well - I used this example because an English description is available.

 

I have found many caches (in the sense of having written found it entries on gc.com) that I enjoyed and that are among my favourites where the container has serious issues like being not tight, everything inside the container was moldy etc while I found also many caches with creative containers in perfect condition where my overall experience was extremely negative. The container for me is just one component of a cache with a container.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

As I said in my earlier post, with probably 90 percent of virtuals a real cache can easily replace the virtual. These are in that 10 percent and a rare exception.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

 

Even here though an offset is possible with the physical cache a good distance away.Not the best solution, but a solution.

Well, no, it's not really a solution at all. The Mall is a great place to walk with many attractions. A legal place for a physical cache would take me several pointless blocks away from there to somewhere that isn't even remotely interesting. It would be the ultimate cache for caching's sake. And only locals would bother with it.

 

Mind you, I'm not in touch with the DC caching community or anything, but I can't imagine why there wouldn't be at least one such cache already if it made any sense. (I went to double check this just now, and noticed that there is, in fact, one multi on the Mall. But then I looked at it, and it's just another virtual masquerading as a multi!)

 

That said, there will always be places where we can't engage in our sport. That alone in my opinion is not a good enough reason to bring back virtuals and I hope that

TPTB always share that opinion.

Oh, yeah, I definitely agree that virtuals are dead for a good reason. I just get nervous when people make arguments for which the logical conclusion is eliminating the caching experience for such an iconic location.

Link to comment
Moreover, I think that in some countries in Europe containerless forms of geocaches (whatever they are called) could be an answer to

geocaching bans like

http://www.gocacher.de/?p=1598

(unfortunately, the stuff is in German) - it is about a ban of geocaching by a German municipality as a reaction to excessive geocaching in the area due to powertrail forming the text Geocaching Forever on the map). There are other similar bans and new ones will come in the years to come.

 

I'd say that's more of an argument against power trails than for virtuals.

Link to comment

Most of the virtuals on the DC mall can be replaced with a Challenge which would require you to do nearly the same thing. Offset multis with a virtual 1st stage could be placed also.. There really is no need to have virtuals exist anymore, except that people clamor for the unique icon. Give offset multis a unique icon, and most would be satisfied. They really should just archive the remaining virtuals, but keep the pages unlocked (except in the frequent cases where the CO is not responsive to verification emails)

 

Ah. Do we really want to analyze the 'WOW' factor on the Capitol Mall? We found ten on our trip. One was spectacular!!!!! Two were very interesting. The other seven were a boring waste of time! IMHO. We looked for an eleventh. It had been unavailable for months, behind police lines. Didn't stop many people from logging it anway.

Link to comment

nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. It is easy to think the "good old days" were better than they actually were if you weren't there to see them for yourself.

The complete history is available to anyone willing to read through the forum archives. Someone's start date is not a very reliable indicator of their understanding of the issues.

 

Along with some great locations, there were submissions for dog poop, decaying animal carcasses, stop signs, and shoes tossed up into trees, among other things. Groundspeak tried to limit the publishable submissions to "quality" locations with a "wow" factor, but that quickly became a slippery slope that caused tremendous stress for the reviewers. It was not fair to them to have to arbitrarily decide where the line would be for every virtual cache submission and have to deal with the inevitable argument that would come from the owner of every cache that was not published.

Groundspeak stopped publishing virtuals due to quality control issues, yet they continue to publish physical geocaches without any such concerns. Why is that? The obvious solution would have been to go back to publishing virtuals using the same standards applied to physical caches, yet that has never even been a consideration. As has been pointed out in these forums many times, the decision to halt the publication of virtuals was a policy decision. The stated reasoning given for that decision has always seemed pretty dubious:

 

In fact by removing virtuals from being listed on geocaching.com you open up the possibility of having physical caches in National Parks. Right now the old standby is "why not just have a virtual in a National Park?" Perhaps now the National Park Service will pay more attention to the possibility of allowing caches there.

One was the "lame virt" phenomenon. There were entire downtown areas of midsized cities where one could not place a cache because every point of historic interest had been made a virtual cache, blocking the area around it. Another reason was land managers. Park rangers were saying "we don't want hidden containers, but we like these virtual caches; please set up some of those."

I suspect that the actual reasons for doing away with virtuals are hinted at here:

 

No offense meant to Dave Ulmer, but he never actually had to maintain the web site nor had an active role in the growth of the hobby.

And here:

 

Fine, keep submitting the virtuals and the site volunteers will keep archiving 95% of them in order to keep the area free for geocaches.

And finally, the nail in the coffin:

 

I lived outside Washington DC for most of my life and have visited almost all of the "virtuals" listed. I still have no idea what a virtual is but I have a firm grasp of what a cache is.

Virtuals were not killed by lameness, they were killed by contempt (and possibly structural issues with the web site).

Link to comment

nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. It is easy to think the "good old days" were better than they actually were if you weren't there to see them for yourself.

The complete history is available to anyone willing to read through the forum archives. Someone's start date is not a very reliable indicator of their understanding of the issues.

 

Along with some great locations, there were submissions for dog poop, decaying animal carcasses, stop signs, and shoes tossed up into trees, among other things. Groundspeak tried to limit the publishable submissions to "quality" locations with a "wow" factor, but that quickly became a slippery slope that caused tremendous stress for the reviewers. It was not fair to them to have to arbitrarily decide where the line would be for every virtual cache submission and have to deal with the inevitable argument that would come from the owner of every cache that was not published.

Groundspeak stopped publishing virtuals due to quality control issues, yet they continue to publish physical geocaches without any such concerns. Why is that? The obvious solution would have been to go back to publishing virtuals using the same standards applied to physical caches, yet that has never even been a consideration. As has been pointed out in these forums many times, the decision to halt the publication of virtuals was a policy decision. The stated reasoning given for that decision has always seemed pretty dubious:

 

 

I was going to actually bring that up, but never got around to it. "Lame Virts"? The CEO probably used that exact term himself, back in the old days when he'd personally interact in these forums. Saying that it's "never been a consideration" for "Lame Micros" would be quite the understatement, in my opinion. Never did understand that one. Never will. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Lame micros still have a bona fide, actual container at the coords. Lame virts have an absentee CO, and a page full of couch potato logs. :D

 

So let me get this straight. We had a Groundspeak representative come here, and pretty much say Virts were discontinued because too many lame ones were being submitted? But yet a film canister in a trash littered alley behind a strip plaza near the dumpster, on private property without permission, has never been an issue? And people like me who disagree with this are radical members of the vocal minority? :blink:

 

I'll just roll with the explanation that this is because it consists of a container and a logbook. I guess I have no choice but not to. :P

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...