An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals

[+Teach2Learn]

"briansnat, on 04 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

 

2. Bring them back and treat them just like regular caches with no "wow factor". Ya think LPCs are lame? Just wait until people start submitting random pieces of litter, piles of horse dung, nails in trees, sewer covers, telephone poles, etc. Most of the ardent virtual advocates gush over the great places virts bring them. I think most might tire quickly of virtuals after their 20th "read the serial number on the back of the dumpster""

 

This is a prime example of what I speak. No matter how many times I attempted to clairify my stance (bring them back but with restriction, possible review committees - like earthcachers, possible offsetting but with a different icon to distinguish this is a multi with a significant location - all just suggestions) I could not get a response from the repated "pi8les of horse dung" arguments. It is either the huge egos got in the way of seeing this or they simply are ignroning it for some other reasons. What that is, who knows, perhaps something only those in the inner sanctum keep close. I am not knocking that, but just do not ignore the fact that this was never the intention - to bring back virtuals as they were. Again, please read my original post.

 

I read your original post and responded directly to your idea of a committee. As briansnat and others have noted, virtuals in the past were a nightmare for reviewers due to subjectivity. The things he listed were ideas people submitted for virtuals and were angry when not published. This would be true even with a committee. Reviewers discussed virtuals among themselves (see Keystone and others) and yet the forum debates over virtual approvals and appeals seemed endless during that "wow factor" time period. If you read others' responses, you would notice that earthcachers are not reviewed by a committee. This was explained at GW. Earthcache reviewers may discuss with one another just like other reviewers, but it is not a committee.

 

Disagreement and bringing up the same old arguments is not flaming you. It's part of the debate--of course, you're allowed to disagree with that . If we feel the arguments are valid, we're entitled to that and believe past problems and the current Groundspeak position support the current stance on virtuals. You may not care for the workarounds with offsets, challenges, and waymarks, but I hope you can accept the reality that some of us are fine with them. I can accept that you're not.

[+Teach2Learn]

I do think you may be encourged by the possiblity of challenges continuing to develop in ways that may be related to your original post. Cathy did mention they were far from finished. Perhaps your offset ideas or even another icon would be considered, so proposing them is worthwhile. However, stating your case by mentioning the word "virtual" will probably raise red flags...too much baggage.

[+nthacker66]

You may not care for the workarounds with offsets,

Hehehe again I have to laugh, not to be arrogant and condescneding, but this right here. I never said I did not care for it. I encourage it. You are merely taking talking points to fit your own view of this, like most others. It was meant to be a discussion, to bring up ideas on how this can happen.

 

As far as challenges go, yes I get it. They are evolving. My issue isnt with figuring out how to make challenges better in that evolution - its more with the pace of the evolution itself. I think this life on earth has evolved at a faster pace than challenges have - I simply do not see much movement on this "evolution" I keep seeing people mention. The idea that challenges were a replacement for virtuals? WHere as one of the biggest arguments against virtuals were the "quality" factor - I am sorry but I do not see how "taking a pciture of pulling the finger of lenins statue" is considered "quality"

 

And again, lets not get into semantics - what ever you wish to call it, a committee, a review forum, a bunch of gals and guys sitting around a table at a bar drinking beers and eating wings - call it whatever you like - I simply said, if this type of format works well enough for earth caches to be considereed "geocaches" I continue to challenge why this cannot be a format for virtuals or if you want to call them history caches, or science caches - again, lets put aside our little 120+ IQ's and ditch the semantics and grammar and focus on context. My challenge to TPTB still stands - why is the format good enough for earthcaches and not for a "history cache"?

 

And AGAIN, the whole idea here is to find a way to bring the thing that most people liked about virtuals - some significant place it took you to while incorporating it into the actual game (not some side venture). But having a way to ditinguish it - as I said, offsetting can work in many cases. But having maybe a ghost holding a container. Again these are just ideas, anything toi stimulate a discussion rather than stoke an old debate or envoke "my way or go away" That was never my intention.

[+nthacker66]

And I apologize if I sound a bit aggressive and conforntational, but it can be a bit maddening to continue to either take things I say out of context and take words from my mouth that I never said. Perhaps my original post was read and interperated, but that is why subsequent follow up posts were made to clear that up - all lost in the whining.

[+nthacker66]

Oh and please hold the emails of "its not what you say but how you say it" - You can;t tell "how" I am saying something in textual terms. Trust me, those hwo know me in person and have attempted to talk to me beyond a cold "hi steve" know I am not agrressive as my text sounds. I can have a very even conversation and I am a very good listener. So, understand, text leaves much to be desired in terms of communication. But, the point needs to be sharp to be made.

[cezanne]

 

Disagreement and bringing up the same old arguments is not flaming you. It's part of the debate--of course, you're allowed to disagree with that . If we feel the arguments are valid, we're entitled to that and believe past problems and the current Groundspeak position support the current stance on virtuals. You may not care for the workarounds with offsets, challenges, and waymarks, but I hope you can accept the reality that some of us are fine with them. I can accept that you're not.

 

I fully agree with you and I cannot only perfectly live with the fact that many cachers are happy without virtual caches of what form soever (including Earthcaches and other related concepts), I even can understand to some large extent why they feel that way. I do not think that virtual geocaches (regardless of in which form) will be something for everyone, but the same is true for nearly every sort of geocache. Earthcaches only appeal to a certain group and the same will for example be true for educational caches on other subjects, for some subjects even in a stronger way than for Earthcaches as many geologically interesting locations also involve a Wow factor for people not interested at all into geology which is not the case for all subject (some areas are less spectactular for the eyes). I fully understand that many people who head off for caches just want to relax from their daily work and do not want to be bothered with learning issues. There will, however, always be a group of people who will enjoy educational caches and I do not think that except for Earthcaches there exists a reasonable platform for educational caches (containers are not the best way for transmitting educational matters).

 

I'm unhappy, however, with comments like those from briansnat (to mention just one of several examples in this thread) where others are told that there is no reason to be unhappy with the status quo and that there exist wonderful alternatives for those for whom geocaching is not only about containers. That sort of decision is up to each individual as you have mentioned above and there is no right or wrong in this setting.

 

I understand all the problems that have been around with the old virtuals, but I do not understand why Groundspeak put so much effort when introducing challenges to make them as different to geocaches as possible from the point of view of their handling. I remember that Jeremy shortly before challenges got introduced appeared to be very proud of the fact that there are no listings for challenges and they work differently than geocaches. I'm sorry, but none of the repeated arguments about the problems of the old virtuals explains that challenges have no owner, are limited to such a short description and only offer photo logging requirements. The argument that challenges are still evolving might be applicable to other aspects, but certainly not to those aspects as it requires zero development time to take what is already available for caches. It appears to be a strategic decision that has been made at some point by a certain group of people and nobody here knows why this decision has been taken in that manner. We can only speculate about the reasons.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Edited June 5, 2012 by cezanne

[+nthacker66]

I will leave it all at that though because I am sure this will flame up again and I will not be sucked into feeling grief (again) with this topic. I said what I said, I cannot force anyone to read or read something properly. It is what it is, and I am moving on from it.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Nevermind. Mis-read the post.

Edited June 5, 2012 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+Teach2Learn]

Sigh...I read it and added a second reply (before your response) to clarify, specify and encourage the evolution of challenges to meet your offset ideas, thus I said, "Perhaps your offset ideas..." If you just want to laugh at people and continue to say they didn't read your posts, then I think you're missing the larger point and being detrimental to your own discussion. I did respond to your ideas and try to encourage discussion.

 

I like the historical caches/historicache idea and it has been raised before. However, I'm not sure the reviewer process would be easily organized into anything grouplike due to their volunteer nature and time constraints. They "discuss" as necessary when questions arise, not for each cache, and I think the quality issue might come up for such a cache type unless objective factors were already in place. Personally, I think anything to do with a ghost or related to the idea of a virtual in any way isn't worth it.

 

As for the evolution of challenges, a year or two doesn't seem that long to me if it reduces potential problems, but we each have our own timeframe. For some, it seemed to take "forever" to get Groundspeak approved geocaching apps for phones.

 

You may not care for the workarounds with offsets,

Hehehe again I have to laugh, not to be arrogant and condescneding, but this right here. I never said I did not care for it. I encourage it. You are merely taking talking points to fit your own view of this, like most others. It was meant to be a discussion, to bring up ideas on how this can happen.

 

As far as challenges go, yes I get it. They are evolving. My issue isnt with figuring out how to make challenges better in that evolution - its more with the pace of the evolution itself. I think this life on earth has evolved at a faster pace than challenges have - I simply do not see much movement on this "evolution" I keep seeing people mention. The idea that challenges were a replacement for virtuals? WHere as one of the biggest arguments against virtuals were the "quality" factor - I am sorry but I do not see how "taking a pciture of pulling the finger of lenins statue" is considered "quality"

 

And again, lets not get into semantics - what ever you wish to call it, a committee, a review forum, a bunch of gals and guys sitting around a table at a bar drinking beers and eating wings - call it whatever you like - I simply said, if this type of format works well enough for earth caches to be considereed "geocaches" I continue to challenge why this cannot be a format for virtuals or if you want to call them history caches, or science caches - again, lets put aside our little 120+ IQ's and ditch the semantics and grammar and focus on context. My challenge to TPTB still stands - why is the format good enough for earthcaches and not for a "history cache"?

 

And AGAIN, the whole idea here is to find a way to bring the thing that most people liked about virtuals - some significant place it took you to while incorporating it into the actual game (not some side venture). But having a way to ditinguish it - as I said, offsetting can work in many cases. But having maybe a ghost holding a container. Again these are just ideas, anything toi stimulate a discussion rather than stoke an old debate or envoke "my way or go away" That was never my intention.

[cezanne]

I do think you may be encourged by the possiblity of challenges continuing to develop in ways that may be related to your original post. Cathy did mention they were far from finished.

 

For me Cathy's reply reads like what appears to me a to be typical reply from an US based company and reminds of my any comments by Groundspeak staff on feature requests over the years. For example, I remember that already back in 2003 a group of people asked for support for multilingual cache descriptions (e.g. the possibility to separate different language versions from each other). The topic has been warmed up several times over the years. The few official reactions that exist have been formulated in this typical non-committal, friendly way of US communication which makes people like me feel that they try to stay polite and friendly, but do not say what they really think or are planning to do.

 

Like I do not believe that Groundspeak will ever come up with support for multilingual cache descriptions after not having done anything in this direction for 9 years, I do not believe that challenges will evolve in such a way that they are well suited for the virtual projects I have in mind. I also do not believe that the restriction of challenge creation to PMs will be removed. If they really wanted to do that, they would already have done it as the active period of challenges were really many were published is long gone. Somehow I believe that Groundspeak regrets to have promised many years ago that the basic game will always be free and decided to restrict the basic game for waymarks and challenges as they have not promised anything about those activities. (Of course, I'm just speculating.)

 

Cezanne

[+briansnat]

"briansnat, on 04 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

 

2. Bring them back and treat them just like regular caches with no "wow factor". Ya think LPCs are lame? Just wait until people start submitting random pieces of litter, piles of horse dung, nails in trees, sewer covers, telephone poles, etc. Most of the ardent virtual advocates gush over the great places virts bring them. I think most might tire quickly of virtuals after their 20th "read the serial number on the back of the dumpster""

 

This is a prime example of what I speak. No matter how many times I attempted to clairify my stance (bring them back but with restriction, possible review committees - like earthcachers, possible offsetting but with a different icon to distinguish this is a multi with a significant location - all just suggestions) I could not get a response from the repated "pi8les of horse dung" arguments. It is either the huge egos got in the way of seeing this or they simply are ignroning it for some other reasons. What that is, who knows, perhaps something only those in the inner sanctum keep close. I am not knocking that, but just do not ignore the fact that this was never the intention - to bring back virtuals as they were. Again, please read my original post.

 

I wasn't necessarily responding to your original post. There were other posts in this thread.

[cezanne]

If you are just looking for a location there are alternatives.

 

Do me a favour and have a look at this cache (it has an English description)

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

and imagine that one leaves out the container at the end (all other stages are virtual ones).

 

Do you really feel that what remains falls under the category "looking for a location"?

The whole tour and the tasks are entertaining - that's a lot more than just looking for one or more locations.

(The final location btw is quite far from the other stages and in no relationship to them which makes the cache less ideal

for tourists than it would be as virtual.)

 

I somehow feel that it is difficult to explain what I miss in challenges and waymarks to cachers who come from

areas where there are first traditionals, then for long time nothing else and then there are considerably less single stage mystery caches, multi caches with a small number of stages (and typically of the type stages of a multi cache with a container) or simple offset multis with just one stage and the cache dominate.

More complex caches and in particular multi caches with many virtual stages apparently are not common in your area while this type of multi cache is the by far most common one.

 

 

Cezanne

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

If you are just looking for a location there are alternatives.

 

Do me a favour and have a look at this cache (it has an English description)

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

and imagine that one leaves out the container at the end (all other stages are virtual ones).

 

So what's your point? You like to be taken on fun and intersting tours of locations. So having to find some sort of conatiner at the end (even if it is a nano) shouldn't lessen the fun you had. Take a look at my Walking Tour of Newport Cache. Why does the fact that there is a micro at the end cause your grief?

 

(Edit for typos)

Edited June 5, 2012 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+nthacker66]

If you are just looking for a location there are alternatives.

 

Do me a favour and have a look at this cache (it has an English description)

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

and imagine that one leaves out the container at the end (all other stages are virtual ones).

 

So what's your point? You like to be taken on fun and intersting tours of locations. So having to find some sort of conatiner at the end (even if it is a nano) shouldn't lessen the fun you had. Take a look at my Walking Tour of Newport Cache. Why does the fact that there is a micro at the end cause your grief?

 

(Edit for typos)

 

And thatis a good point - but these types of caches can be hard to distinguis from others. Having a special icon, that of course has special requirements, such a ghost hold a container will help people to distinguish that type of cache. Simply stating "well just look by favorite points" is not good enough. What if it doesnt have fav points? The fav point system isn't searchable (yes yes I know PQ, gsak, yadda yadda yadda" but i dont always have a computer handy and am in an areas i didnt think I would be in, so didnt have the option to run PQ, I want to turn my phone on and see if there is a special cache nearby. I can go on and on countering just as others can counter me. Point being I have no problem with containers at the end of a virtual type cache, I just would like that to be distinguishable.

 

If we want to go down the road "why do you need to distinguishable, why do you need a special icon" then that same logic can be applied - why do we need a special icon for anything at all then? Just have one green container or none at all? Or if caching is "all about the containers" why isnt there containers at every event cache? Or a container at the end of an earthcache? or gps the maze, or a Groundspeak block party? See what I am saying - the logic is flawed at best.

 

Again I keep hearing the same thing thrown back at me on the argument of the idea of a review forum - much like earth caches - no wow factor, it would be too hard. Again I ask, then why have eartchaches - why are they any different then a significant virtual? If people are willing to do a histoicache, sciencecache, and people are willing to vonunteer to review it, again, LIKE earthcache, than what is the big deal?

[PghDragonRider]

I'll add my vote for bringing back virtual caches.

 

I have not read all the posts in this thread, but I'll give an example of why I'm in favor. As one early poster pointed out, you'd have a hard time placing even a nano at some historic sites. For some other places, it just would not be right to disturb the area with a physical cache, but there may be compelling reasons to bring people there. For this last reason, I created a virtual cache through another caching service (not Waymarking) to promote an overlooked monument that I have a personal connection to. I might also add that in addition to being low impact because there is no damage in placing a virtual cache, they are muggle proof! Lastly, the virtual cache I created is too far away for me to do maintenance on and being virtual, they are maintenance free.

 

Just my two cents.

[cezanne]

If you are just looking for a location there are alternatives.

 

Do me a favour and have a look at this cache (it has an English description)

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

and imagine that one leaves out the container at the end (all other stages are virtual ones).

 

So what's your point? You like to be taken on fun and intersting tours of locations. So having to find some sort of conatiner at the end (even if it is a nano) shouldn't lessen the fun you had.

 

The point I tried to made in the posting above was a different one. What I wanted to explain is that there are no good ways of implementing such ideas in a containerless manner. I wanted to illustrate that containerless caches are about more than sharing a location and so Waymarking and challenges do not fit ideally.

 

As to your question above: In the case of the cache above which is not a nano/micro directly in an urban setting, I do not mind that the cache is set up with a container. If you ask me about nanos, my answer is, however, yes, indeed it ruins my experience completely if I have to fight 10 minutes with these annoying objects. The same is true if an interesting cache e.g. ends at a church and I'm supposed to search for a container behind a statue of a saint or a nano attached to a cross which is a holy object for me. Anyway, as mentioned above my posting has not been about my personal preferences when geocaching.

 

I have mentioned previously that I implemented my last cache with a container in a hideout I hate since there are no reasonable platforms available for implementing it in my preferred way. So indeed placing a container was the smallest evil and that's was what I did. My preferred solution would have been, however, a containerless setup.

 

 

Take a look at my Walking Tour of Newport Cache. Why does the fact that there is a micro at the end cause your grief?

 

It does not automatically cause my grief - neither does the example from Vienna (which I used only to demonstrate that the step from multi caches with 5 containers to a multi cache with 15 question to answer stages and one final container is probably larger than the step from the latter to a containerless multi with 15 question to answer stages).

 

Still there are situations where I prefer containerless implementations both as hider and as searcher and I'd like to have the choice while clearly separating one activity from the other (that's why I do not want to include containerless variants into the find count for caches with containers - I hope that this would help to keep up the quality at some level definitely not worse than for physical caches).

 

Cezanne

[+nthacker66]

"briansnat, on 04 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

 

2. Bring them back and treat them just like regular caches with no "wow factor". Ya think LPCs are lame? Just wait until people start submitting random pieces of litter, piles of horse dung, nails in trees, sewer covers, telephone poles, etc. Most of the ardent virtual advocates gush over the great places virts bring them. I think most might tire quickly of virtuals after their 20th "read the serial number on the back of the dumpster""

 

This is a prime example of what I speak. No matter how many times I attempted to clairify my stance (bring them back but with restriction, possible review committees - like earthcachers, possible offsetting but with a different icon to distinguish this is a multi with a significant location - all just suggestions) I could not get a response from the repated "pi8les of horse dung" arguments. It is either the huge egos got in the way of seeing this or they simply are ignroning it for some other reasons. What that is, who knows, perhaps something only those in the inner sanctum keep close. I am not knocking that, but just do not ignore the fact that this was never the intention - to bring back virtuals as they were. Again, please read my original post.

 

I wasn't necessarily responding to your original post. There were other posts in this thread.

Fair enough. Do show me where anyone in this thread in favor of some sort of return of virtuals once said "bring them back as they were"

The only people who turned this thread into THAT discussion were all the naysayers.

[+nthacker66]

Sorry, I don't want to go round and round over what I mean or you meant. I just think this discussion turned south when the first one came on and completely misunderstood. And that in turn perpetuated the "reopening of old thread discussions"

 

Point being, virtuals are never coming back. And that is fine. I just would hope in the future Lackey's make sure they choose their words carefully at mega events giving people false hopes that the community really gets to decide.

[+Glenn]

Point being, virtuals are never coming back. And that is fine. I just would hope in the future Lackey's make sure they choose their words carefully at mega events giving people false hopes that the community really gets to decide.

How can be so sure that virtuals are never coming back? I am sure that under the right circumstances virtuals could return.

 

What makes you think that the community hasn't decided? The majority of posters here have stated that there are issues with the way virtual caches are implemented and if virtual caches are to return those issues need to be fixed. It sounds like to me that Groundspeak is listening to the community at large.

[+B+L]

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question "why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn't be placed there?" If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.

 

Virtual caches should be geographically dispersed. New postings which are within 0.1 mile of an existing cache will generally not be approved, unless the poster provides a compelling rationale. Posting a virtual cache at every animal cage in a zoo is an example of something that will not be approved.

 

Yes, virtuals and locationless caches created more guideline headaches than traditionals, which is why they took up 2/3 of the page.

Perhaps, but that was not the reason I brought it up. The 0.1 mile proximity restriction only applied to virtuals and the much referenced "wow factor" is so vague that it is incomprehensible, but since virtuals are "blocking" regular caches, the intention is obvious.

 

It's quite clear from reading the old forum posts that the reviewers are to blame for some of the flack they were getting. There is some serious attitude being dished out in that topic I linked.

[+SwineFlew]

Meh. I want the stuff I find to count towards one working list..so, no, I have no interest in starting a Waymarking account.

Virtuals provide a neat way to add incentive for CACHERS to go visit areas that would not be allowed to have physical caches, such as national parks in the us.

 

Besides. Ghosties are cute!

You got an account over there, just use the same SN and Password and you are in. Waymarking.com, geocaching.com, and Wherigo.com all use the same SN and Password. When you signed up on geocaching.com, you really did created a Groundspeak account.

[+nthacker66]

Point being, virtuals are never coming back. And that is fine. I just would hope in the future Lackey's make sure they choose their words carefully at mega events giving people false hopes that the community really gets to decide.

How can be so sure that virtuals are never coming back? I am sure that under the right circumstances virtuals could return.

 

What makes you think that the community hasn't decided? The majority of posters here have stated that there are issues with the way virtual caches are implemented and if virtual caches are to return those issues need to be fixed. It sounds like to me that Groundspeak is listening to the community at large.

Are they? One lackey, Cathy responded. With a canned and clinical answer which basically pointed to challenges.

I do not see Groundspeak really adding to this discussion at all.

[+nthacker66]

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question "why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn't be placed there?" If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.

 

Virtual caches should be geographically dispersed. New postings which are within 0.1 mile of an existing cache will generally not be approved, unless the poster provides a compelling rationale. Posting a virtual cache at every animal cage in a zoo is an example of something that will not be approved.

 

Yes, virtuals and locationless caches created more guideline headaches than traditionals, which is why they took up 2/3 of the page.

Perhaps, but that was not the reason I brought it up. The 0.1 mile proximity restriction only applied to virtuals and the much referenced "wow factor" is so vague that it is incomprehensible, but since virtuals are "blocking" regular caches, the intention is obvious.

 

It's quite clear from reading the old forum posts that the reviewers are to blame for some of the flack they were getting. There is some serious attitude being dished out in that topic I linked.

Its funny because earthcaches arent subjected to the proximity. So a returns of virtuals in some form could be treated the same way perhaps.

 

Attitude, from reviewers? Nahhh never! ;-)

[+Glenn]

Meh. I want the stuff I find to count towards one working list..so, no, I have no interest in starting a Waymarking account.

 

Virtuals provide a neat way to add incentive for CACHERS to go visit areas that would not be allowed to have physical caches, such as national parks in the us.

 

Besides. Ghosties are cute!

You got an account over there, just use the same SN and Password and you are in. Waymarking.com, geocaching.com, and Wherigo.com all use the same SN and Password. When you signed up on geocaching.com, you really did created a Groundspeak account.

 

SwineFlew, I think you bolded the wrong part of TeamTwoStar's post. I fixed it.

 

I think I agree with TeamTwoStar . I lost my car keys years ago. It's been a pain having to walk everywhere when I have a perfectly good car sitting in my driveway. I thought challenges would be my saviour. I was waiting for a find your lost car keys challenge. Now challenges don't count as a find. All hope is lost of me ever finding my keys because the incentive of a smiley isn't there anymore.

[+Glenn]

Point being, virtuals are never coming back. And that is fine. I just would hope in the future Lackey's make sure they choose their words carefully at mega events giving people false hopes that the community really gets to decide.

How can be so sure that virtuals are never coming back? I am sure that under the right circumstances virtuals could return.

 

What makes you think that the community hasn't decided? The majority of posters here have stated that there are issues with the way virtual caches are implemented and if virtual caches are to return those issues need to be fixed. It sounds like to me that Groundspeak is listening to the community at large.

Are they? One lackey, Cathy responded. With a canned and clinical answer which basically pointed to challenges.

I do not see Groundspeak really adding to this discussion at all.

Groundspeak watches the Geocaching Topics forum but rarely participates on an official level. Except for the moderators, of course. There is a relativity new forum called Feature Discussions and Suggestions. If you have suggestions on how Groundspeak might be able to reintroduce virtual caches then that may be a better forum to start a discussion in.

[+SwineFlew]

Meh. I want the stuff I find to count towards one working list..so, no, I have no interest in starting a Waymarking account.

 

Virtuals provide a neat way to add incentive for CACHERS to go visit areas that would not be allowed to have physical caches, such as national parks in the us.

 

Besides. Ghosties are cute!

You got an account over there, just use the same SN and Password and you are in. Waymarking.com, geocaching.com, and Wherigo.com all use the same SN and Password. When you signed up on geocaching.com, you really did created a Groundspeak account.

 

SwineFlew, I think you bolded the wrong part of TeamTwoStar's post. I fixed it.

 

 

To other that read this... I didnt bold what he bolded. He crossed the line there.

[+nthacker66]

Point being, virtuals are never coming back. And that is fine. I just would hope in the future Lackey's make sure they choose their words carefully at mega events giving people false hopes that the community really gets to decide.

How can be so sure that virtuals are never coming back? I am sure that under the right circumstances virtuals could return.

 

What makes you think that the community hasn't decided? The majority of posters here have stated that there are issues with the way virtual caches are implemented and if virtual caches are to return those issues need to be fixed. It sounds like to me that Groundspeak is listening to the community at large.

Are they? One lackey, Cathy responded. With a canned and clinical answer which basically pointed to challenges.

I do not see Groundspeak really adding to this discussion at all.

Groundspeak watches the Geocaching Topics forum but rarely participates on an official level. Except for the moderators, of course. There is a relativity new forum called Feature Discussions and Suggestions. If you have suggestions on how Groundspeak might be able to reintroduce virtual caches then that may be a better forum to start a discussion in.

You mean like how polite and mature everyone was to me here? Thanks but no thanks. Again, Groundspeak made it quite clear that virtuals in any way shape or form are not coming back. That is why they have "challenges which continue to evolve"

[+tozainamboku]

Let's take a spin in the time machine.

 

Here's the guidelines from March, 2003. Please read them carefully. Note how unstructured and simple they are. Also note how they fit onto one page, but about 2/3 of the page is devoted to virtuals and locationless caches, mostly locationless. See if you can find any guidelines about proximity.

 

Did you notice this text?

 

We'd love to post everything, but we're trying to keep the noise to content ratio low. We're working on new ways to open up the site for all sorts of waypoints, so who knows what the future may hold?

It's nice you want to look at history. So if you read carefully you will see that by March of 2003 there were already issues with virtuals crowding out traditional caches that lead to the guidelines you quote here.

 

In the early days Geocaching.com was particularly open to new ideas. They wanted to grow the sport and were much more willing to try things and see where they went. There was clearly an issue early on with locations where a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained or where permission for leaving a physical container could not be obtained. People wanted to have someway to allow geocaching in these location and, frankly, Groundspeak saw it in there interest to allow these "virtual" caches as a way to grow the game.

 

The problems began because it was hard to tell just what it meant that a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained or that permission for placing a physical container could not be obtained. Should people on vacation be allowed to leave a virtual cache where a local might want to hide a physical cache? It your cache kept disappearing because a non-geocacher would find it an take, was that a good enough reason to change it to a virtual caches. If you could hide a offset multi caches using the virtual location as a hint, would that be a better alternative than a standalone virtual.

 

In the guidelines you post we see already see the "wow" requirement:

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. A flagpole, manhole cover, tree, etc., are poor examples (with a possible exception: A flagpole at a memorial or a particularly novel flagpole would be ok, or an especially unique tree would count). Conversely, a scavenger hunt posted as a virtual cache would not be ok. If you don't know what is appropriate, post a question to the forums first.

 

Groundspeak was concerned that the virtual caches were no longer being reserved for where a physical cache truly couldn't be place and they knew by then that no guideline could be enforced based on that restriction. The guidelines you see do treat virtual caches differently than physical caches, and reason for them was to have some constraint on the number of virtuals published to preserve the core idea of geocaching as hunting a physical caches.

[+Glenn]

You mean like how polite and mature everyone was to me here? Thanks but no thanks. Again, Groundspeak made it quite clear that virtuals in any way shape or form are not coming back. That is why they have "challenges which continue to evolve"

 

I assume that you are being sarcastic with your polite and mature comment. I can assure you that these forums are tame compared to a lot of other forum on the Internet. There are a couple of subjects that get people going here and virtuals happen to be one of those.

 

I've been a member here for a little over 10 years now. I also have accounts and I'm active to varying degrees on other geocaching website. I've found Groundspeak to be one company that is the most responsive to the Geocaching community. They can't put in every feature that each individual wants, no one can do that. But they do a very good job servicing the community as a whole.

 

Just the fact that we are talking about virtuals is reason enough not to consider them dead. Maybe one day during a discussion such as this someone will come with a workable idea for virtual caches. Until that day I am happy that moderators allow discussion like this to take place.

[+tozainamboku]

Lets look at the reasons for placing virtual cache given by those wanting to bring them back:

 

1. To be able to have a cache in a location where a physical cache can't be placed.

 

This was the original idea behind virtuals. The problem is defining what it means that a physical cache can't be placed. Some might argue that there are places where a physical cache is inappropriate - and while one could be placed - it shouldn't be.

 

In the early days of geocaching the idea of having geocaches to find in more places was important as a way of spreading the hobby and attracting more players. Nowadays, it almost makes sense to take the opposite approach and say that not every place needs a geocache. If it is inappropriate or impractical to place a physical cache, perhaps a virtual cache shouldn't be there either.

 

2. I have some really cool place that I want to share and I can't place a physical cache there.

 

First ask why you can't make it a physical cache or an offset multi-cache. If you still can't figure out a way to do it, consider why it is you want to bring a person there. Is geoaching the right place for this. If you simple want to share a location why not use Waymarking or a similar site. Perhaps sharing your favorite hiking destination is better done on a hiking site. If you still want to share it with Geocachers, consider making a challenge. If you don't like challenges, consider positing in the challenge forum with your suggestions on how to improve them.

 

3. The quality of virtual caches is so much better than physical caches.

 

First of all, you can be sure this is due to the "Wow" requirement. Prior to this requirement, there were plenty of virtual cahes that were low quality just as physical cache get submitted that are in less than spectacular places.

 

Second, there are certainly geocachers who primarily enjoy the game because of the interesting places it has taken them. The frustration of having to wade though lots of mundane physical cache locations to find ones in interesting places is understandable. Some may even find that finding the container once you get to the location is a anti-climactic.

 

If you prefer visiting interesting locations and not having to find tupperware, consider another website. Unlike the early days, Groundspeak is no longer relies on the experiments to bring in more cachers. The growth in geocaching, spurred by smartphone apps, has not suffered since virtuals were grandfathered. Yet, Grounspeak realizes the desire to share interesting that sometimes can't have a physical cache. They have provided Waymarking and now challenges to support this segment of the community.

 

However I will agree that many caches are now in locations are not that exciting. There have been calls to improve features to help find caches that take you to special locations. The favorite points has been useful in highlighting these caches. Perhaps adding attributes for historical or other kinds of locations would be provide another way to search these out.

 

4. I want to provide an experience for geocachers that doesn't work as a challenge or a waymark. Perhaps, like EarthCaches, I want to educate the visitor. Finding a physical container is not important.

 

Consider why this doesn't work as a waymark or challenge. Perhaps it can be changed to fit those formats, or Groundspeak can be convinced to change those formats enough to make it work.

 

I'll agree that the virtual cache format led itself to this kind of experimentation, and doing it in Waymarking or as a challenge is more difficult.

[+B+L]

In the guidelines you post we see already see the "wow" requirement:

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. A flagpole, manhole cover, tree, etc., are poor examples (with a possible exception: A flagpole at a memorial or a particularly novel flagpole would be ok, or an especially unique tree would count). Conversely, a scavenger hunt posted as a virtual cache would not be ok. If you don't know what is appropriate, post a question to the forums first.

 

Groundspeak was concerned that the virtual caches were no longer being reserved for where a physical cache truly couldn't be place and they knew by then that no guideline could be enforced based on that restriction. The guidelines you see do treat virtual caches differently than physical caches, and reason for them was to have some constraint on the number of virtuals published to preserve the core idea of geocaching as hunting a physical caches.

Thanks for all that, but I really don't need any help interpreting the old guidelines. Plus, you are starting to repeat yourself. It's a sure sign that the zombie stallion will be bursting out of the ground at any second, still angry about the flogging it got the last time it appeared.

 

Do you remember the old "Survey Says" forum topic? The place where people could discuss caches the approvers were not sure about? Sadly, it does not seem to be archived anywhere, but some of it can still be dredged up. The unfortunate combination of asking leading poll questions and poor reading comprehension by some of the participants limited the usefulness of the topic. It is more interesting for how low the traffic was. And this:

 

What I get from the folks who place these "on the fence" caches is either a pointer to some kind of precedent (i.e. This is the same as xx posted in the past, why can't I?) or some explanation on how it should be posted regardless of what I think. So in these cases, I say show it to the masses and let them decide. We're not in a courtroom and each cache is not "law," so precedence does not exist.

The rationalization for the no precedence rule.

 

Virtuals don't get approved anymore for because a few people decided virtuals weren't geocaches and that was that.

 

I will publish any real stash, period.. A physical stash.. One that actually exists..

Geocaching was barely two months old and the already the attitudes had started.

[4wheelin_fool]

Many Challenges function just like virtuals. So do Waymarks.

 

That's why virtuals are not coming back.

 

Just think of them as Virtual Challenges

 

Virtual Challenges

Virtual Challenges

Virtual Challenges

 

It has a nice ring to it.

 

Unfortunately it seems that the ghost icon will haunt Geocaching until they reuse it again..

 

 

BOO !

Edited June 6, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[cezanne]

Many Challenges function just like virtuals. So do Waymarks.

 

Yes, but unfortunately my favourite types of virtuals do not function in that way.

 

That's why virtuals are not coming back.

 

As already mentioned several times, I do not care which name is associated to the activity and which icon is assigned (actually, I think that the ghost icon was a bad choice anyway) and I would be perfectly ok if waymarks or challenges change so that virtuals of all types fit into well and so that everyone is welcome to implement his ideas. I think, however, that making the required changes to Waymarking or challenges causes much more work than using what already exists for caches and thus will not take place (also for other reasons).

 

 

Cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

Many Challenges function just like virtuals. So do Waymarks.

 

Yes, but unfortunately my favourite types of virtuals do not function in that way.

 

That's why virtuals are not coming back.

 

As already mentioned several times, I do not care which name is associated to the activity and which icon is assigned (actually, I think that the ghost icon was a bad choice anyway) and I would be perfectly ok if waymarks or challenges change so that virtuals of all types fit into well and so that everyone is welcome to implement his ideas. I think, however, that making the required changes to Waymarking or challenges causes much more work than using what already exists for caches and thus will not take place (also for other reasons).

 

 

Cezanne

 

Well, it would be much easier for people that want virtuals, to convince TPTB to modify Challenges to list those types of virtuals, or to just list them as puzzle caches, rather than thinking that virtuals might return. Even when virtuals were here, physical caches had priority. They rejected many virts because a physical cache could be placed instead.

 

I currently have a traditional cache listed at a previous virt location, as well as an easy puzzle with the first stage at a typical virtual location, as well as another puzzle in which the cacher can visit Waymarking to find the answer from a Waymark I listed. The arguments for trying to get virts to return when there are other options, only seems to me that the setimentality of the icon is missed, or that they haven't really tried to hard to do something else, or that most people would rather receive emails than do maintenance on a physical cache.

Edited June 6, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Volvo Man]

To add some stats to ponder:

 

In the UK, there are currently 205 active Virtuals, of this number, 96 were placed before the wow factor requirement.

 

Live Caches in the UK at 31/12/2003 ~ 2549

Live Virtuals in the UK at 31/12/2003 ~ 223 (8% of Total)

Remaining Caches in the UK placed before 2004 - 1180

Remaining Virtuals in the UK placed before 2004 - 174 (14.5% of Total)

 

Overall that's almost 100% better survival rate of those virtuals than other types. Of those survivors, more than half are pre-wow factor, so, maybe elsewhere they were not of such good quality, but here in the UK, they obviously were, and without the help of the wow factor requirement. I used Pre 2004 stats as I don't have a full UK database for before Oct 2003

 

The point that has been made here so many times is if you can think of a "lame" virtual scenario, (and I know out reviewers can reel so many of them off) there is a matching physical cache scenario, perhaps they would share with us some of the "lame" traditionals that have been tried and pushed back on, and probably caused as much hassle. What sticks in my mind is the story of the rotten sneaker in the woods.

 

This rotten sneaker is brought up as an example of a bad virtual submission, but I have to ask, how is it any different that this was submitted as a virtual than as a traditional, I really hope to the gods of things lost in the woods (I'll find out who that is later) that it would have been refused as a physical cache too, along with the dead animal carcass et al (its worthy of note the animal carcass would not have been there for long anyway, I'd give it 3 weeks, then the bones another 6 months)

 

-edit-

I promised earlier that I would find out who is the god of things lost in the woods. According to my research, the viking name for one who through Mystical Powers was able to find hidden and lost things was Volva, therefore, It turns out, I am the God of things lost in the woods, wasn't expecting that outcome.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Volvo Man

[+Volvo Man]

You know, I just had this flash of the future, so I'm going to start my campaign now:

 

BRING BACK MICROS

 

[+Cardinal Red]

You know, I just had this flash of the future, so I'm going to start my campaign now:

 

BRING BACK MICROS

 

It will never happen. I'm not that lucky.

[+B+L]

You know, I just had this flash of the future, so I'm going to start my campaign now:

 

BRING BACK MICROS

 

It will never happen. I'm not that lucky.

They don't have a special icon, so there's no point.

[cezanne]

Well, it would be much easier for people that want virtuals, to convince TPTB to modify Challenges to list those types of virtuals, or to just list them as puzzle caches, rather than thinking that virtuals might return. Even when virtuals were here, physical caches had priority. They rejected many virts because a physical cache could be placed instead.

 

I think it is a philosophical debate what is meant if people want to have virtual caches. For many this does not mean they want to have them in the same way as they have existed in the early years.

 

I'm perfectly fine with the fact that physical caches have priority for Groundspeak and I'd be happy about any system that leaves room for my preferred type of virtual cache (this could be within Waymarking, challenges, or something entirely new - I do not care).

 

For a while after challenges showed up and also before their introduction when Jeremy happened to visit the forum during some weeks I have been quite active in this forum trying to explain what I think is missing in challenges. I never ever had the feeling that even my message arrived at Groundspeak and that someone there even understood what people like me are missing. As they are a company and these sites are their sites, they are free to decide what they implement and how.

It just frustrates me that they do not even seem to catch that there are virtual caches that do not fit into Waymarking or challenges.

 

In particular, there have been many requests to introduce the ownership concept for challenges. The rare comments by Groundspeak on that matter made me believe that their answer to ownership for challenges is the same as for the return of virtuals: Namely, no.

 

I currently have a traditional cache listed at a previous virt location, as well as an easy puzzle with the first stage at a typical virtual location, as well as another puzzle in which the cacher can visit Waymarking to find the answer from a Waymark I listed. The arguments for trying to get virts to return when there are other options, only seems to me that the setimentality of the icon is missed, or that they haven't really tried to hard to do something else, or that most people would rather receive emails than do maintenance on a physical cache.

 

I agree that there are certainly cachers for whom one of these reasons applies, but there are many other reasons.

 

I have mentioned before that even if virtuals existed, I would have used containers for most of my caches, but not for all. I agree that there are often workarounds, but a workaround is in most cases a compromise solution and not the preferred one. There are projects where the containerless variant is what I regard as the best one while this does not exclude the existence of other alternatives. This also is the reason why debates about this issue are so hard because in most cases there will exist physical alternatives.

 

If one's goal is to teach others something by letting them conduct a chemical experiment related to an Earth science topic, hiding a container is not the best way and does not allow to provide feedback to the learner. On the contrary, if my goal is to share a scenic location with other people, I do not think that bothering them with geology questions is the best implementation. This example should demonstrate that sometimes a physical cache is to be preferred and sometimes a containerless cache (whether we call it virtual, challenge or whatever is not that important).

 

 

Cezanne

[+Volvo Man]

You know, I just had this flash of the future, so I'm going to start my campaign now:

 

BRING BACK MICROS

 

It will never happen. I'm not that lucky.

They don't have a special icon, so there's no point.

not yet, but there is a campaign

[AZcachemeister]

It would be really nice to have some sort of Groundspeak waypoint continuum...

 

Geocache-Waymark-Challenge

 

Each has their place and conditions where one would be more suitable than the others.

 

I remember some discussion about a V2.0 Groundspeak website about two years ago...whatever happened to that idea?

 

Each should count in my overall Groundspeak record, but each category (Geocache, Waymark, Challenge) should be separate unto itself.

 

I do see how Challenges could eventually become the replacement for virtuals, but the initial rollout left many of us with a really bad taste in our mouths. That combined with the (current) lack of ownership leaves a lot of work to be done on challenges before they have even a chance of acceptance by old-schoolers like me.

[+tozainamboku]

Virtuals don't get approved anymore for because a few people decided virtuals weren't geocaches and that was that.

 

I will publish any real stash, period.. A physical stash.. One that actually exists..

Geocaching was barely two months old and the already the attitudes had started.

Why are you so surprised that these "attitudes" go back to the start of geocaching. Why would you be surprised that Dave Ulmer's wondert idea got a thumbs down.

 

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that there would be some demand for a way to share "wonderts" without the need to place or maintain a geocache. And I believe that there is a significant number of people who would prefer to use their GPS to go to interesting location where there is no hidden tupperware to find. The question is whether this noble activity belongs on a geocaching website or is better served by a different mechanism. The only reasons I see for having these two disparate activities combined are 1) to count visits to wonderts as finds in your imaginary geocaching score and 2) to be able to load both onto a GPS (or smartphone) using a single query.

 

Originally, I believe, Geocaching.com accepted virtuals because people wanted to place geocaches in area where it would be impractical to hide or maintain a geocache. Groundspeak thought that having some kind of thing they called a virtual cache would allow this and would help spread the adoption of geocaching. IMO, it was never meant to open Geoaching.com to the wonderful activity of sharing interesting location without placing caches. But it proved difficult to define the line between something meant as s substitute for a physical geocache and a wondert.

 

Groundspeak is happy to support wonderts and does so at www.wonderts.com. Clearly this doesn't help those who want to the opportunity to have a geocache substitute at a location where it's impractical to hide or maintain a geocache. But until you can give a good definition as to where to draw the line, don't expects wonderts to make a comeback at Geocaching.com.

[+B+L]

Why are you so surprised that these "attitudes" go back to the start of geocaching. Why would you be surprised that Dave Ulmer's wondert idea got a thumbs down.

 

It should be pretty obvious to anyone that there would be some demand for a way to share "wonderts" without the need to place or maintain a geocache. And I believe that there is a significant number of people who would prefer to use their GPS to go to interesting location where there is no hidden tupperware to find. The question is whether this noble activity belongs on a geocaching website or is better served by a different mechanism. The only reasons I see for having these two disparate activities combined are 1) to count visits to wonderts as finds in your imaginary geocaching score and 2) to be able to load both onto a GPS (or smartphone) using a single query.

 

Originally, I believe, Geocaching.com accepted virtuals because people wanted to place geocaches in area where it would be impractical to hide or maintain a geocache. Groundspeak thought that having some kind of thing they called a virtual cache would allow this and would help spread the adoption of geocaching. IMO, it was never meant to open Geoaching.com to the wonderful activity of sharing interesting location without placing caches. But it proved difficult to define the line between something meant as s substitute for a physical geocache and a wondert.

 

Groundspeak is happy to support wonderts and does so at www.wonderts.com. Clearly this doesn't help those who want to the opportunity to have a geocache substitute at a location where it's impractical to hide or maintain a geocache. But until you can give a good definition as to where to draw the line, don't expects wonderts to make a comeback at Geocaching.com.

if we boil this down, we end up with this:

 

Virtuals don't get approved anymore for because a few people decided virtuals weren't geocaches and that was that.

If you'd turn down the word faucet for second and actually read what I've said in this thread, (maybe) you wouldn't be telling me what *I* need to do to fix virtuals. I'm not interested.

[+tozainamboku]

 

if we boil this down, we end up with this:

 

Virtuals don't get approved anymore for because a few people decided virtuals weren't geocaches and that was that.

If you'd turn down the word faucet for second and actually read what I've said in this thread, (maybe) you wouldn't be telling me what *I* need to do to fix virtuals. I'm not interested.

To a degree what you are saying is correct, but I believe it's an oversimplification to say that TPTB did away with virtual caches because they didn't like 'em and decided they weren't really caches.

 

Much of the history of virtual caches on geocaching.com seem to have been trying to find ways to allow users to share interesting locations without hiding physical caches, if a physical container might not be appropriate at that location.

 

You may want to look at the sequence of events as evidence that Jeremy hates virtuals. I prefer to see it as an attempt to support both the users who want to share locations without hiding physical caches and the users who believe that the core of geocaching is to find hidden containers.

[+B+L]

Virtuals don't get approved anymore for because a few people decided virtuals weren't geocaches and that was that.

To a degree what you are saying is correct, but I believe it's an oversimplification to say that TPTB did away with virtual caches because they didn't like 'em and decided they weren't really caches.

...

 

You may want to look at the sequence of events as evidence that Jeremy hates virtuals. I prefer to see it as an attempt to support both the users who want to share locations without hiding physical caches and the users who believe that the core of geocaching is to find hidden containers.

The reviewers detested them. Jeremy said he doesn't know what one is. I'm not aware that he ever said he hated them. In fact, he has said he does not:

 

And I'm not a virtual cache hater. I just don't think they ever fit within the concept of a "cache."

That seems to support my conclusion, does it not?

 

If that's not convincing enough for you, try this:

 

We're making a firm stand now that a virtual cache is not a cache because it isn't.

Edited June 7, 2012 by B+L

[+hydnsek]

The reviewers detested them. Jeremy said he doesn't know what one is. I'm not aware that he ever said he hated them. In fact, he has said he does not:

 

And I'm not a virtual cache hater. I just don't think they ever fit within the concept of a "cache."

That seems to support my conclusion, does it not?

 

If that's not convincing enough for you, try this:

 

We're making a firm stand now that a virtual cache is not a cache because it isn't.

Yep, that's Jeremy's stance. He has elaborated along the lines of "The definition of 'cache' is a physical container, and a virtual geocache doesn't have a container. Therefore, it's not a cache. Geocaching is about finding physical containers." (I don't have the forum quote bookmarked, sorry.) This was the 'attitude' from the beginning of geocaching (as the Mike Teague quote indicates), so not really a later development, although Groundspeak did have an affair with virtuals for a few years.

Edited June 7, 2012 by hydnsek

[4wheelin_fool]

Virtuals don't get approved anymore for because a few people decided virtuals weren't geocaches and that was that.

 

You left out a few things. The sequence of events which was the catalyst. The constant debating over what is a cache. The arguements with reviewers. The geocides. The sneaker in the woods. The attempt to build Waymarking as a replacement. The smiley debate about keeping Waymarking separated from Geocaching. The subsequent creation of Challenges. The dead hooker in Reno..

[+hydnsek]

... The dead hooker in Reno.

Those Platinum Member parties do get out of hand, but HEY, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!

Edited June 7, 2012 by hydnsek

[cezanne]

The only reasons I see for having these two disparate activities combined are 1) to count visits to wonderts as finds in your imaginary geocaching score and 2) to be able to load both onto a GPS (or smartphone) using a single query.

 

I do not think these are the only reasons. Actually a common user interface is helpful regardless of the download process.

I would not like to go to 10 different shops spread around the city to buy the food I need for a week.

Certainly vinegar and milk are different, but it is nice to be able to get them in the same shop.

 

I'd like to see a combination, but I neither want that visits to containerless caches contribute to the find count for containers, nor do I personally care for downloading in a single query.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 7, 2012 by cezanne

[cezanne]

 

Each has their place and conditions where one would be more suitable than the others.

 

Each should count in my overall Groundspeak record, but each category (Geocache, Waymark, Challenge) should be separate unto itself.

 

I do see how Challenges could eventually become the replacement for virtuals, but the initial rollout left many of us with a really bad taste in our mouths. That combined with the (current) lack of ownership leaves a lot of work to be done on challenges before they have even a chance of acceptance by old-schoolers like me.

 

I like your whole posting and feel very similarly. I think your last sentence touches a key issue. Somehow it seems to me that Groundspeak tried to appeal to a new audience when introducing challenges and did not have in mind old-schoolers like you and me.

 

Ownership for challenges, a less restricted description length and other types of challenges (than photo challenges and the announced QR-challenges that imitate munzees) would be required. So far there is not a single piece of evidence that Groundspeak is willing to go in this direction. It rather seemed to me that the no ownership concept does not seem to be a matter for debate for Groundspeak.

I can live with their attitude that only caches with containers are geocaches (though I personally think differently), but I'd like them to understand that by leaving out containerless caches from Groundspeak, a vacuum results and there is a demand for a place where certain concepts of containerless caches fit into. Lack of ownership for challenges does not seem to make many people happy except probably people at Groundspeak.

 

Cezanne