Virtual Caches

December 13, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

...

Wow! I hope you don't have plannes to list a new cache any time soon. I suspect your "usualy within 3 days" just went up to 15 days.

Yup, how dare we disagree with the almighty reviewers.

3.3k · December 13, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

...

Wow! I hope you don't have plannes to list a new cache any time soon. I suspect your "usualy within 3 days" just went up to 15 days.

Yup, how dare we disagree with the almighty reviewers.

Just can't stop digging that hole huh? 25 days and counting?

December 13, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

...

Wow! I hope you don't have plannes to list a new cache any time soon. I suspect your "usualy within 3 days" just went up to 15 days.

Yup, how dare we disagree with the almighty reviewers.

Just can't stop digging that hole huh? 25 days and counting?

If such were the case, who is that really hurting? Me or the people who would be finding the cache? ANd i don't suspect the reviewers are that childish. I know some cahcers are and thenkfully they aren't reviewers.

And thank you for taking what I typed out of context, so well - you should go work for fox news.

Edited December 13, 2012 by nthacker66

4.2k · December 13, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

...

Wow! I hope you don't have plannes to list a new cache any time soon. I suspect your "usualy within 3 days" just went up to 15 days.

If (and I don't think they are) the reviewers would be that petty, then indeed, we do need fresh blood.

8k · December 13, 2012

For those who think that just having new reviewers just to deal with virtual caches, I've got news for you. I manage the Waymarking category "Best Kept Secrets". This is set up to be a lot like virtual caches with some specific requirements on the listing. Now being on Waymarking we don't get a lot submissions. Still end up approving less than half of them. Often these are locations that really aren't that secret but the real issues is that people don't pay attention the requirement that there be one or more questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.

Unlike traditional caches, Virtuals, EarthCaches, and most Waymarking categories have very specific requirements for the cache page. For a traditional hide, reviewers only need check the cache page to make sure the cache is not commercial, doesn't have an agenda, and doesn't require additional task beyond finding a cache and signing a log. For non-physical caches however there is usually a lot more required. It is expected that the cache page has some information about the location, and there should be additional tasks that serve in lieu of signing a log.

For example, EarthCaches must provide an educational opportunity related to earth sciences. I would imagine that the EarthCache reviewers might tell us that they reject the majority of submission becuase they are either not earth science related or the educational opportunity isn't emphasized. I suppose one could come up with guidelines for vitual cahes that the new volunteers will feel are as clear and easily interpreted as EarthCache requirements. But I'm fairly certain that even if this was doable, most caches submitted for review would not meet these requirements. The new reviewers would soon become disillusioned by the quality and as they try to enforce what to them are cleare guidelines, the hate mail and accusations of unfairness will start pouring in.

1.2k · December 13, 2012

For those who think that just having new reviewers just to deal with virtual caches, I've got news for you. I manage the Waymarking category "Best Kept Secrets". This is set up to be a lot like virtual caches with some specific requirements on the listing. Now being on Waymarking we don't get a lot submissions. Still end up approving less than half of them. Often these are locations that really aren't that secret but the real issues is that people don't pay attention the requirement that there be one or more questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.

Unlike traditional caches, Virtuals, EarthCaches, and most Waymarking categories have very specific requirements for the cache page. For a traditional hide, reviewers only need check the cache page to make sure the cache is not commercial, doesn't have an agenda, and doesn't require additional task beyond finding a cache and signing a log. For non-physical caches however there is usually a lot more required. It is expected that the cache page has some information about the location, and there should be additional tasks that serve in lieu of signing a log.

For example, EarthCaches must provide an educational opportunity related to earth sciences. I would imagine that the EarthCache reviewers might tell us that they reject the majority of submission becuase they are either not earth science related or the educational opportunity isn't emphasized. I suppose one could come up with guidelines for vitual cahes that the new volunteers will feel are as clear and easily interpreted as EarthCache requirements. But I'm fairly certain that even if this was doable, most caches submitted for review would not meet these requirements. The new reviewers would soon become disillusioned by the quality and as they try to enforce what to them are cleare guidelines, the hate mail and accusations of unfairness will start pouring in.

Great insight toz.

I for one have had more Waymarks rejected than I've had caches rejected.

I also haven't been able to have a EarthCache published.

I had a hard time publishing my one Virtual cache as the required verification information wasn't specific enough and was "Searchable".

On the other hand, if I base the thumbs up vote against the thumbs downs vote, I did pretty good with my Challenges. All of them were in the green, and that included the 2 or 3 "out-of-spite" thumbs down votes they received.

The last virtual that I completed that gave me a wow factor was one I found in 2005.

Most of the Virtual I've found (or haven't found) since then could easily be searched on the Internet, the CO hasn't logged in for years and there are spoilers all over the logs, or the "object of desire" is missing. (Yet, people still log it ... go figure)

I'm going to try an experiment, I going to look at the 10 nearest unfound Virtual caches from me that do not require a photograph, and see if I can Google the answer. I suspect that I will be able to get at least 50%. Just as a control, I'm going to look at the 10 closest Best Kept Secrets category and see how I do. I'm curious to see how everyone else does.

14k · December 14, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

That would also mean we'd be losing one of the most respected and experienced reviewer we have.

It has been mentioned before that perhaps a new system, not all that unlike GSA does with earth caches, be put in place for virtuals. Since most virtuals are historic places - perhaps a panel of reviewers could review submissions, again, like GSA does.

I've suggested that myself, but it's not going to happen unless some organization like the GSA steps up to the plate, proposes a reasonable set of guidelines, and offers to voluntarily perform the reviewing function.

1.2k · December 14, 2012

The "wow" requirement wasn't official yet, but many reviewers were already denying virtuals base on something like it.

Most reviewers were not using a "wow" requirement because that wasn't part of the vocabulary at the time. What many reviewers were doing was to take things in their own hands and implement a "not yuck" factor. That's why the rotting animal carcass, dirty sneaker in the woods and some other incredibly lame virtuals never saw the light of day. Not all reviewers were doing it though, as virtual quality was not a guideline.

I do not get it, what difference is with what we have now. We get plenty of yuck now. What is the difference if there is a logbook or not a location. I actually think that the game could increase in quality with virtuals. Like I said before, charge $10 each for them. I mean that - that is good money for ground speak and I would be more than willing to place as many as I could gladly paying the fee. You bet I would place them in great spots.

As far as reviewers threatening to walk out the door, that would not happen if it was done the way I just mentioned. I have some great ideas for virtuals using some new technology available with smart phones. They would NOT be plan old traditional virtuals, but educational in nature, teaching history and nature.

Too much stuck in the past with this subject! Time to get with the technology available.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Frank Broughton

21.9k · December 14, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

It has been mentioned before that perhaps a new system, not all that unlike GSA does with earth caches, be put in place for virtuals. Since most virtuals are historic places - perhaps a panel of reviewers could review submissions, again, like GSA does.

I think the fact that all of the knowledge and experience of the past is going to waste with not refining a better way to do something that it seems the community at lrage likes and has liked.

Your logic falls on its face in several respects:

1. By definition, all volunteer cache reviewers were "new blood" during the height of the "lame virtual" problem (2002-2005). I was very eager and honored to become a reviewer in 2003. Groundspeak's promise that the abuse would stop is what kept me from quitting. Here I am, ten years later. You're already on record as wanting for me to retire, so I take your comments with a rather large grain of salt.

2. Find an organization like GSA to provide expert professional guidance in an area other than geology -- like history -- and maybe we'll see HistoryCaches someday. Only those with an interest in history would look at submissions in that category, just like only geology buffs serve as EarthCache reviewers.

3. The average earthcache review takes way, way longer than the average geocache review. The community doesn't see the junk screened out in the review process. Watching that process from the inside, I'm reminded every day why it was a good idea to stop taking new virtual cache submissions.

December 14, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

That would also mean we'd be losing one of the most respected and experienced reviewer we have.

It has been mentioned before that perhaps a new system, not all that unlike GSA does with earth caches, be put in place for virtuals. Since most virtuals are historic places - perhaps a panel of reviewers could review submissions, again, like GSA does.

I've suggested that myself, but it's not going to happen unless some organization like the GSA steps up to the plate, proposes a reasonable set of guidelines, and offers to voluntarily perform the reviewing function.

I volunteer! I think it's worth it. I also think a limit on total number allowed by state to controll numbers and a very small window for submissions with the same thought, to controll overall numbers. Just thoughts. Not allowing unchecked submissions would help with the total numbers etc etc.

December 14, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

It has been mentioned before that perhaps a new system, not all that unlike GSA does with earth caches, be put in place for virtuals. Since most virtuals are historic places - perhaps a panel of reviewers could review submissions, again, like GSA does.

I think the fact that all of the knowledge and experience of the past is going to waste with not refining a better way to do something that it seems the community at lrage likes and has liked.

Your logic falls on its face in several respects:

1. By definition, all volunteer cache reviewers were "new blood" during the height of the "lame virtual" problem (2002-2005). I was very eager and honored to become a reviewer in 2003. Groundspeak's promise that the abuse would stop is what kept me from quitting. Here I am, ten years later. You're already on record as wanting for me to retire, so I take your comments with a rather large grain of salt.

2. Find an organization like GSA to provide expert professional guidance in an area other than geology -- like history -- and maybe we'll see HistoryCaches someday. Only those with an interest in history would look at submissions in that category, just like only geology buffs serve as EarthCache reviewers.

3. The average earthcache review takes way, way longer than the average geocache review. The community doesn't see the junk screened out in the review process. Watching that process from the inside, I'm reminded every day why it was a good idea to stop taking new virtual cache submissions.

I'm sorry this brings out so many bad memories. I just thought the concept deserved it! Again, I'm not picking on you. Honestly.

December 14, 2012

There were actually discussion in the forum that Jeremy actively participated in about what to do with virtuals with options ranging from archiving them altogether, moving them to Waymarking, or continuing with virtuals on Geocaching.com

The age of him actively participating has come and gone, eh?

I wish he would do this again.

It has been mentioned before that perhaps a new system, not all that unlike GSA does with earth caches, be put in place for virtuals. Since most virtuals are historic places - perhaps a panel of reviewers could review submissions, again, like GSA does.

I agree with this. Earth caches have reviewers that are experts. Get History or social studies experts to review them. Then Keysone wont have to leave.

3. The average earthcache review takes way, way longer than the average geocache review. The community doesn't see the junk screened out in the review process. Watching that process from the inside, I'm reminded every day why it was a good idea to stop taking new virtual cache submissions.

As a Platinum Earthcache master I can tell you this is right on the money. One of my Earthcaches took nearly two months to publish. Their is a high degree of quality control. This is good. I think the main route to new virturals is these X steps:

1- Limit how many virtual caches can be placed (X amount a year for paid users, fee to make a cache, ect.) to make people think if this place really warrants a virt.

2- Dedicated knowledgeable reviewers with a background in education, history or the like. Make people apply for this job. Make them prove their qualifications.

3- As toz has said come up with actual guidelines for them. See post 121.

Edited December 14, 2012 by releasethedogs

December 14, 2012

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

It has been mentioned before that perhaps a new system, not all that unlike GSA does with earth caches, be put in place for virtuals. Since most virtuals are historic places - perhaps a panel of reviewers could review submissions, again, like GSA does.

I think the fact that all of the knowledge and experience of the past is going to waste with not refining a better way to do something that it seems the community at lrage likes and has liked.

Your logic falls on its face in several respects:

1. By definition, all volunteer cache reviewers were "new blood" during the height of the "lame virtual" problem (2002-2005). I was very eager and honored to become a reviewer in 2003. Groundspeak's promise that the abuse would stop is what kept me from quitting. Here I am, ten years later. You're already on record as wanting for me to retire, so I take your comments with a rather large grain of salt.

2. Find an organization like GSA to provide expert professional guidance in an area other than geology -- like history -- and maybe we'll see HistoryCaches someday. Only those with an interest in history would look at submissions in that category, just like only geology buffs serve as EarthCache reviewers.

3. The average earthcache review takes way, way longer than the average geocache review. The community doesn't see the junk screened out in the review process. Watching that process from the inside, I'm reminded every day why it was a good idea to stop taking new virtual cache submissions.

So in your opinion, you believe that there is no "fix" for virtuals?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Bear5719

8k · December 14, 2012

I'm sorry this brings out so many bad memories. I just thought the concept deserved it! Again, I'm not picking on you. Honestly.

You don't have to apologize for pointing out why you like virtual caches and why you think they should be part of geocaching.

What many have done - from links to my post and video to Keystone sharing his experiences as reviewer - is to try and explain the reasons why Groundspeak made the decisions they did. What should be clear is that there is not any one reason, but many - so a solution that would allow new virtual caches to be published needs to address multiple issues. The solutions that Groundspeak has tried so far, tend to address some issue and not others. They have also brought their own issues - both by not being integrated enough with geocaching and by shifting some of the original problems so that they pop-up again in new places.

6.8k · December 14, 2012

2. Find an organization like GSA to provide expert professional guidance in an area other than geology -- like history -- and maybe we'll see HistoryCaches someday. Only those with an interest in history would look at submissions in that category, just like only geology buffs serve as EarthCache reviewers.

3. The average earthcache review takes way, way longer than the average geocache review. The community doesn't see the junk screened out in the review process. Watching that process from the inside, I'm reminded every day why it was a good idea to stop taking new virtual cache submissions.

I agree that a lot of work and effort goes into reviewing Earthcaches. I wonder however whether this effort is mainly needed due to the following three reasons

(1) there exists no other virtual cache type

(2) the existence of programs like the EC masters program

(3) the fact that ECs count as finds/hides on gc.com.

Many EC submittors are not really interested into teaching Earth science, but rather only in showing a location where they cannot/do not want to hide a container.

Typically, those who really want to teach something are quite familiar with the guidelines and need not be told the basic facts (of course they still might need help and advice as sometimes it can be very hard to come up with educative questions that cannot be answered without a visit to the location).

I'm used to having to weed out caches that are not attractive for me. As the crowd of those who are only interested into the hide and seek aspect of geocaching and/or are focused on numbers is quite large, I'm pretty much sure that at least in my area I would not mind if virtuals return without no review process and a separate counter. After the very first days my problem with challenges was not that lame submissions have been made (almost all of the shown locations could be classified as points of interest. My problem with challenges rather was that the limitations of the challenge system did not allow any challenges that could have mimicked the type of virtual that is attractive for me.

Personally, I do not have a need for an organization like the GSA involved in reviewing virtuals. The GSA takes the right to dictate which language cachers have to use for their EC submissions something I feel very uncomfortable about and which made me decide that I will never submit an EC (despite having several ideas).

Moreover, I'm very much attracted by caches that mix information from many fields and such constructions will never fit into a narrow EC-like concept. Virtuals give much more freedom.

Cezanne

Edited December 14, 2012 by cezanne

14k · December 14, 2012

I'm sorry this brings out so many bad memories. I just thought the concept deserved it! Again, I'm not picking on you. Honestly.

You don't have to apologize for pointing out why you like virtual caches and why you think they should be part of geocaching.

I agree. There has actually been quite a bit of proactive discussion in this thread, and the contributions from Toz and Keystone are important to illustrate what we're up against, if there is any chance of having some kind of virtual cache.

5.7k · December 14, 2012

I'm sorry this brings out so many bad memories. I just thought the concept deserved it! Again, I'm not picking on you. Honestly.

You don't have to apologize for pointing out why you like virtual caches and why you think they should be part of geocaching.

I agree. There has actually been quite a bit of proactive discussion in this thread, and the contributions from Toz and Keystone are important to illustrate what we're up against, if there is any chance of having some kind of virtual cache.

Virtual listings are very much part of geocaching to me, and I would like to see them listed here on this site.

December 14, 2012

Here's our two cents for what it is worth.

- We like to pursue the sorts caches that we like to do. We resent it when the company that organizes this offers them up and then takes them away. As you may have surmised, Virts are one of the sorts we like to do.

- Neither Waymarking, nor the now extinct Challenges, were truly substitutes for what virtuals were. There has been much discussion already about that, no need to re-hash it here. One of the key elements for us, having paid to be premium members since we started in 2005, if memory serves, is to have a one stop shopping where all of our "language of location" needs are met. For us that means all finds count in one place. Not interested in going to another website with separate counts (Waymarking, benchmarks), or having two tallies (Challenges). Not interested in going to the other non-Groundspeak sites for geocaching that provide some of these services as well. We'd like to have one stop shopping at WWW.Geocaching.com. That is what we want to pay for, and we'd be willing to suck up a little more cost, if only Groundspeak would be willing to provide it. Mr. Irish & Co. this bullet is aimed directly at you.

- We find it interesting that there has been so little mention of the one sort of virtual cache that is still still permitted, earth caches, in this discussion. We believe that earth caches offer the template for how a variety of categories of virtual caches might be re-introduced. Think Historocache, Memorialcache, as two examples. Virtuals which have specific and measurable requirements that must be met in order to get approved. Not some undefinable "WOW" factor.

Lastly, we'd reiterate that we all should be able to choose to pursue what caches we like. If you can't stomach a hide that has no container, then just ignore those, much like we do with most puzzle caches. But to the powers that be, we'd offer that it is counter productive to limit our choices.

Happy hunting all, whatever it is you search for!

Excellent post. Summarises the situation perfectly.

8k · December 14, 2012

Here's our two cents for what it is worth.

- We like to pursue the sorts caches that we like to do. We resent it when the company that organizes this offers them up and then takes them away. As you may have surmised, Virts are one of the sorts we like to do.

- Neither Waymarking, nor the now extinct Challenges, were truly substitutes for what virtuals were. There has been much discussion already about that, no need to re-hash it here. One of the key elements for us, having paid to be premium members since we started in 2005, if memory serves, is to have a one stop shopping where all of our "language of location" needs are met. For us that means all finds count in one place. Not interested in going to another website with separate counts (Waymarking, benchmarks), or having two tallies (Challenges). Not interested in going to the other non-Groundspeak sites for geocaching that provide some of these services as well. We'd like to have one stop shopping at WWW.Geocaching.com. That is what we want to pay for, and we'd be willing to suck up a little more cost, if only Groundspeak would be willing to provide it. Mr. Irish & Co. this bullet is aimed directly at you.

- We find it interesting that there has been so little mention of the one sort of virtual cache that is still still permitted, earth caches, in this discussion. We believe that earth caches offer the template for how a variety of categories of virtual caches might be re-introduced. Think Historocache, Memorialcache, as two examples. Virtuals which have specific and measurable requirements that must be met in order to get approved. Not some undefinable "WOW" factor.

Lastly, we'd reiterate that we all should be able to choose to pursue what caches we like. If you can't stomach a hide that has no container, then just ignore those, much like we do with most puzzle caches. But to the powers that be, we'd offer that it is counter productive to limit our choices.

Happy hunting all, whatever it is you search for!

Excellent post. Summarises the situation perfectly.

No it doesn't. It summarizes the feelings of some segment of the geocaching population. It may be the feelings of a significant portion of the geocaching community, but that isn't clear.

One can read it a series of demands. I would hope that most people would be satisfied with some sort of compromise. While the compromises the have been offered thus far have not worked, I am not convinced that a compromise can not be found.

Addressing the issues in the post:

I resent it as well when Groundspeak doesn't allow me to do the kinds of cache cache I enjoy most. I like to find buried caches but unfortunately they aren't allowed. Virtual caches may not cause the same problems as buried caches, but in the opinion of Groundspeak they did cause several problems. The decision to granfather existing ones when new ones were no longer allowed was alread a compromise.

Groundspeak has chosen to have one user account work across all its sites. Premium membership on one gives you premium membership on all. Certainly they are aware that there are Geocaching members that don't care to use the other sites, but their business model is to spread the language of location across diffent web sites each oriented to a different aspect.

It is true that they have failed in integrating these sites so that when a user views their account the can see their activity on all sites. And since several activities involve loading the coordinates into a GPS or using a smartphone app to find the closest coordinates to visit (whether a geocache or a waymark), the lack of integration is particularly frustating for those who do like to combine these activities. I also understand that Waymarking is fundamentally different that geocaching, yet many virtual caches still had a geocaching quality, and people who enjoy finding these virtual caches may have an issue with visiting waymarks that don't present a particular challenge or learning opportunity.

EarthCaches are often brought up in these dicussions. My impression is that Grounspeak would just as soon have EarthCaches move to Waymarking. That was the original idea. However, after some pushback from EarthCache owners, EarthCache.org was able to use their agreement with Groundspeak to list EarthCaches on Geocaching.com. I think is unlikely that Groundspeak would have a agreement with another group that didn't include a clause allowing Groundspeak to move listings to a different site.

Finally, I'd like to know what are the specific and measurable requirements you want to propose for virtual caches? Even if you limit virtuals to History caches and Memorial caches you face the issue of what history is significant enough. Hey, the house I lived in as a child is part of my family history, shouldn't I be allowed to make it a History cache. And what meemorials are allowed in a memorial cache. Can I list my grandfather's tombstone (he was somwhat famous, at least my sister-in-law found a story about him in the New York Times archives)?

Even EarthCache have a lot of controversy over just what Earth science is and whether or not the cache page provides an educational experience. It only works because the Earth cache reviewers have a special interest and expertise in Earth sciences.

4.1k · December 15, 2012

EarthCaches are often brought up in these dicussions. My impression is that Grounspeak would just as soon have EarthCaches move to Waymarking. That was the original idea. However, after some pushback from EarthCache owners, EarthCache.org was able to use their agreement with Groundspeak to list EarthCaches on Geocaching.com. I think is unlikely that Groundspeak would have a agreement with another group that didn't include a clause allowing Groundspeak to move listings to a different site.

I agree with most of what you say -- as well as some of what the previous post said as well. Geoaware (Gary Lewis) has often suggested that if people want other types of caches using the same model as earthcaches, they should do what the GSA did -- find the backing of a professional organization and make Groundspeak a proposal. He has emphasized that Groundspeak has been partners in the concept from the beginning and without their support, of course, it could never have been developed.

According to one interview with Gary, Groundspeak made the decision to move earthcaches from Waymarking back to this site. I am not sure how much the GSA "pushed back" as opposed to refining the concept to make earthcaches work better on this site.

At the birth of Waymarking, EarthCaches were copied over as a category. They sat there for quite a period and did not really grow substantially in number or in visitation. After a period of time, Groundspeak made the decision to bring EarthCaches back to be a part of their educational side of geocaching. At the same time we made changes to the guidelines – in particular those related to the development of educational logging tasks. Since then, EarthCache numbers exploded and visitation rose exponentially. It was a win-win for all.

Without that kind of approach, I think Toz is right about the difficulties of making a history or memorial cache category.

Virtual caching has taken me to historic amd prehistoric sites - from the birthplace of the Martini to standing stones and neolithic barrows. But as much as I love the idea of history caches in theory, I have seen countless plaques that talk about something that happened, but shed very little light on the real history of an area -- and even less light on something that might have greater significance. Perhaps equally important, whose history do you believe? I like Howard Zinn's take on history, but there are some cachers that might prefer to talk about the War Against Northern Aggression.

I also enjoying visiting memorials. Without virtuals, I never would have seen the final resting place of Babe Ruth or Marilyn Monroe, a memorial to somebody who enjoyed driving a big car, and probably not noticed some of the aspects of national memorials that caching pointed out. But as Toz points out, it can get complicated really fast.

I still think that virtuals could be developed in a way to encompass the best of these things, but I also recognize that if it were easy to do, virtuals might still be a growing part of this site.

Edited December 15, 2012 by geodarts

December 15, 2012

Here's our two cents for what it is worth.

- We like to pursue the sorts caches that we like to do. We resent it when the company that organizes this offers them up and then takes them away. As you may have surmised, Virts are one of the sorts we like to do.

- Neither Waymarking, nor the now extinct Challenges, were truly substitutes for what virtuals were. There has been much discussion already about that, no need to re-hash it here. One of the key elements for us, having paid to be premium members since we started in 2005, if memory serves, is to have a one stop shopping where all of our "language of location" needs are met. For us that means all finds count in one place. Not interested in going to another website with separate counts (Waymarking, benchmarks), or having two tallies (Challenges). Not interested in going to the other non-Groundspeak sites for geocaching that provide some of these services as well. We'd like to have one stop shopping at WWW.Geocaching.com. That is what we want to pay for, and we'd be willing to suck up a little more cost, if only Groundspeak would be willing to provide it. Mr. Irish & Co. this bullet is aimed directly at you.

- We find it interesting that there has been so little mention of the one sort of virtual cache that is still still permitted, earth caches, in this discussion. We believe that earth caches offer the template for how a variety of categories of virtual caches might be re-introduced. Think Historocache, Memorialcache, as two examples. Virtuals which have specific and measurable requirements that must be met in order to get approved. Not some undefinable "WOW" factor.

Lastly, we'd reiterate that we all should be able to choose to pursue what caches we like. If you can't stomach a hide that has no container, then just ignore those, much like we do with most puzzle caches. But to the powers that be, we'd offer that it is counter productive to limit our choices.

Happy hunting all, whatever it is you search for!

Excellent post. Summarises the situation perfectly.

No it doesn't. It summarizes the feelings of some segment of the geocaching population. It may be the feelings of a significant portion of the geocaching community, but that isn't clear.

--snip

Finally, I'd like to know what are the specific and measurable requirements you want to propose for virtual caches? Even if you limit virtuals to History caches and Memorial caches you face the issue of what history is significant enough. Hey, the house I lived in as a child is part of my family history, shouldn't I be allowed to make it a History cache. And what meemorials are allowed in a memorial cache. Can I list my grandfather's tombstone (he was somwhat famous, at least my sister-in-law found a story about him in the New York Times archives)?

I thought a good deal of your post made a lot of sense, but I presume you are being flippant with the last part. One of the problems with caching is that it is set up for the US, the rest of the world (possibly excluding Canada) is a very poor relation. There are at least 4 cache icon types you can only get by visiting the US/Canada and 3 of those require more than one visit to Seattle, WA.

Again with Virtuals there are a lot in the US, but very few in the rest of the world. Why not share some of the love? If Groundspeak think there are too many virtuals, they obviously haven't tried doing much caching in Europe (or elsewhere in the World for that matter). There are very few Virtuals outside of North America. It's perfectly possible to limit virtuals by density. I know local reviewers that are very pro virtuals and their reintroduction - unlike their US colleagues.

When it comes to History caches it would be very easy to set these in Europe, but harder in the US purely because there is more surviving human related history in Europe than there is in the US. This would help re-address some of the balance. A quick google shows my home town has listed buildings from the 14th Century onwards. This isn't at all uncommon throughout Europe. As caching is *supposed* to be a Worldwide sport why not factor in the rest of the World and allow it to equalise a little with the US? If something really is historical, a very quick google will soon tell a reviewer whether it is or not.

Groundspeak have been asking for a long time now how to improve caching. They are very aware of the dumbed down nature of many recent hides. Carefully considered virtuals will certainly help to reverse this situation.

2.1k · December 15, 2012

...The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

Does any more than this really need to be said? It was a nightmare.

And the "new blood" suggestion does not take into account that however many new quidelines you can imagine might work for virtual cache "wow" factor reviewers will still get bucket loads of carp from cachers unhappy that their lame virtual cache was not listed.

We have a Prime Directive. A geocache must include a container and a logsheet. There are the few notable and heavily discussed exceptions. We don't need another category of exception to the Prime Directive.

4.1k · December 15, 2012

...The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

Does any more than this really need to be said? It was a nightmare.

And the "new blood" suggestion does not take into account that however many new quidelines you can imagine might work for virtual cache "wow" factor reviewers will still get bucket loads of carp from cachers unhappy that their lame virtual cache was not listed.

We have a Prime Directive. A geocache must include a container and a logsheet. There are the few notable and heavily discussed exceptions. We don't need another category of exception to the Prime Directive.

It indeed sounds like a nightmare. Because virtuals have enhanced this game so much for me, I appreciate the work that reviewers went through to ensure that there are some fine ones out there, that rank at the top of my caching experience. It is hard for me to imagine that people would be emotionally tied into a cache submission that they would subject reviewers to hate mail or flame messages, but then again given my line of work I have to say that nothing people do surprises me.

Nevertheless, I am not sure who issued a Prime Directive. Federations make me nervous. Ultimately, we are talking about what can be included on a listing service rather than a tablet of stone. My Prime may be different than your Directive. All I know is that caching would not have been as interesting without virtuals. And that virtuals rank among the best of my caching experience. Would I implement them as before? Of course not. Can they be implemented without the problems of the past? I think there are ways to do that that would be worth exploring.

Edited December 15, 2012 by geodarts

8k · December 15, 2012

[quote name='Team Sagefox' timestamp='1355539296' post='5171520'

[snip]

We have a Prime Directive. A geocache must include a container and a logsheet. There are the few notable and heavily discussed exceptions. We don't need another category of exception to the Prime Directive.

[snip]

Nevertheless, I am not sure who issued a Prime Directive. Federations make me nervous. Ultimately, we are talking about what can be included on a listing service rather than a tablet of stone. My Prime may be different than your Directive. All I know is that caching would not have been as interesting without virtuals. And that virtuals rank among the best of my caching experience. Would I implement them as before? Of course not. Can they be implemented without the problems of the past? I think there are ways to do that that would be worth exploring.

What Team Sagefox calls the prime directive only applies to physical caches. The reasons for it is because people have tried to use he tradition physical listing (as well as mutli caches and mystery caches) as a way to get around the limits on placing virtual caches. Quite often it was when a physical container went missing and instead of replacing it, the owner would provide some alternative logging method.

There is no fundamental reason that a cache needs to have a container or a log. However, another problem that some see as the result of virtual caches has been the idea that is you don't want to replace a missing container (or hide one in the first place) you can somehow keep your cache listing by providing a substitute definition of Found. The guideline to have a container and a log sheet, provides the reviewers as way to archive these "caches".

It is the desire to have caches where you don't have to maintain your container or log that create the most problems with virtuals. I would think that a fee to hide a virtual would limit their use for this purpose. But it could be that for some people $10 or $20 would not be too much of a cost to be able to have a cache where you never have to go back and replace the container or log.

Edited December 15, 2012 by tozainamboku

December 15, 2012

This is a little some thing I came up with tonight. Took me only a few hours and no resources other than my time. It is meant as a proof of concept to illustrate how virtual caches could be brought back. It is not meant as a finished product but simply a starting point. *Constructive*, *polite* criticism is welcome.

Geocaching Virtual Cache Type Charter

Section I. Definition of Virtual type geocaches

Article 1 – “Cultural Sites”

For the purposes of this document, the following shall be considered as "cultural sites":

~~~>•a. Cultural monuments: Sites that commemorate an event with outstanding value to local, national, regional or world history or science.

~~~~~~~>oExample: Utah beach in Normandy France. There is nothing architecturally important about this site. The reason it is important is because of the events that happened here.

~~~>•b. Cultural areas: The works of humans or the joint works of humans and nature; archaeological areas which are a outstanding value to the local, national, regional or world history from a historical or anthropological point of view.

~~~~~~~>oExample: Montezuma Castle National Monument in Arizona, USA. This is not a monument but a piece of history left behind by humanity. A feat of humanity and nature working together.

Article 2 – “Artistic Sites”

For the purposes of this document, the following shall be considered as "artistic sites":

~~~>•Artistic monuments: Works of architecture, sculpture, paintings, inscriptions or cave dwellings which are an outstanding value to local, national, regional, religious or world history, art or science.

~~~~~~~>oExample: African Renaissance Monument in Dakar, Sengal. This monument celebrates the African Renaissance, the concept that African people and nations have started to overcome the current challenges confronting the continent and achieve cultural, scientific, economic, etc. renewal.

Section II. Educational Program

Article 3 – Historical properties

A virtual cache must have local, national, regional or world historical relevance: an event of some sort; a discovery, a battle, a meeting/conference, a performance, a creation, a first (As in first airplane flight.), ect.

Article 4 – Educational properties

A virtual cache must provide a simple but accurate explanation of the historical event that occurred at the site, as well as the historical importance of the site. They should be written at a reading level equal to an upper middle school student (14 years old) assuming no prior knowledge of the event or its consequences. All statements must be cited and works given at the end of the cache description.

Article 4 – Challenge questions

To certify that a person did in fact visit the site, challenge questions are necessary. Between 1-5 questions are important and should focus on information available at the site. The questions should be written so that internet research is not sufficient to log the cache. In addition to the questions that are mandatory, a photo can also be required. Answers to challenge questions must be provided to reviewers before publication.

Article 5 – Languages

The language of historical research and journals is English, as a consequence all virtual caches must be written in English. We highly recommend that descriptions be written in addition to English in a language common to the area.

Article 6 – Geological sites

Locations that are more of a geological or earth science focus are not appropriate for a virtual cache. Please make an earth cache.

Section III. Placement, Logging and Maintaining virtual geocaches

Article 5 – Placement

~~~>a. fee: Unlike other geocaches virtual caches are not free to make. Virtual geocaches can only be created by buying a creation code, such codes are available in the online store for $10.

~~~>b. authors: In addition to the fee, only premium members are given the privilege to create virtual geocaches.

~~~>c.permission: A virtual caches respect private land. Cache authors must seek approval for landowners/managers or provide information showing the site is on public land.

~~~>d.appropriate placement: Virtual caches are only appropriate where leaving a physical container is not feasible for reasons of safety, law, environmental or practicality. Cache authors are expected to write a convincing explanation of why a physical cache is not possible.

Article 5 – Logging

A virtual cache can only be logged after physically visiting the site, the answers (and photo if required) are sent to the cache owner and they have given you permission to log. All logs that do not follow this guideline should be deleted.

Article 6 – “couch potato” logs

A cache owner is required to reasonably investigate any suspicious logs and delete any that are fraudulent. This may includes asking additional extra questions if necessary. If the log is a couch potato log it should be deleted to maintain integrity.

Article 7 – maintenance

Cache owner is required to not only maintain the integrity of the logs on his/her virtual cache but also the integrity of the place its self. Cache owners agree to disable and/or archive the cache if the site become dangerous or otherwise harmful to the site or the environment.

Article 8 – reviewers

Virtual caches should not be forced upon volunteer cache reviewers. Instead a team of virtual reviewers with a background in history, social studies and similar subjects should be assembled. These reviewers should only reviewer virtual caches.

3.7k · December 15, 2012

Good work, releasethedogs.

It sounds to me like you are wanting something like earth caches, but with a focus on the historical significance of the location, rather than the geology.

My proposal: call them History Caches. They would need separate reviewers and questions to answer, as Earth Caches have.

December 15, 2012

Good work, releasethedogs.

It sounds to me like you are wanting something like earth caches, but with a focus on the historical significance of the location, rather than the geology.

historical is fine but other things are possible and can be written into the charter

My proposal: call them History Caches. They would need separate reviewers and questions to answer, as Earth Caches have.

I think we should keep the name virtual cache because other focuses are possible.

already in the charter please see article 8

3.7k · December 15, 2012

Good work, releasethedogs.

It sounds to me like you are wanting something like earth caches, but with a focus on the historical significance of the location, rather than the geology.

historical is fine but other things are possible and can be written into the charter

My proposal: call them History Caches. They would need separate reviewers and questions to answer, as Earth Caches have.

I think we should keep the name virtual cache because other focuses are possible.

already in the charter please see article 8

I realize you mentioned some other things besides history.

One thing I do know, however, is that we'd have to come up with a different name. I think there are just too many negative feelings associated with virtuals. Grounspeak has already stated they're not bringing virtuals back.

I think if we focussed on something with a different name and 1 specific focus such as history or art or culture perhaps we'd get further.

December 15, 2012

The thing is "history" is such a large umbrella. That is why I wrote the charter the way I did. This way you can make a virt about some local history as well as national history, regional history or world history. But you can't make a cache about your grandfather unless he did something important and can show it had some sort of major effect of the local area and there is a physical place to go (no your front yard does not count). I think i made it clear the place must be some sort of monument or plaque, ect.

Still I don;t like the name history cache. Sounds forced.

Also, this may be a little off topic but id like to see Webcam, locationless, virtual, earthcache as well as any future virtual style cache lumped together on the profile under "containerless" (or similar) like events are.

Edited December 15, 2012 by releasethedogs

6.8k · December 15, 2012

This is a little some thing I came up with tonight. Took me only a few hours and no resources other than my time. It is meant as a proof of concept to illustrate how virtual caches could be brought back. It is not meant as a finished product but simply a starting point. *Constructive*, *polite* criticism is welcome.

I will not comment on the details of your concept, but will just mention that I neither would be willing to submit a virtual along these lines (the fee is only one of the no go aspects for me) nor do I believe that I many virtuals that are attractive to me would result in my area.

Moreover, too much remembers me of the EC guidelines, like having to focus on the level of 14 years old. That's part of the EC program as they want to keep the program open for as many people as possible and their goal is to educate as many as possible and thus they have to lower the level. Personally, I prefer to offer caches that are interesting to a small group who then will really appreciate what is offered and not something that appeals a little bit to almost everyone. What I write does not mean that I have a scenario in mind where all virtuals are like those I would want to implement. It rather means that I'd like to have a niche for this kind of virtual as well.

To sum up, as said before, I prefer virtuals that get a separate counter, are not reviewed and are very flexible. As soon as virtuals do not count together with caches with containers,

Cezanne

Edited December 15, 2012 by cezanne

2.1k · December 15, 2012

Article 1 – Cultural Sites

Article 2 – Artistic Sites

Article 3 – Historical properties

Article 4 – Educational properties

I appreciate the time and thought you put into this and I gave it an open mind, trying to make it work for me - or, more importantly, work for reviewers.

I don't see how this will solve the problem of people's subjective ideas about what constitutes adequate Sites and Properties. I fear too many people will, again, submit less than adequate proposals and then tear into the reviewers for denying them.

Virtual caches are only appropriate where leaving a physical container is not feasible for reasons of safety, law, environmental or practicality. Cache authors are expected to write a convincing explanation of why a physical cache is not possible.

This, too, will create headaches for the reviewers who will not be able to verify the conditions.

Article 5 – Logging
A virtual cache can only be logged after physically visiting the site, the answers (and photo if required) are sent to the cache owner and they have given you permission to log. All logs that do not follow this guideline should be deleted.

Article 6 – couch potato

A cache owner is required to reasonably investigate any suspicious logs and delete any that are fraudulent. This may includes asking additional extra questions if necessary. If the log is a couch potato log it should be deleted to maintain integrity.

Article 7 – maintenance

Cache owner is required to not only maintain the integrity of the logs on his/her virtual cache but also the integrity of the place its self. Cache owners agree to disable and/or archive the cache if the site become dangerous or otherwise harmful to the site or the environment.

The snarky answer here would be "and how did that work out for you the first time?"

On the not-snarky side, virtual caches were too easy to walk away from when the C/O's lost interest in the game. With a physical cache folks will start complaining when maintenance is non-existent and the caches eventually succumb to peer pressure and the Needs Archived button.

Article 8 – reviewers
Virtual caches should not be forced upon volunteer cache reviewers. Instead a team of virtual reviewers with a background in history, social studies and similar subjects should be assembled. These reviewers should only reviewer virtual caches.

Changing the title of those who review these caches will not lessen the grief they will be subject to. The very fact that these reviewers are specialists, which would be good for the cause, will likely result in more denials.

December 15, 2012

This is a little some thing I came up with tonight. Took me only a few hours and no resources other than my time. It is meant as a proof of concept to illustrate how virtual caches could be brought back. It is not meant as a finished product but simply a starting point. *Constructive*, *polite* criticism is welcome.

I will not comment on the details of your concept, but will just mention that I neither would be willing to submit a virtual along these lines (the fee is only one of the no go aspects for me) nor do I believe that I many virtuals that are attractive to me would result in my area.

Moreover, too much remembers me of the EC guidelines, like having to focus on the level of 14 years old. That's part of the EC program as they want to keep the program open for as many people as possible and their goal is to educate as many as possible and thus they have to lower the level. Personally, I prefer to offer caches that are interesting to a small group who then will really appreciate what is offered and not something that appeals a little bit to almost everyone. What I write does not mean that I have a scenario in mind where all virtuals are like those I would want to implement. It rather means that I'd like to have a niche for this kind of virtual as well.

To sum up, as said before, I prefer virtuals that get a separate counter, are not reviewed and are very flexible. As soon as virtuals do not count together with caches with containers,

Cezanne

Yes, you have already made it clear what you want. As for what makes an interesting virtual cache I think we can agree to disagree. Some thing I think we can both agree on is that virtual caches as the majority of people want are not for you. Virtual caches need to be treated like actual geocaches. This is why challenges failed. This means they need to be integrated into the site. They need to be reviewed. They need ownership. They need to be on the map and they need to count toward your find total. Other wise they are challenges with another name.

Article 1 – Cultural Sites

Article 2 – Artistic Sites

Article 3 – Historical properties

Article 4 – Educational properties

I appreciate the time and thought you put into this and I gave it an open mind, trying to make it work for me - or, more importantly, work for reviewers.

I don't see how this will solve the problem of people's subjective ideas about what constitutes adequate Sites and Properties. I fear too many people will, again, submit less than adequate proposals and then tear into the reviewers for denying them.

Virtual caches are only appropriate where leaving a physical container is not feasible for reasons of safety, law, environmental or practicality. Cache authors are expected to write a convincing explanation of why a physical cache is not possible.

This, too, will create headaches for the reviewers who will not be able to verify the conditions.

Article 5 – Logging
A virtual cache can only be logged after physically visiting the site, the answers (and photo if required) are sent to the cache owner and they have given you permission to log. All logs that do not follow this guideline should be deleted.

Article 6 – couch potato

A cache owner is required to reasonably investigate any suspicious logs and delete any that are fraudulent. This may includes asking additional extra questions if necessary. If the log is a couch potato log it should be deleted to maintain integrity.

Article 7 – maintenance

Cache owner is required to not only maintain the integrity of the logs on his/her virtual cache but also the integrity of the place its self. Cache owners agree to disable and/or archive the cache if the site become dangerous or otherwise harmful to the site or the environment.

The snarky answer here would be "and how did that work out for you the first time?"

On the not-snarky side, virtual caches were too easy to walk away from when the C/O's lost interest in the game. With a physical cache folks will start complaining when maintenance is non-existent and the caches eventually succumb to peer pressure and the Needs Archived button.

Article 8 – reviewers
Virtual caches should not be forced upon volunteer cache reviewers. Instead a team of virtual reviewers with a background in history, social studies and similar subjects should be assembled. These reviewers should only reviewer virtual caches.

Changing the title of those who review these caches will not lessen the grief they will be subject to. The very fact that these reviewers are specialists, which would be good for the cause, will likely result in more denials.

Archiving caches is part of the game. Nothing wrong with that. If some one walks away from their commitment then they are taking a chance their cache will be archived. How is this any different than ANY other cache type?

I think that I have successfully defined what a cache is to eliminate subjective caches. A beautiful view is not covered under the charter I wrote. Some dead animals in someones back yard is not covered. You can't prove these things are historical. A memorial to a local hero who did something for your town? sure! This is great so long as you can write an education lesson that teaches what this person did and why it is important. If I am missing your point please respectfully explain to me how I got it wrong, that way we can fix it.

As far as the placement the goes this is basically on the cache owner's word that another cache type could not be placed there. This gives the powers that be an possible reason for archival if the cache becomes a problem. I believe that this wont be a problem if their is a fee. Why would some one pay to put a cache where they could put a regular in the same place for free? They wouldn't and if they do, thats fine so long as it does not become a problem and it meets all the rest of the guidelines. Still you are taking a chance and your cache could be archived at any time. Why take the chance and loose your money, use a regular instead.

As far as abuse goes, anyone who would accept a position as a reviewer obviously would know what the job entails. This would be made clear before they were given their powers. If the answers suck the reviewer just needs to respectfully explain what they can do to fix it. Done.

I am a teacher. I knew going into to the job that I would work long hours for very little pay and respect. I don't do the job for money, or so parents who don't even have a high school education can tell me I am an idiot and don't know how to teach. I do it because I enjoy helping kids learn and making a difference. Unlike many parents, people who tear into reviewers are not angry at the reviewer they are just frustrated their cache did not go through. They are frustrated because it feels like all their hard world is for nothing. We need reviewers who can work WITH the cache authors and patiently explain what is not up to speed and realize the personal attacks are not personal. I own several earthcaches, I recently had a guy whose answers were pitiful. It took a lot of patience on my part and over 15 emails over the course of about 12 days for him to submit acceptable answers. This is the kind of person id recommend to be a reviewer in general and for the possible new virtual caches. I am not saying I should be a reviewer, just some one with qualities and qualifications similar to mine.

Edited December 15, 2012 by releasethedogs

6.8k · December 15, 2012

Yes, you have already made it clear what you want. As for what makes an interesting virtual cache I think we can agree to disagree. Some thing I think we can both agree on is that virtual caches as the majority of people want are not for you.

It depends on the region. In my country the majority of those who are interested into virtual caches at all (the clear minority of the overall caching population), have an interest into complex caches with multi and mystery aspects.

Virtual caches need to be treated like actual geocaches. This is why challenges failed.

This means they need to be integrated into the site. They need to be reviewed. They need ownership. They need to be on the map and they need to count toward your find total. Other wise they are challenges with another name.

I do not agree. I agree that virtuals should share all properties of a geocache except for the review process and the fact that I they should have a separate counter (the same would make sense for ECs as well).

Ownership and integration into maps is something I asked for already when challenges showed up.

I have a strong interest into virtual caches since the very beginning and the reason why I was very unhappy with challenges was not the lacking review and the separate counter, but that the system did not allow anything of interest for non-tourists.

The challenges in my area were not of bad quality, they were just not attractive to visit for locals at all. So this demonstrates that as soon as virtuals do not appeal to numbers people, a review process is not necessary in my area. I'm well aware that geocaching in North America and in my home country are very different. My own virtual from 2003 is one of only two real virtuals that have ever existed in the whole country. The logs I receive for my virtual and for my other caches that are directed to a special audience do show me that there is a local audience for the type of virtual I have in mind while the only reason why local cachers would do a virtual at a sight that have passed thousands of times in their lives and know everything about would be to remove the virtual from the map and to increase their find counter resulting into TFTV logs.

In my opinion, Waymarking is quite well suited for virtuals of a simple structure. The same was true for challenges. As soon as one has more complex structures in mind, the situation changes and there is no offer at all.

I cannot imagine a single cacher in my area who is not focused on numbers that would be willing to pay for submitting a virtual. This is a more a matter of principle and philosophy than a financial matter. Again cultural differences play an essential role.

Cezanne

9.3k · December 15, 2012

I think that I have successfully defined what a cache is to eliminate subjective caches.

I would argue that you have not.

A common fallacy for those who wish to restore Virtual caches is that subjectivity can be eliminated by the lengthy wording of guidelines. Your constant repetition of the phrase "outstanding value" demonstrates this perfectly. Who gets to decide what constitutes outstanding value? If we leave this up to the players, we'll have more rotting deer carcasses and lonely sneakers, as I can most certainly articulate a reason why both would have outstanding value to local history. If we leave this up to the Reviewers, then we are right back at square one, with an angst generating "Wow!" factor.

You could make the guidelines as lengthy as the New York City phone book, and so long as you leave any portion up to subjective values, such as those used in your earlier proposal, the process is doomed to failure.

14k · December 15, 2012

I realize you mentioned some other things besides history.

One thing I do know, however, is that we'd have to come up with a different name. I think there are just too many negative feelings associated with virtuals. Grounspeak has already stated they're not bringing virtuals back.

I think if we focussed on something with a different name and 1 specific focus such as history or art or culture perhaps we'd get further.

First, thanks to releasethedogs for initiating this. It looks like a good start.

I don't think that there are a log of negative feelings towards the virtual caches which still remain. In fact, they typically have much high favorite percentages than other cache types. Although Groundspeak has said that the would not bring virtuals back, that was before they eliminated challenges. The last time I saw a statement from someone from Groundspeak that indicated that they would not bring back virtuals it was in a post which also indicated that the were going to focus on Challenges instead and that they would be evolving. With the demise of Challenge I suspect that some here feel that the door to a reinstatement of virtual caches has opened up a crack.

I think that there would likely be some confusion between the existing virtual caches and any sort of new proposal because all those grandfathered virtuals are still going to be out there. The proposal should address grandfathered virtuals in some way, even if the new cache type is not called a Virtual. Likewise, something about waymarks and how they are distinct from the new virtuals (for one thing, I presume the new virts would could as a find) should be made.

A few other observations:

"A virtual cache must have local, national, regional or world historical relevance: an event of some sort; a discovery, a battle, a meeting/conference, a performance, a creation, a first (As in first airplane flight.), etc."

One possibility here would be to require some sort of proof of the locations historical value. Most historical locations are recognized with some sort of plaque that indicates that it has been officially designated a historical location a worldwide (i.e. ww heritages sites), national, regional, or local level. Perhaps there is an "official web site" which identifies a location as historical. The inclusion of "meeting/conference or performance" would seem to open up the historical section in the proposal to a lot of events that many would not really consider historical. Would a bar where Bruce Springsteen played be considered historical? I visited a hotel in Wageningen, Netherlands that doesn't look like much from the outside but it was the site of a meeting which took place May 5th, 1945 for the official surrender of the Germans to the allies. I could see that as a historical and educational virt, but can think of lots of examples of meetings/conference which would have little or no historical significance.

I would question the necessity of requiring a fee. Since the proposal has a lot of similarities to requirements for an earth cache, I think earth caches can also be used a precedent the overall quality that can be achieved with requiring a fee. Consider that if a fee is required a fair amount of software development would be required for payment handling, linking it to the reviewer workflow, etc.

There should be something in the guidelines regarding proximity to other caches and other guidelines which might apply/or do not apply to new virtual caches (i.e. vacation caches).

1.7k · December 15, 2012

Can anyone point to the specific place where the "wow" factor was set forth ?

Can anyone cite to the specific place where Groundspeak nixed Virtuals for eternity?

Can anyone point to the so called carcass in the woods cache or the sneaker cache ?

Most people speak in general terms regarding this topic with out pointing to the specifics.

Others insist beyond logic or reason that a virtual cache can not be because there is no container and no paper log with is the very definition of a "geocache" .

Groundspeak is a business, and it is for us a good thing. We probably would not be able to play our game on such a widespread basis were it not for the success of Groundspeak. I can get in my car drive 500 miles away and have the diversion of my game. I wish Groundspeak every continued success for if they fail, the game as I know it will fall apart. They have in my view attempted to enhance their business position by developing containerless location games. They have not done well, in my view , because they did not capture the fancy of their core customer--Geocachers. If they do, they will succeed. But in order to do that they need to develop a website to draw advertisers and sponsors and clicks and views. So have a Virtual Cache website, tie accounts together, have premium member licensing to place virtuals, give the smilie and have counts appear and in my view we are again off and running. But at the end of the day the presence or lack of virtuals is not going to materially affect the enjoyment I get from the game. Hoping that we all get to enjoy our game in the coming year.

It is just a trifle naive to expect a sophisticated business to not to seek to exploit the virtual resource to enhance its profit position. I celebrate their attempts and hope they can ultimately find the formula. But I do not expect them to give it for free along with Geocaching.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Packanack

7.3k · December 15, 2012

Can anyone point to the specific place where the "wow" factor was set forth ?
Can anyone cite to the specific place where Groundspeak nixed Virtuals for eternity?

Can anyone point to the so called carcass in the woods cache or the sneaker cache ?

I can't quite tell if these questions are rhetorical?

1. The "wow factor" was in the guidelines by July 02. You can find old guideline versions on the internet. The Nov 03 version actually used the phrase, "Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should "WOW" the prospective finder". The Nov 03 version was quite a bit longer, with more about "place a physical" and more about the need for "wow" to be virt worthy. Below the July 02 virt section

Virtual Caches

Virtual Caches

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of an object at a location which was already there. Depending on the cache "hider," a virtual cache could be to answer a question about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

A virtual cache must be of a physical object that can be referenced through Lat/Lon coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) do not count as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the web site (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle would be ok). If I post the cache today someone else should be able to find it tomorrow.

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are. A virtual cache must be novel, meaning of interest to other players. Items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. A flagpole, manhole cover, tree, etc are poor examples (with an exception: A flagpole at a memorial or a particular novel flagpole would be ok, or an especially unique tree would count). If you don't know what is appropriate, post to the forums first.

Virtual caches are not commercial. For example (but not exclusive), a coffee house, pizza parlor, ice cream shop are not acceptable.

There should be a question that only the visitor to that location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered unless you physically visit the spot.

A photo is acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with the answer. In *no* cases should answers be posted in the logs.

Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries. You should also return to the web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" will be archived by the site.

2. Yes, it was in Nov 05 guidelines. The Waymarking site was up, and Locationless owners had been invited to move their caches over as new Waymarking categories. Earthcaches moved over to Waymarking as well. Existing virts and webcams were allowed to stay on as a grandfathered type, but no new ones. (Earthcaches moved back to GC.com at some later time).

Virtual, Reverse Virtual (Locationless) Caches and Earthcaches

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches, Webcam Caches, Reverse Virtual Caches, or Earth Caches. Caches which existed before August of 2005 have been allowed to remain as grandfathered caches

3. I don't have the GC Code for sneaker in a bush, although I do recall the forum thread about it. Here's link to one that was a turtle shell + bones (turtle carcass along a trail)

http://coord.info/GC7E8A

I personally know of some even weaker virts, still active, including one we found last year (inside a restaurant), but I'm not going to link to them....

4.1k · December 15, 2012

A common fallacy for those who wish to restore Virtual caches is that subjectivity can be eliminated by the lengthy wording of guidelines. Your constant repetition of the phrase "outstanding value" demonstrates this perfectly. Who gets to decide what constitutes outstanding value? If we leave this up to the players, we'll have more rotting deer carcasses and lonely sneakers, as I can most certainly articulate a reason why both would have outstanding value to local history. If we leave this up to the Reviewers, then we are right back at square one, with an angst generating "Wow!" factor.

I agree that it is impossible to eliminate subjectivity. The quest to eliminate "lame" virtuals is by its nature a subjective one. A lame virtual is a little like the definition of obscenity that once was used by some high court justices - "I know it when I see it." It is the same with a good virtual. The difficulty of course is how to apply that. "Wow" was really the "I know it when I see it" approach.

I don't want to get into a detailed analysis of the suggested charter at this point. I have no problem with an educational focus, but who is doing the educating? Education does not eliminate subjectivity or bias. As discussed above, earthcaches work because there is a recognized authority that has undertaken responsibility for it.

The type of property where virtuals are placed is also important. To define it as places where traditional caching is not allowed assumes a static situation or readily defined boundaries. My state park system has identified areas where traditional caches are permitted and where only virtuals are allowed. But even there, the type of cache appropriate to any specific site entails a certain amount of subjectivity.

As somewhat an aside, permission becomes even more important with virtuals. A National Park Service manager told me that traditional caches will not be allowed on his watch. But there outstanding cultural and historic sites that the park has chosen not to publicize and can only be found with considerable research. No trail takes you to them. They should not be listed as virtuals without express permission, similar to that required for earthcaches. There is a potential for impact upon the site and upon this game unless that were obtained. The nature of such sites often makes them extremely sensitive. The earthcache standards for permission seems like a good model.

Limiting the number of placements or submissions is important - I would not want to do this through a fee - in part as a matter of philosophy and precedent, in part because money seems to increase angst and entitlement. But limiting virtuals to one or two submissions by premium members might help ensure thoughtful development while keeping virtuals a part of this game. Proximity limitations should also apply.

Even if the number of submissions are limited, guided subjectivity might be the best that can be done. But this involves creating a review process that limits angst, hate mail and flames.

Edited December 15, 2012 by geodarts

8k · December 15, 2012

[snip for brevity]

Wow! where to begin?

First of all, after reading this I still have no idea what locations are OK for virtual caches. There a pretty long section that tries to define Cultural sites and Artistic sites. Despite the examples it still comes down to a subjective decision that some reviewer has to make.

One version of the Wow requirement read as follows:

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. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.

I don't see much difference in your proposal.

The section on Education is also somewhat confusing. Probably because it has too many Articles in in. After defining in the first section what sites are allow, you now say that the cache itself needs to have some historic property. I suppose you don't want someone to ask the numbers on the utility pole that is next to the memorial?

Educational themes may be one underpinning of what makes something 'wow'. When coming up with the Best Kept Secret Waymarking category I asked a lot of people what made a good virtual cache. Many replied that when the could learn something, that was the best part of a virtual cache. Drilling down further though, it became clear that simply having a history lesson was not enough. Often what was learned by going to the site was finding something you didn't know was there before. This became the theme for Best Kept Secret.

I know several people who don't like EarthCaches or any virtual where they feel they are being taken to school to learn something. They geocache for fun and they find these pedantic caches boring. However I don't doubt there are others who would like an educational cache. If your intent is to create a category of educational caches then this section points out the difficulties. When you start specifying what grade level to target and what language to use one wonders who is going to check for this (particular when a non-native English speaker is trying to create the cache). In addition, it is nearly impossible to come up with educational question that can't be answered by internet research. Even the most obscure historic events have information on the internet. It is likely that any site that qualifies is already listed as a Waymark and often there will be pictures there that could be use to answer question. Certainly EarthCaches have shown that you can require the cache to be and educational experience, but even there the requirement often creates controversy.

The Section on Placement, Logging, and Maintenance is fairly straight forward. It raises some questions though.

It appears the main goal of the placement restrictions are to limit the number of virtual caches. I can see many disputes over permission and over whether the location could support a physical cache. This could require more reviewer time than either verifying the site is historic or the cache page is educational and written at a middle school reading level.

Articles 5, 6, and 7 could be rewritten (and probably combined) to make is clearer what the maintenance requirements are and explain that failure to maintain the logs on the cache page will result in the cache being archived.

The creation of a new class of reviewers for virtual caches needs further discussion. Whoever is reviewing virtual caches will have their hands full even enforcing a simplified version the guidelines presented here. It's not clear to me that there will be anyone who volunteers (or at least remains a volunteer for any significant amount of time).

If I were take time to write my own proposal, I'd eliminate as much review as possible. No Wow (or educational) hooey and no need to show you can't put a physical cache there. I'd rely on fees or a lottery to limit the number of virtual caches.

Finally, my personal view that allowed me to view virtual caches as geocaches is not represented in these guidelines. The original virtual guidelines stated

A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

The fact that I could take my GPS and go and find a specific object is what makes something a geocache for me. If that object brings me to an interesting place or if the cache owner shares something about the place on the cache page (without being too pedantic) then that is a bonus.

December 15, 2012

I think that I have successfully defined what a cache is to eliminate subjective caches.

I would argue that you have not.

A common fallacy for those who wish to restore Virtual caches is that subjectivity can be eliminated by the lengthy wording of guidelines. Your constant repetition of the phrase "outstanding value" demonstrates this perfectly. Who gets to decide what constitutes outstanding value? If we leave this up to the players, we'll have more rotting deer carcasses and lonely sneakers, as I can most certainly articulate a reason why both would have outstanding value to local history. If we leave this up to the Reviewers, then we are right back at square one, with an angst generating "Wow!" factor.

You could make the guidelines as lengthy as the New York City phone book, and so long as you leave any portion up to subjective values, such as those used in your earlier proposal, the process is doomed to failure.

With all do respect I can tell you have a background in law enforcement and not a background in education. I don't mean this snarky. I mean it as an actual fact. You enjoy your career because you think a certain way and I enjoy mine because I think a certain way.

You say if we leave it up to the players ... well we won't leave it up to the players. Their is no way that some one can design an education lesson around "rotting deer carcasses and lonely sneakers" these item do not have educational value. No reviewer with a background like I have stated will let this pass. Really, you need to go back and read the entire phrase.

a. Cultural monuments: Sites that commemorate an event with outstanding value to local, national, regional or world history or science.

b. Cultural areas: The works of humans or the joint works of humans and nature; archaeological areas which are a outstanding value to the local, national, regional or world history from a historical or anthropological point of view.

Artistic monuments: Works of architecture, sculpture, paintings, inscriptions or cave dwellings which are an outstanding value to local, national, regional, religious or world history, art or science.

How does a rotting animal even come close to any of this? It doesn't.

You do highlight an important point though that should be added. The site should be reasonably permanent. I say reasonably because nothing will last forever, the location will have to have a reasonable expectation that it will be there for a foreseeable future which rotting animal don't.

First, thanks to releasethedogs for initiating this. It looks like a good start.

I don't think that there are a log of negative feelings towards the virtual caches which still remain. In fact, they typically have much high favorite percentages than other cache types. Although Groundspeak has said that the would not bring virtuals back, that was before they eliminated challenges. The last time I saw a statement from someone from Groundspeak that indicated that they would not bring back virtuals it was in a post which also indicated that the were going to focus on Challenges instead and that they would be evolving. With the demise of Challenge I suspect that some here feel that the door to a reinstatement of virtual caches has opened up a crack.

I think that there would likely be some confusion between the existing virtual caches and any sort of new proposal because all those grandfathered virtuals are still going to be out there. The proposal should address grandfathered virtuals in some way, even if the new cache type is not called a Virtual. Likewise, something about waymarks and how they are distinct from the new virtuals (for one thing, I presume the new virts would could as a find) should be made.

A few other observations:

"A virtual cache must have local, national, regional or world historical relevance: an event of some sort; a discovery, a battle, a meeting/conference, a performance, a creation, a first (As in first airplane flight.), etc."

One possibility here would be to require some sort of proof of the locations historical value. Most historical locations are recognized with some sort of plaque that indicates that it has been officially designated a historical location a worldwide (i.e. ww heritages sites), national, regional, or local level. Perhaps there is an "official web site" which identifies a location as historical. The inclusion of "meeting/conference or performance" would seem to open up the historical section in the proposal to a lot of events that many would not really consider historical. Would a bar where Bruce Springsteen played be considered historical? I visited a hotel in Wageningen, Netherlands that doesn't look like much from the outside but it was the site of a meeting which took place May 5th, 1945 for the official surrender of the Germans to the allies. I could see that as a historical and educational virt, but can think of lots of examples of meetings/conference which would have little or no historical significance.

I would question the necessity of requiring a fee. Since the proposal has a lot of similarities to requirements for an earth cache, I think earth caches can also be used a precedent the overall quality that can be achieved with requiring a fee. Consider that if a fee is required a fair amount of software development would be required for payment handling, linking it to the reviewer workflow, etc.

There should be something in the guidelines regarding proximity to other caches and other guidelines which might apply/or do not apply to new virtual caches (i.e. vacation caches).

A area explaining what should be done with the old virtual caches is a great idea. Personally, I think that the status quo is fine. If an old virtual becomes archived then some one can publish a new virtual in its place so long as it fits the new guidelines. Some will and some won't -- that is part of the game.

Some sort of plaque is just one example that I would say a reviewer could as for proof the place has historical merit. As for your question about the bar Bruce Springsteen played in, it depends. Did something historical happen there. With out a doubt Bruce Springsteen is a important (but minor) historical character. If he performed there and nothing of note happened then no. If this was the place he first performed Born in the USA then maybe we have something. If the user can write a lesson showing how that is an important event then sure. Of course they need to site their sources like they are required to do with any document that reports history. That part might be a little hard to do, but not impossible. It depends on the convictions of the cache author.

Your example of the location for the surrender of the Germans is something that fits the charter perfectly. Meeting/conferences that don't have historical value are going to have a very difficult task meeting the guidelines set forth under section I.

I think a fee is necessary. It further discourages people who might try and make lame virtual caches. The fee and the listing requirements keep virtual caches uncommon.

As far as vacation caches go, I think it is fine although it may be difficult because the author would need to gather all the information needed while on vacation. If the reviewer needs more information it might be difficult to obtain.

I have been all over the world and have seen a bunch of stuff I wish I could share with virtual caches. I made a Earthcache of the Sphinx! I think that provided the author jumps through all the hoops that it should be allowed.

2.1k · December 15, 2012

Archiving caches is part of the game. Nothing wrong with that. If someone walks away from their commitment then they are taking a chance their cache will be archived. How is this any different than ANY other cache type?

Clearly, people have always been far less inclined to post N/As on virtual caches. Many virtuals were abandoned by their owners years ago but the caches live on subject to armchair logs and there are many virtual caches with active owners that ignore armchair logs. A container cache, however, with DNFs piling up leads to NM and almost invariably to NA logs if maintenance is not done.

1.7k · December 15, 2012

Can anyone point to the specific place where the "wow" factor was set forth ?
Can anyone cite to the specific place where Groundspeak nixed Virtuals for eternity?

Can anyone point to the so called carcass in the woods cache or the sneaker cache ?

I can't quite tell if these questions are rhetorical?

1. The "wow factor" was in the guidelines by July 02. You can find old guideline versions on the internet. The Nov 03 version actually used the phrase, "Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should "WOW" the prospective finder". The Nov 03 version was quite a bit longer, with more about "place a physical" and more about the need for "wow" to be virt worthy. Below the July 02 virt section

Virtual Caches

Virtual Caches

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of an object at a location which was already there. Depending on the cache "hider," a virtual cache could be to answer a question about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

A virtual cache must be of a physical object that can be referenced through Lat/Lon coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) do not count as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the web site (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle would be ok). If I post the cache today someone else should be able to find it tomorrow.

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are. A virtual cache must be novel, meaning of interest to other players. Items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. A flagpole, manhole cover, tree, etc are poor examples (with an exception: A flagpole at a memorial or a particular novel flagpole would be ok, or an especially unique tree would count). If you don't know what is appropriate, post to the forums first.

Virtual caches are not commercial. For example (but not exclusive), a coffee house, pizza parlor, ice cream shop are not acceptable.

There should be a question that only the visitor to that location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered unless you physically visit the spot.

A photo is acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with the answer. In *no* cases should answers be posted in the logs.

Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries. You should also return to the web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" will be archived by the site.

2. Yes, it was in Nov 05 guidelines. The Waymarking site was up, and Locationless owners had been invited to move their caches over as new Waymarking categories. Earthcaches moved over to Waymarking as well. Existing virts and webcams were allowed to stay on as a grandfathered type, but no new ones. (Earthcaches moved back to GC.com at some later time).

Virtual, Reverse Virtual (Locationless) Caches and Earthcaches

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. We are no longer accepting new Virtual Caches, Webcam Caches, Reverse Virtual Caches, or Earth Caches. Caches which existed before August of 2005 have been allowed to remain as grandfathered caches

3. I don't have the GC Code for sneaker in a bush, although I do recall the forum thread about it. Here's link to one that was a turtle shell + bones (turtle carcass along a trail)

http://coord.info/GC7E8A

I personally know of some even weaker virts, still active, including one we found last year (inside a restaurant), but I'm not going to link to them....

1.should WOW the finder is not the equivalent of a reviewer requiring a WOW factor , in much the same way that a reviewer should not impose his or her personal views on a traditional. Locally we are having an ongoing issue when the reviewer attempts to impose safety and quality standards . To the point that some of our more prolific hiders have stopped hiding.

2. That does not mean or even imply that Groundspeak won't return to virtuals in some permutation or another.

3. The logs on the cache you noted belie your point as people received that cache , some stating it was very nice and others saying it was awesome. It had generally favorble logs and was also a 2002 placement , very early in the evolving game. way marking became the product 8/05. Groundspeak would not be expected to undercut their own launch by continuing virtual caches while they were selling the product of way marking. I suspect they will not abandon the field of container less caches but will eventually get it right to the satisfaction of their core customer in a form where it is a viable element of their business.

virtuals as a category or new listing have been off site for longer than they were on and yet they retain an allure for cachers, compile great numbers of favorite marks and Groundspeak has tried to tweak the market in two instances with challenges and way marking , I suspect they are not just going to let it go.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Packanack

4.1k · December 15, 2012

No matter what system is used, the review process seems to be the most critical sticking point. I agree that reviewers should not be subject to hate mail and flames. That this is possible is a sad commentary on the human condition, but as a species we have many problems that caching is not likely to solve. Although a separate group of reviewers might be able to hit the delete button, this could eventually burn people out. If virtuals were limited (through the number of submissions a premium member could place and/or some kind of administrative fee -- perhaps it would be relatively rare. But to minimize problems that reviewers face, I would think about a two-tiered approach.

Under this, a group of reviewers could check the virtual for more objective requirements:

Proximity. Permanency. Requirements for site visits. (If a virtual is placed too near a physical cache, it is probably not needed. A dead carcass is hardly permanent. If the CO has not recently visited the site, it should not be submitted.)

Agenda. (I would not want to be educated about the glorious history of the founder of the American Nazi Party or the even more glorious history of Dear Leader. I would not want caches that explained why evolution is wrong or a particular religion is right. This is somewhat subjective, but is the type of review that is now made.)

Commercialization. Going beyond the standard limitation on commerical cachwa, perhaps virtuals should not be placed on private property, or property that is not in public hands, on a public easement, or belongs to a nonprofit entity. Although one of my favorite virtuals is in a parking lot, but I would be satisfied if virtuals celebrated the public commons that we all share).

Permission. The earthcache model could be used to ensure that the virtual would not entail damage to sensitive cultural and historic sites.

Object. As before, a virtual would not just be a good view, but would involve finding a specific object. Virtuals could be limited to an educational focus involving specific types of sites, but this would not involve subjective standards. The reviewer would not have to determine if the subject wowed or was outstanding, only that there is something to be found at the coordinates.

Under this system, reviewers could determine that the cache met the standards for publication and basic guidelines without having to apply a wow requirement.

After the virtual is published, it could be subject to peer review. People who have logged a find, could vote on it similar to the way that challenges were done. The peer process with challenges seemed very nebulous to me, and in the beginning people who had not visited the site often gave every challenge a thumbs down because they did not like the concept of challenges. But I would not want to use one of my limited number of submissions (or pay a even a reasonable administrative fee) to place a virtual that others did not like. So a standardized peer review system that is clearly defined could encourage quality hides and allow the others to be archived after a time.

Abuse is possible under any system for any type of cache. Angst always seems to be a factor -- whether it involves traditionals that do not pass muster or virtuals. But for now, limitations on numbers, a review system for objectivity, and a peer review for the user experience (wow) seems like one way to minimize the type of problems associated with virtuals in the past. Of course I could change my mind about this five minutes later. . .

4.1k · December 15, 2012

Archiving caches is part of the game. Nothing wrong with that. If someone walks away from their commitment then they are taking a chance their cache will be archived. How is this any different than ANY other cache type?

Clearly, people have always been far less inclined to post N/As on virtual caches. Many virtuals were abandoned by their owners years ago but the caches live on subject to armchair logs and there are many virtual caches with active owners that ignore armchair logs. A container cache, however, with DNFs piling up leads to NM and almost invariably to NA logs if maintenance is not done.

Part of the reason for this, of course, is that new virtuals are not allowed. I have been to some amazing virtuals where the owner does not seem particularly active, but I am reluctant to post an NA log because it cannot be adopted or replaced. I have also seem some of my favorite virtuals archived for this very reason..

December 15, 2012

Wow! where to begin?

First of all, after reading this I still have no idea what locations are OK for virtual caches. There a pretty long section that tries to define Cultural sites and Artistic sites. Despite the examples it still comes down to a subjective decision that some reviewer has to make.

One version of the Wow requirement read as follows:

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. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.

I don't see much difference in your proposal.

The section on Education is also somewhat confusing. Probably because it has too many Articles in in. After defining in the first section what sites are allow, you now say that the cache itself needs to have some historic property. I suppose you don't want someone to ask the numbers on the utility pole that is next to the memorial?

Educational themes may be one underpinning of what makes something 'wow'. When coming up with the Best Kept Secret Waymarking category I asked a lot of people what made a good virtual cache. Many replied that when the could learn something, that was the best part of a virtual cache. Drilling down further though, it became clear that simply having a history lesson was not enough. Often what was learned by going to the site was finding something you didn't know was there before. This became the theme for Best Kept Secret.

I know several people who don't like EarthCaches or any virtual where they feel they are being taken to school to learn something. They geocache for fun and they find these pedantic caches boring. However I don't doubt there are others who would like an educational cache. If your intent is to create a category of educational caches then this section points out the difficulties. When you start specifying what grade level to target and what language to use one wonders who is going to check for this (particular when a non-native English speaker is trying to create the cache). In addition, it is nearly impossible to come up with educational question that can't be answered by internet research. Even the most obscure historic events have information on the internet. It is likely that any site that qualifies is already listed as a Waymark and often there will be pictures there that could be use to answer question. Certainly EarthCaches have shown that you can require the cache to be and educational experience, but even there the requirement often creates controversy.

The Section on Placement, Logging, and Maintenance is fairly straight forward. It raises some questions though.

It appears the main goal of the placement restrictions are to limit the number of virtual caches. I can see many disputes over permission and over whether the location could support a physical cache. This could require more reviewer time than either verifying the site is historic or the cache page is educational and written at a middle school reading level.

Articles 5, 6, and 7 could be rewritten (and probably combined) to make is clearer what the maintenance requirements are and explain that failure to maintain the logs on the cache page will result in the cache being archived.

The creation of a new class of reviewers for virtual caches needs further discussion. Whoever is reviewing virtual caches will have their hands full even enforcing a simplified version the guidelines presented here. It's not clear to me that there will be anyone who volunteers (or at least remains a volunteer for any significant amount of time).

If I were take time to write my own proposal, I'd eliminate as much review as possible. No Wow (or educational) hooey and no need to show you can't put a physical cache there. I'd rely on fees or a lottery to limit the number of virtual caches.

Finally, my personal view that allowed me to view virtual caches as geocaches is not represented in these guidelines. The original virtual guidelines stated

A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

The fact that I could take my GPS and go and find a specific object is what makes something a geocache for me. If that object brings me to an interesting place or if the cache owner shares something about the place on the cache page (without being too pedantic) then that is a bonus.

Really? You have no idea? I gave three examples.

Your utility pole example wont work because not only can you not be sure that numbers will alaways be there but that does not have to do with the history of the location. If people don't like education caches that is fine. Not all caches are meant for all people. The thing that makes this a great hobby is the freedom to pick and choose what caches you go after. If you don't like learning, thats fine (but tragic). It is your choice to make.

The majority of Americans read at a middle school level. This is so every one can take part in the process of logging a cache and we don't have some one using jargon that only people with doctorate degrees can understand. It is also for that reason that non-native speakers can make a cache. Earth caches have a similar requirement. If I can find random people to translate my earthcaches in to Korean and Arabic (and soon Russian) then virtual cache authors won't have any problem finding some one to translate into English which is more widely spoken than any other language (this counts people mono and multilingual people).

What do you base your statement about reviewers on? Is their some actual data that can support that assertion or is it your "gut"? I do agree it needs more discussion however my outlook is more "can do" then "everything is doomed".

Finally, It seems like you want to create something with out controversy. What world you you live in that you think this is an obtainable goal?

Lotto systems are no good as they can be gamed. People can enter simply to deprive people the chance to make a cache. I do like your simple "pay a fee, make a cache" approach to virtual caches but the community at large is against that.

December 15, 2012

No matter what system is used, the review process seems to be the most critical sticking point. I agree that reviewers should not be subject to hate mail and flames. That this is possible is a sad commentary on the human condition, but as a species we have many problems that caching is not likely to solve. Although a separate group of reviewers might be able to hit the delete button, this could eventually burn people out. If virtuals were limited (through the number of submissions a premium member could place and/or some kind of administrative fee -- perhaps it would be relatively rare. But to minimize problems that reviewers face, I would think about a two-tiered approach.

Under this, a group of reviewers could check the virtual for more objective requirements:

Proximity. Permanency. Requirements for site visits. (If a virtual is placed too near a physical cache, it is probably not needed. A dead carcass is hardly permanent. If the CO has not recently visited the site, it should not be submitted.)

Of course

Agenda. (I would not want to be educated about the glorious history of the founder of the American Nazi Party or the even more glorious history of Dear Leader. I would not want caches that explained why evolution is wrong or a particular religion is right. This is somewhat subjective, but is the type of review that is now made.)

Not so fast. Historians don't censor. We report. This is where having qualified reviewers come into play. You could make a cache telling about George Lincoln Rockwell (as you use for an example) or Abe Lincoln but you can't say they are good or bad. it needs to be written from a neutral point of view. You simply tell what they did and let the reader come to his/her own conclusions. I agree that propaganda should not be allowed however saying things you don't agree with are not allowed is exactly what the Nazi's did.

So I think we can agree that they should be written from a neutral point of view.

Commercialization. Going beyond the standard limitation on commerical cachwa, perhaps virtuals should not be placed on private property, or property that is not in public hands, on a public easement, or belongs to a nonprofit entity. Although one of my favorite virtuals is in a parking lot, but I would be satisfied if virtuals celebrated the public commons that we all share).

agreed.

Permission. The earthcache model could be used to ensure that the virtual would not entail damage to sensitive cultural and historic sites.

yes.

Object. As before, a virtual would not just be a good view, but would involve finding a specific object. Virtuals could be limited to an educational focus involving specific types of sites, but this would not involve subjective standards. The reviewer would not have to determine if the subject wowed or was outstanding, only that there is something to be found at the coordinates.

I know and agree that simple is better, I don't think Groundspeak agrees though.

Under this system, reviewers could determine that the cache met the standards for publication and basic guidelines without having to apply a wow requirement.

After the virtual is published, it could be subject to peer review. People who have logged a find, could vote on it similar to the way that challenges were done. The peer process with challenges seemed very nebulous to me, and in the beginning people who had not visited the site often gave every challenge a thumbs down because they did not like the concept of challenges. But I would not want to use one of my limited number of submissions (or pay a even a reasonable administrative fee) to place a virtual that others did not like.

People are going to not like it regardless, you can not please everyone. People do stupid, mean things in real life just to be a jerk. They do this on the internet with more frequency because the internet is semi-anonymous.

So a standardized peer review system that is clearly defined could encourage quality hides and allow the others to be archived after a time.

Abuse is possible under any system for any type of cache. Angst always seems to be a factor -- whether it involves traditionals that do not pass muster or virtuals. But for now, limitations on numbers, a review system for objectivity, and a peer review for the user experience (wow) seems like one way to minimize the type of problems associated with virtuals in the past. Of course I could change my mind about this five minutes later. . .

1.2k · December 15, 2012

The original virtual guidelines stated

A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

The fact that I could take my GPS and go and find a specific object is what makes something a geocache for me. If that object brings me to an interesting place or if the cache owner shares something about the place on the cache page (without being too pedantic) then that is a bonus.

That's a pretty good assessment. I was reading through this thread, trying to think of what it is about virtuals that doesn't sit right with me, and when I read this post, I realized what it was. This was only one component of a larger picture, though, the idea that a geocache is a specific object, and that a GPS is used to find it.

If I could summarize what a geocache is, I would say that it is:

An object hidden by a hider, to be found by a seeker, using a GPS.

I know that sounds redundant and silly, but I'll break it into its components, for clarity:

1) Object: It's not a place. It's a thing. Circumstances can result in its destruction or removal, prompting archival.

2) Hidden: Geocaches are hidden. The problem with many virtuals and most(?) earth caches is that they involve places or things that require no special knowledge in order to be found. Plenty of muggles find them, sometimes daily. Traditional caches cannot afford to be found routinely by muggles, for it reduces their lifespan. Granted, there are caches hidden in plain sight, but they are disguized, which makes them hidden.

3) By a hider: as redundant as it sounds, geocaches are not just hidden, but they are hidden by another geocacher, with the intent of hiding them for the purpose of geocaching. A random object can be hidden on its own, by chance, but a geocache is specifically left in a hiding place by a participant of geocaching. The act of finding it links you to the one who left it.

4) To be found by a seeker: The intent is that the people who find it, ideally, are the ones who knew how to look for it (geocachers), and not random strangers who happened to stumble upon it. This may not always work out as intended, but it should be the intent.

5) Using a GPS: The method of finding geocaches centers around the use of a GPS.

I'm not saying earth caches or many virtuals aren't enjoyable. I'm just saying that they don't really fit the nature of the geocaching experience, in general. Sure, you found something, but the muggle standing next to you found it, also. Big deal. It makes a great waypoint if you happen to be on vacation, but it's not quite like a geocache.

Multicaches work for me. Puzzle caches work for me. Events? They're fun, but they're not geocaches.

8k · December 15, 2012

[snip]

Really? You have no idea? I gave three examples.

Your utility pole example wont work because not only can you not be sure that numbers will alaways be there but that does not have to do with the history of the location. If people don't like education caches that is fine. Not all caches are meant for all people. The thing that makes this a great hobby is the freedom to pick and choose what caches you go after. If you don't like learning, thats fine (but tragic). It is your choice to make.

You can't be sure and historic marker or plaque will always be there or that the information on them will not change. (Quote on MLK Memorial to be removed)

I gave the utility pole as an example to clarify why you needed as separate guideline for the cache write up to have an historical property. It seems that I was right and that you intended for it to prevent the utility pole. That is fine. However, what you are proposing a new type of cache akin to EarthCaches that you might want to call a HistoryCache. The original virtual caches (even with the "wow" requirement) did not say what the object that you found could or could not be. (In a way the "wow" requirement said nothing about the animal carcass, instead the was a permanency requirement).

Some of my favorite virtual caches would not be allowed because someone is likely to say that it is not significantly historic. Like the Beatlemania waymark I own. Someone might feel that just going to Bluejay Way, where there is nothing indicating this is where George Harrison wrote the song, is not historic.

I don't doubt that there would be people who enjoy HistoryCaches just like EarthCaches. But I was pointing out there are many people who liked virtuals and now avoid EarthCaches because they find the questions remind them of taking a geology quiz. History lessons my be your personal "wow" but it is not everybody's. If we follow the suggestion that everyone should be free to choose not just what caches they want to hunt but also what they want to hide we'd have Waymarking.

The majority of Americans read at a middle school level. This is so every one can take part in the process of logging a cache and we don't have some one using jargon that only people with doctorate degrees can understand. It is also for that reason that non-native speakers can make a cache. Earth caches have a similar requirement. If I can find random people to translate my earthcaches in to Korean and Arabic (and soon Russian) then virtual cache authors won't have any problem finding some one to translate into English which is more widely spoken than any other language (this counts people mono and multilingual people).

I haven't really followed the EarthCache controversy over language. I thought that the requirement there was that you had to include a description in the local language. While some people like travel the world and find an EarthCache, or even more so a HistoryCache, would be a great way to learn about the country they are visiting, unless the cache is in an already overly touristed ares, most visits are going to be from locals. If your intent is that HistoryCaches should be accessible to tourists by having the description in English in addition whatever local language it might be in, then I'd see some rationale for the requirement.

As for the grade level, that is just something that only a teacher would think about. I can see some sites that have more appeal to younger children, where the owner might want a cache page a third grader can read. There are websites that will tell you what grade level something is written at, but I find them to have little practical use.

What do you base your statement about reviewers on? Is their some actual data that can support that assertion or is it your "gut"? I do agree it needs more discussion however my outlook is more "can do" then "everything is doomed".

I spent many years now developing the and managing the Best Kept Secret category. Because it is Waymarking we don't get that many submissions. But this has showed me that no matter what you write in the guideline people either don't understand them or don't bother reading them in the first place.

The longish guidelines you gave are subject to interpretation, but even more so are not likely to be read by people submitting virtual caches or HistoryCaches. From my experience I know that the most submissions will fail the quality tests you have and that reviewers are bound to face abuse for turning down some virtual that someone put their heart and soul into creating. Maybe I'm wrong; teachers are masochists already so perhaps you will find a few that will take on the review process.

Finally, It seems like you want to create something with out controversy. What world you you live in that you think this is an obtainable goal?

I'm not foolish enough to believe there is a solution that is without controversy. We have controversy over the 528 foot proximity guide and over the guideline for physical caches to have containers and logs. Even the most clear objective guidelines are controversial.

My issue is that if we are to get Groundspeak to bring back virtuals, you have to make the argument about why they are needed in first place. For many people this is hard to grasp, After all they enjoy doing the grandfathered virtual caches and often find them among their favorites. So what justification is needed?

The truth is that geocaching has changed since the days when virtuals were routinely published and from the time when an outside group could propose to Groundspeak a new type of educational cache that they would manage and only asked Groundspeak to list on Geocaching.com.

Today the Geocaching.com can survive on just physical caches. Groundspeak has a whole other site to deal with listing interesting locations without needing to hide a physical container.

I believe there are some reasons to support people who enjoy both finding physical caches and visiting interesting places. Ideally, there needs to be ways to encourage more physical cache placements that take you to someplace new and interesting. But when there is a really "wow" location where you can't place a cache, I don't see why there shouldn't be a way for geocachers to get those coordinates along with geocaches to find in there pocket query or using their smartphone app. I'm almost neutral on to whether visits should count as geocache find, only I'm a little bit sad that the smiley is the only motivator for some people.

Lotto systems are no good as they can be gamed. People can enter simply to deprive people the chance to make a cache. I do like your simple "pay a fee, make a cache" approach to virtual caches but the community at large is against that.

I agree. I only bring up the lottery because there is going to be push back on a fee.

4.1k · December 15, 2012

Not so fast. Historians don't censor. We report. This is where having qualified reviewers come into play. You could make a cache telling about George Lincoln Rockwell (as you use for an example) or Abe Lincoln but you can't say they are good or bad. it needs to be written from a neutral point of view. You simply tell what they did and let the reader come to his/her own conclusions. I agree that propaganda should not be allowed however saying things you don't agree with are not allowed is exactly what the Nazi's did.

So I think we can agree that they should be written from a neutral point of view.

Historians also interpret. And even historic "facts" are subject to debate. The "facts" reported regarding slavery or Native Americans have certainly changed over time. But I did not mean to imply censorship except to the extent that it imparts an agenda. I have been to caches that honor confederates. I have also been to caches that honor the International Brigade of the Spanish Civil War. We could debate the facts underlying these particular caches for a long time but I have no problem that either exists as part of this game.

My point -- upon which we both both agree -- was simply that asking reviewers to make a distinction between neutrality and agenda is nothing new. So to me, a reviewer does not have to be a qualified in any one field, but simply be one who could apply the existing guidelines.

The earthcache model works because it is administered by a professional organization -- a group of people with professional expertise in a scientific field who ensure that educational requirements are satisfied, that themes are not being unduly duplicated, and works closely with lay people who submit a listing.

Applying this model across the board, even to decide whether a virtual is educational enough, is problematic without that foundation. One of my favorite virtuals took me on a hike into part of Yosemite that I never would have otherwise visited, to find something there and identify its likely purpose. Another brought me on a walk into ancient Incan salt ponds that are still being used today to find a particular object. For that matter, I enjoyed a virtual that had my daughter and I hike into Yellowstone, past bison and antelope, to obtain otherwise nondescript information. I am not sure where these would fit on the educational scale -- no major history lesson was imparted (the Incan one probably would be considered an outstanding cultural site). But each extended the game into areas where traditional caching would not work and are the type of virtual that I would want to see returned to this game. I learned a lot through each of them.

So unless a group emerges who can take on the earthcache model, I would rely on limitations for numbers submitted in conjunction with other guidelines. A permanent cap on submissions by any one cacher makes the most sense to me -- one or two for a premium member would keep virtuals as part of the game. If that works and there is a demand for more, it could be addressed at another time. I could even see an administrative fee under certain conditions (particularly if submissions were expanded to basic members) based on the recognition that part of why we have earthcaches is that the GSA picked up certain administrative costs associated with the program.

Beyond that, the subjective factors (wow, whether the site is outstanding, or any other value judgment) are really a community judgment. To paraphrase Toz (in a different context), it is a judgment that ultimately decides whether a site is something that should be an exception to the general rules requiring physical containers. I think that it is best done by people who have been there, and individual reviewers need not need to have this burden. Although it would not be instantaneous, it would ensure that the best are listed as part of this game.

Edited December 15, 2012 by geodarts

6.8k · December 16, 2012

I know several people who don't like EarthCaches or any virtual where they feel they are being taken to school to learn something. They geocache for fun and they find these pedantic caches boring.

I also know cachers who do not like Earthcaches for that reason. I do not like, however, that you use the term pendatic in this context. It always depends on the personal preferences. People are different. I liked to go to school and I still enormously enjoy to learn something new. While many cachers enjoy tree climbing caches or other caches which involve some climbing task, such caches remind me of my inability to climb and negative experiences back in my childhood and school time.

I appreciate that Earthcaches are not subject to the saturation guidelines (with respect to geocaches where a container is hidden) and I think that the same needs to hold for the type of educational virtual I'm interested into. Moreover, I think that if in addition there were a separate counter and an option to not see them at all for virtuals, there would be no longer any reason for anyone to complain about the caches you call pendantic. They neither would block a location (so anyone is free to set up something there which pleases him/her) nor would there be any other reason for doing such a cache without being interested into it.

In addition, it is nearly impossible to come up with educational question that can't be answered by internet research.

Even the most obscure historic events have information on the internet.

I do not agree.

Think e.g. of an old castle ruin. It might be possible to find something in the internet when the castle was built, but when you ask for example, in which directions one still can see the neck ditch or other key elements the internet will not be that helpful.

Another example: A virtual might lead to an old gothic chapel and the task might be to describe some special building elements from that period which can be explained in the cache description such that the task is then to find them in the real object). There are so many options available to those knowledgeable in the concerned fields. Like for Earthcaches coming up with meaningful questions is hard for those who only have read a wikipedia article about an object. I do not think that educational caches should be the option for those to go who just want to show a location. Waymarking is quite good in doing that anyway.

Yet another example: In many cities in Europe tourist guides offer specialized city tours that even provide new information to locals. One topic could e.g. be the history of the Jews in city X. I do know from experience that a lot what can be learnt in this context cannot be found in the internet or widely available books.

Moreover, as soon as the multi location aspect enters, one can keep the route as secret and using the internet will become even harder as only the starting point is known.

It is likely that any site that qualifies is already listed as a Waymark and often there will be pictures there that could be use to answer question.

See what I wrote above. Moreover, it might be instructive to have a look at this

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=47.065&lon=15.451667&t=6

and compare it with the cache density in the same area

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=47.065000&lng=15.451667

Cezanne

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment