Returning of webcam caches

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The main reason that they have so many favorites is that they are rare, which makes them "special".

 

Exactly why they should be brought back within reason.

 

Virtuals should be allowed under 1 Virtual owned to 1,000 Finds.

 

Webcams should just plain be allowed.

Please explain what 1,000 finds would have to do with it.

 

In my opinion, the main reasons Virtual Caches stopped was because people started making them of things not worth seeing. In order for them to work, they need to be of some place VERY special (ie the top of Mt Moran in the Grand Tetons, not "here is where I used to work"). To limit or curb people from Virtual-"izing" everything, do not give them an unlimited amount of virtuals. Allow them to post 1 Virtual Cache per 1,000 Geocache Finds. I have ~2,800 finds... so at this point I would have the ability to have 2 Virtuals. After I find 200 more, I would be allowed to have 3.

 

How many people that live in South America do you think have 1000 finds? How about someone that lives in China? I didn't check every country in South America but the person that has the most finds in China would not be able to create a virtual cache according to your proposal. I doubt that there is anyone living in South America, or in well over half of the countries in the world would qualify for just 1 virtual.

 

 

[+TANZ!!]

The main reason that they have so many favorites is that they are rare, which makes them "special".

 

Exactly why they should be brought back within reason.

 

Virtuals should be allowed under 1 Virtual owned to 1,000 Finds.

 

Webcams should just plain be allowed.

Please explain what 1,000 finds would have to do with it.

 

In my opinion, the main reasons Virtual Caches stopped was because people started making them of things not worth seeing. In order for them to work, they need to be of some place VERY special (ie the top of Mt Moran in the Grand Tetons, not "here is where I used to work"). To limit or curb people from Virtual-"izing" everything, do not give them an unlimited amount of virtuals. Allow them to post 1 Virtual Cache per 1,000 Geocache Finds. I have ~2,800 finds... so at this point I would have the ability to have 2 Virtuals. After I find 200 more, I would be allowed to have 3.

It's not clear that restricting the number of virtuals someone can have is any guarantee of "wow". What you can be sure of is that people who might hide hundreds of caches in poorly considered locations are the ones who will be sure to hide the maximum number of virtuals they are allowed to hide. The people who may visit some cool locations where they either can't hide or can't maintain a physical cache will on the forum saying the 1 virtual per 1000 finds is unfair and is keeping them from hiding cool caches. Or people will find a friend who would otherwise not be hiding any virtuals to hide one for them.

 

Similarly if you allow unresticted webcams you will have a lot more of the problems these caches use to have. Webcams disappear, Webcam sites are down, Webcam sites become too commercial, the webcam gets pointed a different direction so the coordinates have to be changed, the webcam has too wide a view so you can really tell if the cacher is in the picture, etc. It may be that whatever is left are webcams that are now fairly stable and reliable. But when webcams were allowed, they often were in state of needing maintenance.

 

No cache guarantees any type of "Wow" factor. And the same issues you have with Webcams are typical of many caches that the Cache Owner doesnt put effort into.

 

I have 12 of 14 Webcam Caches. One the page was down, the other the camera was down. Another, the link on the cache page wasnt correct, but I was able to find it by just googling the location + webcam.

 

There is not "Great" answer... or ultimate answer. However, I do not believe the answer should be no virtuals or no webcams.

[+TANZ!!]

The main reason that they have so many favorites is that they are rare, which makes them "special".

 

Exactly why they should be brought back within reason.

 

Virtuals should be allowed under 1 Virtual owned to 1,000 Finds.

 

Webcams should just plain be allowed.

Please explain what 1,000 finds would have to do with it.

 

In my opinion, the main reasons Virtual Caches stopped was because people started making them of things not worth seeing. In order for them to work, they need to be of some place VERY special (ie the top of Mt Moran in the Grand Tetons, not "here is where I used to work"). To limit or curb people from Virtual-"izing" everything, do not give them an unlimited amount of virtuals. Allow them to post 1 Virtual Cache per 1,000 Geocache Finds. I have ~2,800 finds... so at this point I would have the ability to have 2 Virtuals. After I find 200 more, I would be allowed to have 3.

 

How many people that live in South America do you think have 1000 finds? How about someone that lives in China? I didn't check every country in South America but the person that has the most finds in China would not be able to create a virtual cache according to your proposal. I doubt that there is anyone living in South America, or in well over half of the countries in the world would qualify for just 1 virtual.

 

So just because people in one location do not have enough to qualify, we should say no to EVERYONE?

 

How about a solution to your part of the world that would allow Virtuals back?

 

There has to be a way to limit Virtuals to quality and quantity. 1:1000 was a suggested limit. It in no way guarantees quality, but it would at least be a start to allow them back!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The main reason that they have so many favorites is that they are rare, which makes them "special".

 

Exactly why they should be brought back within reason.

 

Virtuals should be allowed under 1 Virtual owned to 1,000 Finds.

 

Webcams should just plain be allowed.

Please explain what 1,000 finds would have to do with it.

 

In my opinion, the main reasons Virtual Caches stopped was because people started making them of things not worth seeing. In order for them to work, they need to be of some place VERY special (ie the top of Mt Moran in the Grand Tetons, not "here is where I used to work"). To limit or curb people from Virtual-"izing" everything, do not give them an unlimited amount of virtuals. Allow them to post 1 Virtual Cache per 1,000 Geocache Finds. I have ~2,800 finds... so at this point I would have the ability to have 2 Virtuals. After I find 200 more, I would be allowed to have 3.

 

How many people that live in South America do you think have 1000 finds? How about someone that lives in China? I didn't check every country in South America but the person that has the most finds in China would not be able to create a virtual cache according to your proposal. I doubt that there is anyone living in South America, or in well over half of the countries in the world would qualify for just 1 virtual.

 

So just because people in one location do not have enough to qualify, we should say no to EVERYONE?

 

I was only addressing the issue of having some arbitrary minimum number of finds to be able to place a virtual. Personally, I like virtual caches and wish there was a good solution. I just don't think GS should be implementing features that only benefit those that live in an area with a high number of caches. This is an global game and I believe it should be viewed from an international perspective.

 

 

How about a solution to your part of the world that would allow Virtuals back?

 

There has to be a way to limit Virtuals to quality and quantity. 1:1000 was a suggested limit. It in no way guarantees quality, but it would at least be a start to allow them back!

 

My part of the world (the Finger Lakes region in NY) certainly has enough caches for many people to achieve 1000 finds even though it is relatively sparse compared other parts of the U.S. However, I've geocached in 5-6 different countries which have fewer than 1000 (most of them fewer than 100) caches in the entire country and the last thing I'd like to see is to have GS limit more placements based on number of hides.

 

In another thread (there have been a lot of them) for bringing back virtual caches someone suggested a nominal fee for placing a virtual.

 

 

[+Cankid]

For the virtuals and webcams issue there are MANY things a serious talk could sort out. In my honest opinion, if these types were to return, special guidelines would need to be implemented.

 

These could be SIMILAR TOO (not exactly the same as);

• 
   
  
• Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues
  
• The ‘WOW’ factor would be necessary
  
• There would have to be a set of questions that need to be answered BEFORE a cache is published by the CO
  
• There would be specialised reviewers, like with the case of Earthcaches, to review Virtuals and webcam caches to take the strain off reviewers of regular type caches
  
• There could also be a ‘licensing’ system for these types where, if caches aren’t maintained or well kept, this license could lose ‘points’ or be revoked all together. This could also apply to how cachers currently treat their caches as well as these virtuals and, if there is fake logging, this could also constitute loss of these privileges
  
• Along with the licensing, a kind of demerit point system
  
• Another feature to prevent false logging of these types is to implement a feature like that of Trackables, where a code is required to log the cache. This would be given to the cacher upon receiving email with correct answers. No ‘Photo-only’ questions. This would also require the CO to actually VISIT the cache site (crazy as it sounds) and come up with a question that cannot be answered by use of Internet source
  
• NO POWERTRAILS!
   
  

Obligations of the cacher;

• 
   
  
• To maintain both physical site and cache page
  
• To answer emails promptly
  
• To be cooperative with the reviewer
  
• To listen to the landowners
   
  

Obligations of the reviewer;

• 
   
  
• To review caches at a certain time (e.g at the end of every week)
  
• To act if caches aren’t maintained
  
• To review caches to a high standard
  
• To know the area and features
   
  

 

Penalties for failure to comply;

• 
   
  
• Loss of points or complete loss of license
  
• Loss of cache (i.e adopted out to a more ‘suitable owner’)
   
  

Questions before the cache is published;

• 
   
  
• Do you have access to this site?
  
• Have you obtained permission if that is necessary due to the cache’s location?
  
• Has this already been covered?
  
• What are cachers coming to this site for OTHER THAN this geocache?
  
• What is the ‘WOW’ factor?
  
• What is needed to answer questions for this cache?
  
• What are the answers to these questions if that is necessary for the reviewer to know?
   
  

These are the questions that would need to be answered before the cache is published. These are just a few ideas, if you would like to expand or dismiss them then feel free to do so. These are only ideas, they can be changed or ignored, I won’t think too differently about it. Just no personal attacks please!

 

BTW, here are some stats I took a while ago, don’t know how up to date it is:

 

Amount of Virtuals worldwide - 4860

1. 
    
   
2. America – 3928 or 80.9%
   
3. UK – 197 or 4.1%
   
4. Canada – 143 or 3%
   
5. Australia – 61 or 1.3%
   
6. Germany – 59 or 1.2%
   
7. Hungary – 47 or 1%
   
8. Netherlands – 37 or 0.8%
   
9. Italy – 29 or 0.6%
   
10. France – 25 or 0.5%
    
11. New Zealand – 22 or 0.5%
     
    

Amount of Webcams worldwide – 418

1. 
    
   
2. America – 179 or 42.8%
   
3. Germany – 116 or 27.8%
   
4. UK – 18 or 4.3%
   
5. Finland – 13 or 3.1%
   
6. Switzerland – 13 or 3.1%
   
7. Canada – 12 or 2.9%
   
8. Australia – 9 or 2.2%
   
9. Netherlands – 7 or 1.7%
   
10. Sweden – 7 or 1.7%
    
11. Spain – 6 or 1.4%
     
    

All I am trying to do is continue to generate the discussion rather than another "+1"

Edited September 30, 2013 by Cankid

[+cerberus1]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

I guess I don't get it... second time in one week (and in the same thread).

 

- Please explain how being a premium member and/or having more than 200 finds makes that person more responsible, knowledgeable, or quality oriented.

[+ChileHead]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

I guess I don't get it... second time in one week (and in the same thread).

 

- Please explain how being a premium member and/or having more than 200 finds makes that person more responsible, knowledgeable, or quality oriented.

 

There is no relationship between hide/find count and the past issues with webcams/virtuals.

 

For virtuals, it was always about the "wow" factor. The only reasonable way around this is to go the approach of earthcaches, as has been mentioned here numerous times before. Get an organization willing to back/support something like history caches, and now the whole wow factor is evaluated by a group that knows what they are doing. You could do the same thing with biological virtuals, or architectural virtuals, that sort of thing.

 

For webcams, I was never sure why they were canned. Lots had technical issues with them being down, or moved, unavailable ... that would still be a problem today especially when the webcam cache owner is not the same as the webcam owner. Possibly this could work if and only if the webcam owner is the same as the webcam cache owner.

[+TANZ!!]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

I guess I don't get it... second time in one week (and in the same thread).

 

- Please explain how being a premium member and/or having more than 200 finds makes that person more responsible, knowledgeable, or quality oriented.

 

According to www.cacherstats.com there are 246,348 cachers with 200 or more caches found. There are 63,500 cachers with 1,000 caches or more.

 

I believe that that more caches a person finds, the more they care about geocaching, the more they are grounded in making sure it continues to last. Yes, you could live in a country that would have more caches... Or you could do a single power trail and instantly have enough. However, how many first time cachers care to do power trails? I know many of us that have 2,500 or more and would never consider doing one. I may dabble in GeoArt every once in awhile, I would NEVER do a power trail. With that said, a country that doesn't very many caches to begin with, probably doesn't need too many virtual either!

 

And "again" Cerberus1, what is your solution to allow virtuals or webcams in a way that would work to add quality caches for both? I definitely liked some of the ideas that Cankid came up with.

[+niraD]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

So how does spending a few hours on a numbers run trail like the ET Highway trail do anything to address "the past issues" with virtual/webcam caches?

[+TANZ!!]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

So how does spending a few hours on a numbers run trail like the ET Highway trail do anything to address "the past issues" with virtual/webcam caches?

 

I am with Cankid on this one, though I prefer a number higher than 200. Most beginner cachers are NOT going to go out and do a Power Trail. Nor would a beginner that does a power trail be the likely candidate to just put out virtuals!

[+Cankid]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

I guess I don't get it... second time in one week (and in the same thread).

 

- Please explain how being a premium member and/or having more than 200 finds makes that person more responsible, knowledgeable, or quality oriented.

 

As I did state when I posted this, these were only a few quick ideas. I am not sure about now but when I hid my first cache, it RECOMMENDED that you should have found 20 or so. This was so you could get an idea of what a cache was really like. I tried to apply a similar concept. I thought that if you were going to take that extra step and start paying to find caches then it was more likely you would continue to do GC and be able to maintain hides. Now I know this wouldn't work in all circumstances, I know so very good cachers who aren't premium members. That is why there is a limit. Again, just ideas...

[+Cankid]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

So how does spending a few hours on a numbers run trail like the ET Highway trail do anything to address "the past issues" with virtual/webcam caches?

 

While it is important to consider the "past issues," it is about moving forward and trying to find a viable solution to the problem. At this time in caching, it seems that people desire quantity rather that quality. Yes, someone could do a quick powertrail and get quick finds. Yes, I could do that too. But the GPS is just too far away...

[+niraD]

I am not sure about now but when I hid my first cache, it RECOMMENDED that you should have found 20 or so. This was so you could get an idea of what a cache was really like.

It's still there in the guidelines: "The more geocaches that you have found, the better you will understand the various elements that make up a great geocaching experience. This knowledge will be invaluable when you place a hide, and likely make your geocache more enjoyable for the community. We encourage you to find at least twenty geocaches before you choose to hide one."

 

At this time in caching, it seems that people desire quantity rather that quality.

That just tells me that any number of finds is the wrong measure to determine whether someone is ready to hide a quality cache (or list a quality webcam/virtual cache).

[+Cankid]

At this time in caching, it seems that people desire quantity rather that quality.

That just tells me that any number of finds is the wrong measure to determine whether someone is ready to hide a quality cache (or list a quality webcam/virtual cache).

 

I was trying to talk about that the fact that the desires of the GC community have changed. Back when virtuals were still around, I am sure it would be different compared to today but I couldn't be sure. It seems the perspective has moved to making and finding more. I think the more major points in my first post are the ones that come after the first, as they have a greater effect on the current day issues surrounding the return of virtual/webcam caches. I don't know what other people get from it.

[+cerberus1]

And "again" Cerberus1, what is your solution to allow virtuals or webcams in a way that would work to add quality caches for both?

I don't have a solution.

I'm also not posting with a hope that Groundspeak's gonna reverse their decision.

 

I'm posting over the fallacy that premium membership and/or find counts make a better cacher.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Virtuals and webcams can only be created by Premium members OR members with greater than 200 finds to prevent many of the past issues

I guess I don't get it... second time in one week (and in the same thread).

 

- Please explain how being a premium member and/or having more than 200 finds makes that person more responsible, knowledgeable, or quality oriented.

 

According to www.cacherstats.com there are 246,348 cachers with 200 or more caches found. There are 63,500 cachers with 1,000 caches or more.

 

 

And I suspect that over well over 90% of those geocachers live in one of the 15 most cache dense countries. The GS site lists 250 distinct countries/territories. Only about 40 of them have more than 1000 caches in the entire country.

 

 

I believe that that more caches a person finds, the more they care about geocaching, the more they are grounded in making sure it continues to last. Yes, you could live in a country that would have more caches... Or you could do a single power trail and instantly have enough. However, how many first time cachers care to do power trails? I know many of us that have 2,500 or more and would never consider doing one. I may dabble in GeoArt every once in awhile, I would NEVER do a power trail. With that said, a country that doesn't very many caches to begin with, probably doesn't need too many virtual either!

 

 

What? A country that doesn't have very many caches to begin with *does* need more caches, virtual or otherwise. Try geocaching in a country which has fewer than 50 caches in the entire country (something I've done three times) and come back and tell us that the country doesn't need more caches.

 

 

 

 

 

[+BikerGadget]

So I still don't understand how to place a webcam cache... I have over 200 and I make unique cache containers but I have always wanted to open up my webcams but I cant see how

[+Walts Hunting]

So I still don't understand how to place a webcam cache... I have over 200 and I make unique cache containers but I have always wanted to open up my webcams but I cant see how

You can't they were banned with Virtuals and location less.

[Keystone]

Not quite. Locationless caches were locked to further logs at the end of 2005. Around the same time, webcam and virtual caches were grandfathered, meaning that existing caches can remain active for so long as they are maintained, but no new ones can be published.

[+Frank Broughton]

If cache owners do their job and delete fake logs what is the problem? Caches that don't get maintained should be archived. Their is no reason why webcams should not be allowed.

Except that Groundspeak has determined that, with the exception of Earthcaches and events, geocaches listed on their site have a container and logbook. Sounds like a reason to me.

 

Events have logbooks....

 

Wow broke a record today, made it through 5 threads before the "pile oners" made me have a stomach ache....

[+cheech gang]

If cache owners do their job and delete fake logs what is the problem? Caches that don't get maintained should be archived. Their is no reason why webcams should not be allowed.

Except that Groundspeak has determined that, with the exception of Earthcaches and events, geocaches listed on their site have a container and logbook. Sounds like a reason to me.

 

Events have logbooks....

 

Wow broke a record today, made it through 5 threads before the "pile oners" made me have a stomach ache....

 

Straying further off topic, but here is a quote from the guidelines regarding events and logbooks:

 

Geocache Events do not require a logbook. Mega-events are an exception, and organizers should provide a logbook for signing.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Webcam caches are alive and kicking. Just (mostly) not on the geocaching site (on account of them not being caches).

If you like them so much, why not log them where they're meant to be logged?

[+GeoLog81]

What do webcams and virtual caches have in common? They don't have very strict requirements for logging. Some of the still active virtuals do not have active owners, and some webcams are the same. The logging of these grandfathered caches leaves them open to abuse as people try to get an icon on their find list, perhaps.

 

I haven't logged any Virtual on GC, only on another portals. Don't they require password that must be found on the place? It could be googled but it takes time, and if someone wants 'cheat' statistics, it's easier to go for one of those PowerTrails. I've heard on some of them caches are so lame hidden, that they require practically no searching, only jump auto of your car

 

I don't know if virtuals placed each 200 meters requiring writing down some word from information table are worse than traditionals placed each 200 meters requiring only nailing your stamp...

 

With webcams, even that problem doesn't exist, because the number of them is limited. And it's more challenging than many of those 'power trails' because you have to look on photo, choose the spot and wait a minute.

[team tisri]

And "again" Cerberus1, what is your solution to allow virtuals or webcams in a way that would work to add quality caches for both?

I don't have a solution.

I'm also not posting with a hope that Groundspeak's gonna reverse their decision.

 

I'm posting over the fallacy that premium membership and/or find counts make a better cacher.

 

Very true, the fact someone hands over $30 doesn't make them any different as a geocacher. Find count is equally useless.

 

The basic member who has found 50 well thought out and varyingly hidden caches is probably a more rounded cacher than the premium member who handed over the $30 and found 500 caches in a day doing a powertrail.

 

The overall problem with the "wow" factor is it's impossible to define. It always used to be said that hiders should consider why they are bringing seekers to a specific location. The idea was to take cachers to a noteworthy area rather than just an area that didn't already have a cache. Since the "wow" factor has well and truly gone out of the window with the seemingly endless urban micros behind signs it's hard to see why lacking the wow factor is a reason in and of itself to disallow virtuals. Frankly if I'm going to be taken to an uninspiring location I'd rather be free to just note down what the sign says than try and look inconspicuous while stroking every part of the sign looking for a nano.