Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
KRON family

Returning of webcam caches

Recommended Posts

Reading through that old thread on the subject makes me think about other "causes" that come up in the forums.

 

Essentially, are we to believe, as users, that Jeremy doesn't listen unless there is a notably large response? :ph34r:

 

If I recall back in the days of the feedback pages (that also got axed) there seemed to be precious little listening even when proposed ideas topped the suggestion lists in terms of popularity.

 

I sometimes wonder how much effort got put into things like challenges that so few people seemed to want and which subsequently got pulled, and how much effort it would take to put back things like virtuals and webcams that people do seem to want. Since the infrastructure is already there to support them, the infrastructure is already there to let people who don't want them to filter them out, it seems like an easy way to satisfy some users without upsetting others.

 

There could easily be a wider exclusion zone around virtuals, or perhaps some requirement that a virtual had to be noticeably different from the adjacent virtuals. That would mean they couldn't be used for power trails but could still take in very different elements of a busy touristy city. Places like The Mall in DC or The Mall in London could host a few virtuals while more remote areas wouldn't have as many, if indeed any at all.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If the answer to requests boils down to "Jeremy said no six years ago and that's the end of it" this thread, and several others, might as well be locked.

 

I am not a fan of webcam's. I tried one, once, just to know what is it. I am fan of virtual caches in situations/spots where a physical cache doesn't apply. I (think) understand the reasons why all types of virtual caches were vanished from Geocaching.com. I, also, realize that like Challenges, Waymarking is a failure - just not yet recognized by the TPTB. But, I have to agree that, if the answer from TPTB is "He said NO, six years ago", then there's no use to discuss anything in this foruns. Anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

Waymarking is a failure - just not yet recognized by the TPTB.

I disagree. While Waymarking may have failed to live up to Grounspeak's expectation that it would serve as the "replacement" for virtual caches and webcams, it has been successful in it's own right.

 

Unlike the very restrictive structure of Geocaching, Waymarking was design as a database of all types of coordinate indexed data. You can create any categories you want and post coordinates for object in the categories along with a flexible way of providing additional data that may be category specific. Then there is a way for others to post comments including recording what they found when they visit the location.

 

It is this flexibility that makes Waymarking hard to get into. But there is a large community of individuals who have been creating new categories and new Waymarking to fill these categories.

 

If you think of Waymarking as Wikipedia for geographically indexed data instead of a "replacement for virtuals" its success in hard to dispute. Go into Waymarking, type in coordinates and look at the things that are near that location. Then you can visit the ones you are interested in and share what you found.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure the "no log book" is entirely a red herring.

 

When Geocaching.com started TPTB made a decision to actively support variety and encourage new ideas. While Dave Ulmers's hidden box was a great idea, perhaps other GPS games could be incorporated in the new sport. Certainly they could contribute to the growth of the game as they provided alternatives for where a physical cache couldn't be placed.

 

Over time these varieties have become less important. People have found ways to hide smaller containers and other alternatives like multicaches provide ways to include cacheless locations that lead to a final physical cache. While there are some areas where you can't put a physical cache, it isn't clear that caches are needed in these areas, even if some of these areas are more "interesting" than the typical place physical caches are hidden.

 

Containerless caches also tend to have issues with couch potato logs. A physical log book means there is generally evidence that the person actually found the cache. While webcams have pictures and virtual caches have pictures or answers, these have proven to be poor indicators as whether someone found the cache or not. Of course, since the find count is not a score, you can always argue that we just ignore the bogus finds and let the people who enjoy these alternatives log them. TPTB want to present geocaching as a physical activity and when large numbers are posting finds on containerless caches without doing the work that becomes a problem.

 

Given the issues, TPTB have made a decision to simplify the game and use the container and log definition. I believe they realize that the other types of caches (webcams and virtuals) are popular for a significant group. They are struggling to find ways to allow these but keep them separate from the core caches. Perhaps they are not listening closely enough to what people have suggested as their attempts so far have not been very successful. Or perhaps people are not understanding the rationale for Groundspeak's decision so they are not making any suggestions which Groundspeak is willing to implement.

 

The issue of whether an area needs a cache is something of a red herring. No area "needs" a cache and to be honest I'd rather see more virtuals and earthcaches in areas of beauty where physical caches are prohibited (examples that spring to mind are the Great Smoky Mountains and the Royal Parks in London). In theory it might be possible to create a multicache using natural features with a physical container outside the prohibited area but that means either monstrous treks from start to finish in large areas and issues with cache saturation in the areas surrounding the prohibited areas.

 

We don't need virtual caches in beautiful areas but neither do we need endless wet film pots behind signs. The way the rules are constructed at the moment provides ever-more opportunities to hide a film pot behind a sign and ever-fewer opportunities to spot that breathtaking view in the middle of somewhere like the Smokies and put a virtual cache there.

 

Promoting geocaching as a physical activity is great. It's a much more physical activity to hike four miles along a trail to find a waterfall in order to log the virtual than it is to drive to the fast food joint and pick up the nano hidden behind the crash barrier.

 

Bogus logs will always be with us. A cache with no log book might be fraudulently claimed by someone who knows a bit about the area, someone with a bit of time to spare hunting the answers on Google, or someone who just logs it anyway (maybe with a vague comment like "answers to follow") and hopes the CO doesn't realise they never got the answers. Likewise a physical cache with a log book can be claimed by someone who asked a friend to sign it for them, someone who stood on the ground while someone else climbed the 100' tree, or someone who just claimed it anyway saying they didn't have a pen. Since there are no prizes for getting a high find count I think making decisions on the basis of whether someone can cheat is utterly pointless.

 

I really don't see why virtuals and webcams have to be separate from "core caches". Virtuals don't have to have the same proximity restrictions, the total number of finds people chalk up doesn't make any difference to anything (and the people who want nothing more than lots of smiley faces are just going to do power trails, while the people who want to find the ammo can miles away from anywhere in the woods won't care so much about the find count). What makes little sense to me is why Groundspeak are apparently ignoring the wishes of a significant group of their paying customers when simply putting virtuals and webcams back would have no effect on physical caches, the existing infrastructure already allows them to be filtered out in pocket queries, and so it looks like it would be an easy win with few if any downsides. The existing infrastructure already caters for the removal of caches owned by inactive cachers through the Needs Archived log, and a virtual cache placed and subsequently abandoned by its owner doesn't create geolitter.

 

I see what you mean about TPTB making a decision. It would be nice to get some useful feedback from Groundspeak as to what their reasoning is - at present it seems this forum is a place where people make suggestions and Groundspeak ignore them. A little bit of time from Groundspeak to indicate why decisions have been made (if it's already been said, then putting it in a sticky thread so it's clearly visible would help) would be useful so we could at least understand their thinking. Likewise when suggestions are made it would be useful to get some feedback as to whether it's likely to be done and if so what sort of timeframe can be expected before implementation.

Clearly the problems with virtuals and webcams are not unique to these types of cache. I think what happened is that that these problems occurred with greater frequency in container-less caches than for traditional physical caches. The amount of time and effort that Groundspeak and the reviewers had to spend dealing with these problems exceeded what they felt was worth for these caches.

 

For example take a dispute over deleted logs. For a physical caches all Groundspeak has to do is tell the cache owner that if the finder signed the log the find log should be allowed. Now take a webcam. The owner disputes that the photo shows the finder. Groundspeak could adopt a plan that says if there are any people in the photo the log is good, but that would encourage couch potato logs where you just sit in front of the computer and capture a photo when someone is standing in front of the camera.

 

These disputes are much harder for Groundspeak to adjudicate or to find a solution that can be blanketly applied to all case.

 

There is no doubt that physical cache have there own set of problems that don't occur (or occur less frequently) in container-less caches. It might be reasonable to argue that Groundspeak should look at the entirety of issues when making decision on what caches to allow. But my suspicion is that this is exactly what they did, and even though virtuals and webcams have good points, on the whole they just caused more problems than physical caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not an employee of Groundspeak. I'm not even a moderator in this forum (I wish it designated it as such).

 

My comments are simply to show that a quick search of the forums have shown seven years after Groundspeak disallowed the future submission of Virtuals and Webcams (which only existed for 4 years previously) their position hasn't changed. And honestly, I can't think of any recent post where I've heard them even show a response to which they might consider it. Much of this thread with the "I agree" posts are similar to saying "Can I have a pony? Can I have a pony? Can I have a pony? Can I have a pony? Can I have a pony? Can I have a pony? Can I have a pony? Can I have a pony?" No matter how many times the question is asked, asking the same question without any additional thought or critical thinking, the answer will undoubtedly be the same.

 

I think a DISCUSSION on the topic (here and here for example) has merit and will carry more weight on decisions from Groundspeak than "+1" and "I agree".

 

 

Maybe Groundspeak will surprise me.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure the "no log book" is entirely a red herring.

 

When Geocaching.com started TPTB made a decision to actively support variety and encourage new ideas. While Dave Ulmers's hidden box was a great idea, perhaps other GPS games could be incorporated in the new sport. Certainly they could contribute to the growth of the game as they provided alternatives for where a physical cache couldn't be placed.

 

Over time these varieties have become less important. People have found ways to hide smaller containers and other alternatives like multicaches provide ways to include cacheless locations that lead to a final physical cache. While there are some areas where you can't put a physical cache, it isn't clear that caches are needed in these areas, even if some of these areas are more "interesting" than the typical place physical caches are hidden.

 

Containerless caches also tend to have issues with couch potato logs. A physical log book means there is generally evidence that the person actually found the cache. While webcams have pictures and virtual caches have pictures or answers, these have proven to be poor indicators as whether someone found the cache or not. Of course, since the find count is not a score, you can always argue that we just ignore the bogus finds and let the people who enjoy these alternatives log them. TPTB want to present geocaching as a physical activity and when large numbers are posting finds on containerless caches without doing the work that becomes a problem.

 

Given the issues, TPTB have made a decision to simplify the game and use the container and log definition. I believe they realize that the other types of caches (webcams and virtuals) are popular for a significant group. They are struggling to find ways to allow these but keep them separate from the core caches. Perhaps they are not listening closely enough to what people have suggested as their attempts so far have not been very successful. Or perhaps people are not understanding the rationale for Groundspeak's decision so they are not making any suggestions which Groundspeak is willing to implement.

 

The issue of whether an area needs a cache is something of a red herring. No area "needs" a cache and to be honest I'd rather see more virtuals and earthcaches in areas of beauty where physical caches are prohibited (examples that spring to mind are the Great Smoky Mountains and the Royal Parks in London). In theory it might be possible to create a multicache using natural features with a physical container outside the prohibited area but that means either monstrous treks from start to finish in large areas and issues with cache saturation in the areas surrounding the prohibited areas.

 

We don't need virtual caches in beautiful areas but neither do we need endless wet film pots behind signs. The way the rules are constructed at the moment provides ever-more opportunities to hide a film pot behind a sign and ever-fewer opportunities to spot that breathtaking view in the middle of somewhere like the Smokies and put a virtual cache there.

 

Promoting geocaching as a physical activity is great. It's a much more physical activity to hike four miles along a trail to find a waterfall in order to log the virtual than it is to drive to the fast food joint and pick up the nano hidden behind the crash barrier.

 

Bogus logs will always be with us. A cache with no log book might be fraudulently claimed by someone who knows a bit about the area, someone with a bit of time to spare hunting the answers on Google, or someone who just logs it anyway (maybe with a vague comment like "answers to follow") and hopes the CO doesn't realise they never got the answers. Likewise a physical cache with a log book can be claimed by someone who asked a friend to sign it for them, someone who stood on the ground while someone else climbed the 100' tree, or someone who just claimed it anyway saying they didn't have a pen. Since there are no prizes for getting a high find count I think making decisions on the basis of whether someone can cheat is utterly pointless.

 

I really don't see why virtuals and webcams have to be separate from "core caches". Virtuals don't have to have the same proximity restrictions, the total number of finds people chalk up doesn't make any difference to anything (and the people who want nothing more than lots of smiley faces are just going to do power trails, while the people who want to find the ammo can miles away from anywhere in the woods won't care so much about the find count). What makes little sense to me is why Groundspeak are apparently ignoring the wishes of a significant group of their paying customers when simply putting virtuals and webcams back would have no effect on physical caches, the existing infrastructure already allows them to be filtered out in pocket queries, and so it looks like it would be an easy win with few if any downsides. The existing infrastructure already caters for the removal of caches owned by inactive cachers through the Needs Archived log, and a virtual cache placed and subsequently abandoned by its owner doesn't create geolitter.

 

I see what you mean about TPTB making a decision. It would be nice to get some useful feedback from Groundspeak as to what their reasoning is - at present it seems this forum is a place where people make suggestions and Groundspeak ignore them. A little bit of time from Groundspeak to indicate why decisions have been made (if it's already been said, then putting it in a sticky thread so it's clearly visible would help) would be useful so we could at least understand their thinking. Likewise when suggestions are made it would be useful to get some feedback as to whether it's likely to be done and if so what sort of timeframe can be expected before implementation.

Clearly the problems with virtuals and webcams are not unique to these types of cache. I think what happened is that that these problems occurred with greater frequency in container-less caches than for traditional physical caches. The amount of time and effort that Groundspeak and the reviewers had to spend dealing with these problems exceeded what they felt was worth for these caches.

 

For example take a dispute over deleted logs. For a physical caches all Groundspeak has to do is tell the cache owner that if the finder signed the log the find log should be allowed. Now take a webcam. The owner disputes that the photo shows the finder. Groundspeak could adopt a plan that says if there are any people in the photo the log is good, but that would encourage couch potato logs where you just sit in front of the computer and capture a photo when someone is standing in front of the camera.

 

These disputes are much harder for Groundspeak to adjudicate or to find a solution that can be blanketly applied to all case.

 

There is no doubt that physical cache have there own set of problems that don't occur (or occur less frequently) in container-less caches. It might be reasonable to argue that Groundspeak should look at the entirety of issues when making decision on what caches to allow. But my suspicion is that this is exactly what they did, and even though virtuals and webcams have good points, on the whole they just caused more problems than physical caches.

 

Sure, I can see how a containerless cache could cause problems that a log to sign would address. But the presence of a log doesn't really solve anything. What of the person who got their friend to sign it for them on a caching mission? What of the person who said they didn't have a pen so they smudged some earth on the log, or who said they put some leaves in the cache to prove they found it? Chances are the next finder would see the leaves and throw them out so they didn't rot inside the container. What of the person who claims a cache after a dozen DNFs and argues that the previous several hunters just couldn't find it but it went missing between them signing it and the CO realising it wasn't there any more?

 

If someone logs a cache without actually finding it at all, why does it matter so much? It's not like there's a prize for getting the most smilies, it's not like my sense of achievement at finally securing my own smiley for a difficult and demanding cache is in any way diminished by the fact the previous finder never went within 100 miles of the cache but figured the CO wouldn't check, and if I do all the work to log a cache (with picture/mark on log/information/whatever) and the CO disallows it and deletes my log it's not as if they've taken anything away from me except a gold star on a web site.

 

It seems to me that the concern about how a small minority may take advantage of the system to cheat merely addresses the behaviour of a few who might be irritating but don't actually cause any harm, and does so in a way that restricts what those who play the game as it was intended to be played can do.

Share this post


Link to post

Put a little thought and effort into it, and you could make a webcam cache.

 

(1) Set up a webcam of your own

(2) Install or create some image recognition software on it

(3) Require people to go to the webcam and hold up a sign with a QR code or something else that could be manipulated digitally

(4) Have your webcam recognize the QR code, and when present change the image on the webcam to display for 1 minute the coordinates of the cache located nearby

 

Sounds like an interesting idea. But what's to stop someone from going to the webcam page, and using their own webcam, pointing it at the screen and use some image recognition software to watch for an image which a set of coordinates, take a screen capture and use it to find the final coordinates.

 

I'm surprised that there haven't been more puzzle/unknown caches done with webcams. There are all sorts of possibilities one could do to create a interesting cache using a webcam.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, I can see how a containerless cache could cause problems that a log to sign would address. But the presence of a log doesn't really solve anything. What of the person who got their friend to sign it for them on a caching mission? What of the person who said they didn't have a pen so they smudged some earth on the log, or who said they put some leaves in the cache to prove they found it? Chances are the next finder would see the leaves and throw them out so they didn't rot inside the container. What of the person who claims a cache after a dozen DNFs and argues that the previous several hunters just couldn't find it but it went missing between them signing it and the CO realising it wasn't there any more?

I think I already agreed that these problems can occur with physical cache. There are likely more disputed physical cache logs solely based on the numbers of physical caches compared to container-less caches. However, I would bet that as a percentage of caches places, TPTB have found that they spend far more time dealing with container-less problems.

 

If someone logs a cache without actually finding it at all, why does it matter so much? It's not like there's a prize for getting the most smilies, it's not like my sense of achievement at finally securing my own smiley for a difficult and demanding cache is in any way diminished by the fact the previous finder never went within 100 miles of the cache but figured the CO wouldn't check, and if I do all the work to log a cache (with picture/mark on log/information/whatever) and the CO disallows it and deletes my log it's not as if they've taken anything away from me except a gold star on a web site.

Anyone who follow me in the forums know that I've actually made the same argument many times. But I've been doing for so long now that I know this is not Groundspeak's stance. They apparently want bogus logs removed and have given cache owners both the ability and responsibility to delete bogus logs.

 

Some cache owners don't bother while others tend to take an extreme attitude and insist on signed logs. Often those who get their log deleted get quite upset, especially if they believe the cache owner is treating them unfairly. Traditionally, Groundspeak has held the position that the parties should work it out. But from time to time they have seen the need to get involved. I'm not sure why this seems to happen more often with virtual caches and webcams. Perhaps TPTB do have a prejudice against these hides.

 

It seems to me that the concern about how a small minority may take advantage of the system to cheat merely addresses the behaviour of a few who might be irritating but don't actually cause any harm, and does so in a way that restricts what those who play the game as it was intended to be played can do.

Again I've argued this as well, particularly concerning the archiving and locking of virtuals that have couch potato logs. There is one virtual cache which I found after Groundspeak had archived it and locked the page. I felt this was unfair as I had gone to the location and gotten the required information. From what I've been told, if there was a physical cache getting a lot of couch potato logs with no owner to monitor and delete them it would be archived as well. I take TPTB at their word that this is their policy and that it applies to virtuals, webcams, and physical caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, I can see how a containerless cache could cause problems that a log to sign would address. But the presence of a log doesn't really solve anything. What of the person who got their friend to sign it for them on a caching mission? What of the person who said they didn't have a pen so they smudged some earth on the log, or who said they put some leaves in the cache to prove they found it? Chances are the next finder would see the leaves and throw them out so they didn't rot inside the container. What of the person who claims a cache after a dozen DNFs and argues that the previous several hunters just couldn't find it but it went missing between them signing it and the CO realising it wasn't there any more?

I think I already agreed that these problems can occur with physical cache. There are likely more disputed physical cache logs solely based on the numbers of physical caches compared to container-less caches. However, I would bet that as a percentage of caches places, TPTB have found that they spend far more time dealing with container-less problems.

 

(cut for brevity)

 

Seems like we agree on most things so far.

 

If non-physical containers cause such problems it's curious why Groundspeak are happy with earthcaches. An earthcache is little more than a virtual placed at an area of some geological interest. What's the difference between a virtual placed at an area of geological interest and a virtual placed at an area of some other type of interest?

Share this post


Link to post

At least with traditional (little "t") caches, there is a container that might go missing or need significant maintenance when a cacher goes AWOL/commits geocide. That way, a Reviewer can take the word of cachers when there is a string of DNFs and unanswered NM logs. When a NA log is placed, at least the Reviewer can use the context of a missing container or complete lack of necessary maintenance and archive a cache with an owner who isn't involved anymore.

 

When webcams and virtuals are still going after an owner stops reviewing, monitoring, and maintaining the cache listing and related "allowable" logs, there is very little evidence that can be used to archive the listing. So, those webcams and virtuals get abused, yet can't be archived without proof that the owner isn't maintaining the listing. (Reviewers aren't monitoring the emailed "answers" or submitted webcam photos of each cache, believe it or not! :laughing: )

 

Think of all of the "armchair" virtuals that are causing a stir around the world. The UFO webcam comes to mind immediately. The owner allows silly armchair logs, and there has been no action to archive this misuse of the cache type. I wonder how much of this is playing into the reasoning for blocking the cache types, and moving toward ideas like Geocaching Challenges--with "thumbs up/down rating, and not counting toward find count--and Waymarking, where the owner does not seemingly need to be involved once they create their waymarks.

 

Hmmm.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

If non-physical containers cause such problems it's curious why Groundspeak are happy with earthcaches. An earthcache is little more than a virtual placed at an area of some geological interest. What's the difference between a virtual placed at an area of geological interest and a virtual placed at an area of some other type of interest?

And at least Earthcaches are being "enforced" to have more significant learning experiences to log than they used to be. (At least that's been my experience with my Geoaware Reviewer lately)

 

When the logging requirements are more difficult, fewer people are going to take them on. I think the GSA has recognized the issue with simple requirements and armchair logging, so they are asking for more significant logging requirements for cache creation. Again, this might be enforced differently in your regions, but the GSA site has updated their creation requirements to reflect the desire for more involved "educational experiences" at Earthcaches.

 

On an aside, at least this means more 3+/1 D/T cache listings for all of those people trying to fill the more difficult, lower terrain caches on their grid! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

If non-physical containers cause such problems it's curious why Groundspeak are happy with earthcaches. An earthcache is little more than a virtual placed at an area of some geological interest. What's the difference between a virtual placed at an area of geological interest and a virtual placed at an area of some other type of interest?

And at least Earthcaches are being "enforced" to have more significant learning experiences to log than they used to be. (At least that's been my experience with my Geoaware Reviewer lately)

 

When the logging requirements are more difficult, fewer people are going to take them on. I think the GSA has recognized the issue with simple requirements and armchair logging, so they are asking for more significant logging requirements for cache creation. Again, this might be enforced differently in your regions, but the GSA site has updated their creation requirements to reflect the desire for more involved "educational experiences" at Earthcaches.

 

On an aside, at least this means more 3+/1 D/T cache listings for all of those people trying to fill the more difficult, lower terrain caches on their grid! :laughing:

 

Earthcaches are enforced to have more significant learning experiences? I've claimed more than one earthcache that I visited without even realising it, and gathered the information from the photos I happened to take while I was there before I even realised there was an earthcache. I've gathered enough information to claim at least one earthcache having done nothing more than driven past the area.

 

Another earthcache (a relatively new one) would have been easy enough for me to claim without going there at all on the basis I'd been there a year or two previously. Even without that experience I could probably have gleaned most of what I needed from the first few logs. As it happened I went there anyway because it's a nice walk to a nice viewpoint.

 

So I'm not sure that earthcaches address any of the supposed concerns with virtuals.

Share this post


Link to post

If non-physical containers cause such problems it's curious why Groundspeak are happy with earthcaches. An earthcache is little more than a virtual placed at an area of some geological interest. What's the difference between a virtual placed at an area of geological interest and a virtual placed at an area of some other type of interest?

And at least Earthcaches are being "enforced" to have more significant learning experiences to log than they used to be. (At least that's been my experience with my Geoaware Reviewer lately)

 

When the logging requirements are more difficult, fewer people are going to take them on. I think the GSA has recognized the issue with simple requirements and armchair logging, so they are asking for more significant logging requirements for cache creation. Again, this might be enforced differently in your regions, but the GSA site has updated their creation requirements to reflect the desire for more involved "educational experiences" at Earthcaches.

 

On an aside, at least this means more 3+/1 D/T cache listings for all of those people trying to fill the more difficult, lower terrain caches on their grid! :laughing:

 

Earthcaches are enforced to have more significant learning experiences? I've claimed more than one earthcache that I visited without even realising it, and gathered the information from the photos I happened to take while I was there before I even realised there was an earthcache. I've gathered enough information to claim at least one earthcache having done nothing more than driven past the area.

 

Another earthcache (a relatively new one) would have been easy enough for me to claim without going there at all on the basis I'd been there a year or two previously. Even without that experience I could probably have gleaned most of what I needed from the first few logs. As it happened I went there anyway because it's a nice walk to a nice viewpoint.

 

So I'm not sure that earthcaches address any of the supposed concerns with virtuals.

NEW Earthcaches are being enforced differently, as far as I can tell. NEW ones. There are plenty out there that can still be armchair logged, but at least the GSA, and apparently Groundspeak, are asking that new Earthcaches be more involved than using a sign or answering something that can be googled or found online.

Edited by NeverSummer

Share this post


Link to post

If non-physical containers cause such problems it's curious why Groundspeak are happy with earthcaches. An earthcache is little more than a virtual placed at an area of some geological interest. What's the difference between a virtual placed at an area of geological interest and a virtual placed at an area of some other type of interest?

And at least Earthcaches are being "enforced" to have more significant learning experiences to log than they used to be. (At least that's been my experience with my Geoaware Reviewer lately)

 

When the logging requirements are more difficult, fewer people are going to take them on. I think the GSA has recognized the issue with simple requirements and armchair logging, so they are asking for more significant logging requirements for cache creation. Again, this might be enforced differently in your regions, but the GSA site has updated their creation requirements to reflect the desire for more involved "educational experiences" at Earthcaches.

 

On an aside, at least this means more 3+/1 D/T cache listings for all of those people trying to fill the more difficult, lower terrain caches on their grid! :laughing:

 

Earthcaches are enforced to have more significant learning experiences? I've claimed more than one earthcache that I visited without even realising it, and gathered the information from the photos I happened to take while I was there before I even realised there was an earthcache. I've gathered enough information to claim at least one earthcache having done nothing more than driven past the area.

 

Another earthcache (a relatively new one) would have been easy enough for me to claim without going there at all on the basis I'd been there a year or two previously. Even without that experience I could probably have gleaned most of what I needed from the first few logs. As it happened I went there anyway because it's a nice walk to a nice viewpoint.

 

So I'm not sure that earthcaches address any of the supposed concerns with virtuals.

NEW Earthcaches are being enforced differently, as far as I can tell. NEW ones. There are plenty out there that can still be armchair logged, but at least the GSA, and apparently Groundspeak, are asking that new Earthcaches be more involved than using a sign or answering something that can be googled or found online.

 

How new does "new" have to be to get this new rule?

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for the off topic. This is about the returning of webcam caches, but maybe ECs visitors can/should use the NM log, or even the NA log, on these earthcaches that fail to be as quality driven as seems to be the overall direction that GSA and Groundspeak wants to enforce.

 

Here, in my country, Portugal, some years ago, several earthcaches had to be changed so the logging requirements were more strict in order to improve the overall quality of the ECs. As a result of that, or just by coincidence, my country has two ECs between the 10 better ECs published until then.

Thus, it is a surprise to me to read the testemonial above about new earthcaches being approved with so poor logging quality.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for the off topic. This is about the returning of webcam caches, but maybe ECs visitors can/should use the NM log, or even the NA log, on these earthcaches that fail to be as quality driven as seems to be the overall direction that GSA and Groundspeak wants to enforce.

 

Here, in my country, Portugal, some years ago, several earthcaches had to be changed so the logging requirements were more strict in order to improve the overall quality of the ECs. As a result of that, or just by coincidence, my country has two ECs between the 10 better ECs published until then.

Thus, it is a surprise to me to read the testemonial above about new earthcaches being approved with so poor logging quality.

 

Logging NM or NA to enforce quality of a cache with no logbook that doesn't meet some arbitrary "quality" guidelines, when I'm not expected to use NM or NA to enforce quality of a cache with a logbook that doesn't meet my approval because there is no accepted standard of cache "quality", while Groundspeak insist on not returning cache types with no log book apparently because of concerns over quality? That really is quite comical.

Share this post


Link to post

How new does "new" have to be to get this new rule?

I'm not positive when the subtle change was made.

 

But I can tell you that my interactions with Geoaware and my local Geoaware Reviewer have proven that there is a little more effort necessary for logging tasks to be approved. Perhaps some Geoaware Reviewers are more lax, but the last handful of Earthcaches I've worked on have had some significant extra scrutiny. (So much so, that I still haven't even submitted a few without some consideration to improve the logging tasks so that the review process is quicker.)

 

Consider asking your local Geoaware Reviewer about it. I'd be interested to know if it is being interpreted or enforced inconsistently.

Share this post


Link to post

So, to get this back on topic, here is my theory:

 

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.

 

Earthcaches are still active, and have been receiving more review before publication. Generally, this extra work to create them means fewer created, and the logging requirements decreases the ease of logging another "found it". So, some folks might leave them out of their caching escapades.

 

Until there is some way to see a similar set of guidelines specific to logging Virtuals and Webcams, we won't see them come back. My guess is that, without the support and additional Review of Earthcaches, Earthcaches would be removed from cache types pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post

So, to get this back on topic, here is my theory:

 

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.

 

Some of the still active physical caches do not have active owners so anyone can claim a find on them, and their continued existence leaves them open to abuse as people log them without finding them for whatever reason. If new virtuals were accepted maybe more people would post NA on virtuals that weren't maintained, even if only so they could create a new one in the same location and keep it active (I'm speculating there, having found just about every virtual within many miles of my home I don't pay the local ones much attention). I do like being able to find virtuals in cities when I'm travelling so I can combine a city break with geocaching without wondering whether the Secret Service staff with guns guarding the White House or the Capitol Building are going to take an interest in why that guy's rummaging around under the bush.

 

Earthcaches are still active, and have been receiving more review before publication. Generally, this extra work to create them means fewer created, and the logging requirements decreases the ease of logging another "found it". So, some folks might leave them out of their caching escapades.

 

I've logged a number of earthcaches. Some of them required fairly detailed information, some of them didn't. Some of them required information that could mostly be guessed from looking at the pictures (it's easy to gauge the size of a specific stone when there's a Garmin Oregon resting on it, for example). Some cache owners queried some part of my email with the answers, presumably to confirm I had visited the site; others were happy with partial answers on the basis I'd lost the piece of paper with the full answers but could provide enough information that they were satisfied I had been to the location and taken in the elements of interest. Some cache owners confirmed my answers with an email thanking me for visiting their cache, commenting on my log and giving me additional information on the area. Some confirmed my answers with a short "that's right, hope you enjoyed it" kind of email. Some didn't respond at all. So no great difference to virtuals or webcams there.

 

Until there is some way to see a similar set of guidelines specific to logging Virtuals and Webcams, we won't see them come back. My guess is that, without the support and additional Review of Earthcaches, Earthcaches would be removed from cache types pretty quickly.

 

The guidelines are largely useless unless they are followed, and the owners of caches of all types follow the existing guidelines to varying degrees. If people want to cheat they will cheat, and ultimately there's nothing anyone can do to totally prevent people claiming caches they didn't find.

Share this post


Link to post

So, to get this back on topic, here is my theory:

 

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.

 

Some of the still active physical caches do not have active owners so anyone can claim a find on them, and their continued existence leaves them open to abuse as people log them without finding them for whatever reason. If new virtuals were accepted maybe more people would post NA on virtuals that weren't maintained, even if only so they could create a new one in the same location and keep it active (I'm speculating there, having found just about every virtual within many miles of my home I don't pay the local ones much attention). I do like being able to find virtuals in cities when I'm travelling so I can combine a city break with geocaching without wondering whether the Secret Service staff with guns guarding the White House or the Capitol Building are going to take an interest in why that guy's rummaging around under the bush.

 

Earthcaches are still active, and have been receiving more review before publication. Generally, this extra work to create them means fewer created, and the logging requirements decreases the ease of logging another "found it". So, some folks might leave them out of their caching escapades.

 

I've logged a number of earthcaches. Some of them required fairly detailed information, some of them didn't. Some of them required information that could mostly be guessed from looking at the pictures (it's easy to gauge the size of a specific stone when there's a Garmin Oregon resting on it, for example). Some cache owners queried some part of my email with the answers, presumably to confirm I had visited the site; others were happy with partial answers on the basis I'd lost the piece of paper with the full answers but could provide enough information that they were satisfied I had been to the location and taken in the elements of interest. Some cache owners confirmed my answers with an email thanking me for visiting their cache, commenting on my log and giving me additional information on the area. Some confirmed my answers with a short "that's right, hope you enjoyed it" kind of email. Some didn't respond at all. So no great difference to virtuals or webcams there.

 

Until there is some way to see a similar set of guidelines specific to logging Virtuals and Webcams, we won't see them come back. My guess is that, without the support and additional Review of Earthcaches, Earthcaches would be removed from cache types pretty quickly.

 

The guidelines are largely useless unless they are followed, and the owners of caches of all types follow the existing guidelines to varying degrees. If people want to cheat they will cheat, and ultimately there's nothing anyone can do to totally prevent people claiming caches they didn't find.

<_<

 

At least with a physical cache, there is always a physical logbook against which an online "Found it" log can be checked.

 

Not sure why you keep nitpicking here. Time to move along...

Share this post


Link to post

I've logged a number of earthcaches. Some of them required fairly detailed information, some of them didn't. Some of them required information that could mostly be guessed from looking at the pictures (it's easy to gauge the size of a specific stone when there's a Garmin Oregon resting on it, for example). Some cache owners queried some part of my email with the answers, presumably to confirm I had visited the site; others were happy with partial answers on the basis I'd lost the piece of paper with the full answers but could provide enough information that they were satisfied I had been to the location and taken in the elements of interest. Some cache owners confirmed my answers with an email thanking me for visiting their cache, commenting on my log and giving me additional information on the area. Some confirmed my answers with a short "that's right, hope you enjoyed it" kind of email. Some didn't respond at all. So no great difference to virtuals or webcams there.

 

And that one might be a good example of caches not being maintained properly. It was unavailable for six months when I visited the area, due to 'work in the area'. Yet, the CO continued to accept finds on it.

A similar one nearer me, where one needs to count faces on the building. The building was shrouded for about a year. No faces visible. Yet the CO continued to accept finds.

And those both had active COs.

I can think of a number of virtuals and webcams without active COs. Almost anything gets logged.

I do have a webcam cache. The most frustrating thing is the number of cachers who cannot, or do not, obtain the required photo. Yet they want to log the webcam anyway. "Here is a photo of the webcam." "Here is a photo of us nearby." That amounts to about 30% of the logged 'webcam photo taken' logs! And some get quite nasty when I delete the 'find'. Quite sad and frustrating! Maybe it's entitlement? Maybe they get away with it on other webcam caches? "A photo of you,taken by the webcam, and posted with your log is required to log this cache." Spelt out in black and white!

Sorry. Venting my frustration. Yet, it is my most popular, and favorited cache!

Share this post


Link to post
<_<

 

At least with a physical cache, there is always a physical logbook against which an online "Found it" log can be checked.

 

Not sure why you keep nitpicking here. Time to move along...

 

I'm not nitpicking, merely pointing out that unless a CO verifies logs against a physical book (assuming the cache wasn't muggled in the meantime) there's still no verification of a find on a physical cache. The reasons people are using to argue against webcams and virtuals boil down to a lack of concrete verification and all I'm saying is that the same applies to many physical caches.

 

Even if the CO does verify the book they have no way of knowing whether the person claiming the find signed it, whether one person climbed the tall tree and six people on the ground claimed the find, or whether one person found the cache and signed it on behalf of a caching buddy. So the physical log book doesn't actually prove anything beyond the fact that someone was there.

 

Not sure why making the exact opposite point to yours is considered nitpicking. Ho hum...

Edited by team tisri

Share this post


Link to post
And that one might be a good example of caches not being maintained properly. It was unavailable for six months when I visited the area, due to 'work in the area'. Yet, the CO continued to accept finds on it.

A similar one nearer me, where one needs to count faces on the building. The building was shrouded for about a year. No faces visible. Yet the CO continued to accept finds.

And those both had active COs.

I can think of a number of virtuals and webcams without active COs. Almost anything gets logged.

I do have a webcam cache. The most frustrating thing is the number of cachers who cannot, or do not, obtain the required photo. Yet they want to log the webcam anyway. "Here is a photo of the webcam." "Here is a photo of us nearby." That amounts to about 30% of the logged 'webcam photo taken' logs! And some get quite nasty when I delete the 'find'. Quite sad and frustrating! Maybe it's entitlement? Maybe they get away with it on other webcam caches? "A photo of you,taken by the webcam, and posted with your log is required to log this cache." Spelt out in black and white!

Sorry. Venting my frustration. Yet, it is my most popular, and favorited cache!

 

I guess a lot of people think that if they went to the area and can prove it they get to claim the find. I suppose it's the same mentality as the people who visit a 5/5 cache that's 50 feet up a tree and claim a find on the basis they sighted it from the ground and then get shirty when they are told their "find" doesn't count.

 

I suppose like so many other games, if people find it isn't fun any more they'll stop playing the game.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not nitpicking, merely pointing out that unless a CO verifies logs against a physical book (assuming the cache wasn't muggled in the meantime) there's still no verification of a find on a physical cache. The reasons people are using to argue against webcams and virtuals boil down to a lack of concrete verification and all I'm saying is that the same applies to many physical caches.

Not quite true. Even if the owner of a physical cache has dropped out of caching altogether, other finders see what is written in the physical log.

 

Like you, I agree that bogus online logs can't be entirely eliminated and they exist for all types of caches. I also agree with the argument that just because someone is logging a bogus log there is no reason to archive a cache or grandfather and entire type of cache that people are enjoying. I have found an archived and locked virtual cache which TPTB prevent me from logging becuase they got creeped out by all the couch potato logs it had and an owner who was unresposive to requests to maintain the page.

 

TPTB apparently take a different view when it comes to logging issues. While they cannot be prevented, there are some types of caches where the problems are more common and where disputes are more difficult to resolve (due to the lack of a physical log). These problems work both ways (bogus logs that are allowed to stand and legitimate logs that are deleted over some triviality). I have litte doubt that these problems are more severe in the types of caches that have been grandfathered. They were even more severe in ALR cache and one reason for those requirements to be abolished totally.

Share this post


Link to post

How new does "new" have to be to get this new rule?

I'm not positive when the subtle change was made.

 

But I can tell you that my interactions with Geoaware and my local Geoaware Reviewer have proven that there is a little more effort necessary for logging tasks to be approved. Perhaps some Geoaware Reviewers are more lax, but the last handful of Earthcaches I've worked on have had some significant extra scrutiny. (So much so, that I still haven't even submitted a few without some consideration to improve the logging tasks so that the review process is quicker.)

 

Consider asking your local Geoaware Reviewer about it. I'd be interested to know if it is being interpreted or enforced inconsistently.

Here is a link to the updates.

 

Sounds like the logging tasks are required to be more specific, as to not simply just look at a sign for the answers to the requirement. Questions should be based on Earth Science, and specific to the site.

 

It all reads like an ALR, but in this case, it is accepted by Groundspeak as a unique cache type, exempt from what some might say is not allowed.

 

Just wanted to post this for context, not to reenter the off-topic detour. As you were...

Share this post


Link to post

'Container-less' caches have gone the way of the dodo bird.

Get over it.

 

You're probably right. The latest integration into TwitFace and new ways of adding new technology that apparently achieves nothing except requiring people to have a fancy gadget are more important than the chance to open up swathes of currently unavailable (and beautiful) areas to geocaching.

 

Personally I'd rather have extra virtuals in a place like the Great Smoky Mountains than a bunch of NFC tags and QR codes stuck on signs. Sadly it seems TPTB take the exact opposite view.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to agree, there are many different types of cache for many types of geocacher. Just because it's not conventional, doesn't make it wrong. I don't see the fun in playing the numbers game, so apart from one day doing a power trail in the US if I ever get there for a holiday, I think power trails don't meet the 'ethos' of the original game, but some people enjoy them so they should stay. Same with webcam caches, if people find enjoyment and it gets them off their butts and into the fresh air, then I say bring them back.

 

If you don't agree then untick the webcam cache box on your PQs, then everyone is happy.

Share this post


Link to post

I definitely agree!

Any Webcam-Cache is a thousand times better than millions of uncompassionately installed guardrail-caches, oh-look-there's-a-tree-caches and nano-at-a-lantern-post-drive-in-caches.

For those have NOTHING to do with the idea of geocaching.

Edited by *B'Elanna*

Share this post


Link to post

I see too many problems that comes with webcams. So I will say no new webcams.

 

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy doing them but they can be hassle to find the correct web camera due to the CO not updating the web cam links. Those links do change alot it seems.

Share this post


Link to post

I see too many problems that comes with webcams. So I will say no new webcams.

 

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy doing them but they can be hassle to find the correct web camera due to the CO not updating the web cam links. Those links do change alot it seems.

 

If the CO doesn't maintain it then log NA against it, just like if the CO doesn't maintain a traditional cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I see too many problems that comes with webcams. So I will say no new webcams.

 

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy doing them but they can be hassle to find the correct web camera due to the CO not updating the web cam links. Those links do change alot it seems.

 

If the CO doesn't maintain it then log NA against it, just like if the CO doesn't maintain a traditional cache.

This is not always simple with a webcam. The link might just be temporarily down, or the link may work and the camera is just off-line. Starting to post NM or NA logs against websites over which the cache owner has no control could easily get out of hand. When a NA or NM log is posted on a physical cache the reviewer usually asks the cache owner to fix the problem in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not sure what the cache owner can do if a problem is reported with a webcam other than argue that when camera has gone down before it always came back.

Share this post


Link to post

I see too many problems that comes with webcams. So I will say no new webcams.

 

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy doing them but they can be hassle to find the correct web camera due to the CO not updating the web cam links. Those links do change alot it seems.

 

If the CO doesn't maintain it then log NA against it, just like if the CO doesn't maintain a traditional cache.

This is not always simple with a webcam. The link might just be temporarily down, or the link may work and the camera is just off-line. Starting to post NM or NA logs against websites over which the cache owner has no control could easily get out of hand. When a NA or NM log is posted on a physical cache the reviewer usually asks the cache owner to fix the problem in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not sure what the cache owner can do if a problem is reported with a webcam other than argue that when camera has gone down before it always came back.

 

So if the link is down for an extended period the cache gets disabled and maybe it gets archived. It's no different to the situation when a cache in a park is unavailable for an extended period because the park is closed for remodelling or similar.

Share this post


Link to post

I see too many problems that comes with webcams. So I will say no new webcams.

 

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy doing them but they can be hassle to find the correct web camera due to the CO not updating the web cam links. Those links do change alot it seems.

 

If the CO doesn't maintain it then log NA against it, just like if the CO doesn't maintain a traditional cache.

This is not always simple with a webcam. The link might just be temporarily down, or the link may work and the camera is just off-line. Starting to post NM or NA logs against websites over which the cache owner has no control could easily get out of hand. When a NA or NM log is posted on a physical cache the reviewer usually asks the cache owner to fix the problem in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not sure what the cache owner can do if a problem is reported with a webcam other than argue that when camera has gone down before it always came back.

 

So if the link is down for an extended period the cache gets disabled and maybe it gets archived. It's no different to the situation when a cache in a park is unavailable for an extended period because the park is closed for remodelling or similar.

There are PLENTY of webcams up 24/7 in the world. More and more become stable everyday. If a webcam has issues, then it will be archived and the publisher for that region would know that that is not one that should be a webcam cache!

 

Almost every single webcam cache I have come across (10 out of 11), they either worked like a charm or I was able to figure out the link via Google and grab a picture. So I really am not buying the argument presented above! If the Cache Owner "maintained" their webcam cache, they would validate that it is down and disable it. They would contact the owners of the webcam and find out if its going to be down permanently or for a period of time. They would POST that information and keep cachers informed. Heck, it would be FAR easier to maintain a webcam cache than some of the caches out there that go for months without repair!

Edited by TANZ!!

Share this post


Link to post

'Container-less' caches have gone the way of the dodo bird.

Get over it.

 

You're probably right. The latest integration into TwitFace and new ways of adding new technology that apparently achieves nothing except requiring people to have a fancy gadget are more important than the chance to open up swathes of currently unavailable (and beautiful) areas to geocaching.

 

Personally I'd rather have extra virtuals in a place like the Great Smoky Mountains than a bunch of NFC tags and QR codes stuck on signs. Sadly it seems TPTB take the exact opposite view.

 

Completely agree with your comments! If bringing back the dodo would allow virtuals in National Parks or allow me to find popular sites when I travel to new places... bring them back!

 

If a webcam cache is the best way to capture my entire family when caching... LET ME DO IT!

 

I am not into numbers... I am in it for getting me places that I would have NEVER gone had it not been for the cache there!

 

I also would love to see the top 500 caches in the US (or world) and find out how many of them are Virtuals?

Share this post


Link to post
And that one might be a good example of caches not being maintained properly. It was unavailable for six months when I visited the area, due to 'work in the area'. Yet, the CO continued to accept finds on it.

A similar one nearer me, where one needs to count faces on the building. The building was shrouded for about a year. No faces visible. Yet the CO continued to accept finds.

And those both had active COs.

I can think of a number of virtuals and webcams without active COs. Almost anything gets logged.

I do have a webcam cache. The most frustrating thing is the number of cachers who cannot, or do not, obtain the required photo. Yet they want to log the webcam anyway. "Here is a photo of the webcam." "Here is a photo of us nearby." That amounts to about 30% of the logged 'webcam photo taken' logs! And some get quite nasty when I delete the 'find'. Quite sad and frustrating! Maybe it's entitlement? Maybe they get away with it on other webcam caches? "A photo of you,taken by the webcam, and posted with your log is required to log this cache." Spelt out in black and white!

Sorry. Venting my frustration. Yet, it is my most popular, and favorited cache!

 

I guess a lot of people think that if they went to the area and can prove it they get to claim the find. I suppose it's the same mentality as the people who visit a 5/5 cache that's 50 feet up a tree and claim a find on the basis they sighted it from the ground and then get shirty when they are told their "find" doesn't count.

 

I suppose like so many other games, if people find it isn't fun any more they'll stop playing the game.

 

I think the fun of geocaching is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I am certain that the only thing that would drive me away from geocaching is local politics. I had a geocaching friend that quit because of politics at around 10K finds. It was ridiculous on both sides of the argument. Some cachers were placing powertrails EVERYWHERE. He didnt like powertrails. Started a feud and he ended up quiting and pulling his hides. Some of the best hides in that area.

 

Powertrails do not do it for me.

 

Someone claiming finds without doing them (and you know they are never going to even reach 1000 finds) can do whatever they desire. Its their life they have to live with and I bet they lie in just about everything they do. Does it hurt me? No.

 

With that said, I am a firm believing in Virtuals (maybe 1 per 1000 finds) and Webcams. I like them. I have fun with them. I very much enjoy going to someplace new and looking at the favorited caches. Most of the time they are virtuals and I will go to those places just to see the amazing world we live in through someone elses eyes. Do I want a virtual of a street sign or something ridiculous? No... .but I do enjoy the ones that could be put into Yellowstone or other National Parks!

Share this post


Link to post

I see too many problems that comes with webcams. So I will say no new webcams.

 

Dont get me wrong, I enjoy doing them but they can be hassle to find the correct web camera due to the CO not updating the web cam links. Those links do change alot it seems.

 

If the CO doesn't maintain it then log NA against it, just like if the CO doesn't maintain a traditional cache.

This is not always simple with a webcam. The link might just be temporarily down, or the link may work and the camera is just off-line. Starting to post NM or NA logs against websites over which the cache owner has no control could easily get out of hand. When a NA or NM log is posted on a physical cache the reviewer usually asks the cache owner to fix the problem in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not sure what the cache owner can do if a problem is reported with a webcam other than argue that when camera has gone down before it always came back.

 

So if the link is down for an extended period the cache gets disabled and maybe it gets archived. It's no different to the situation when a cache in a park is unavailable for an extended period because the park is closed for remodelling or similar.

There are PLENTY of webcams up 24/7 in the world. More and more become stable everyday. If a webcam has issues, then it will be archived and the publisher for that region would know that that is not one that should be a webcam cache!

 

Almost every single webcam cache I have come across (10 out of 11), they either worked like a charm or I was able to figure out the link via Google and grab a picture. So I really am not buying the argument presented above! If the Cache Owner "maintained" their webcam cache, they would validate that it is down and disable it. They would contact the owners of the webcam and find out if its going to be down permanently or for a period of time. They would POST that information and keep cachers informed. Heck, it would be FAR easier to maintain a webcam cache than some of the caches out there that go for months without repair!

 

Other than that I haven't had the same success finding working webcams for those I've looked for I agree with everything you've written. I'd also add that webcams are a lot less expensive and easier to set up today than they were when webcam caches were still allowed. That might reduce the dependency on a webcam owner that wasn't a geocacher. A quick look at Amazon showed 2 webcams with LEDs (so that they could be used at night) for less than $5.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I like the webcam caches. I would like to see more of them, but if not... I wonder if I could somehow incorporate webcams into a multi-cache, or mystery cache...

Hmmm.... have to sleep on this idea.

Share this post


Link to post

I got an idea: Groundspeak could allow Virtual and Webcam caches for Premium Members and earn some money while the "non-premiums" Virtual Cachers would buy their membership. I'm pretty sure that problems with Virtual and Webcam caches can be solved and as someone already noticed: the caches with containers are having problems too. By allowing EarthCaches the "non-container cache ain't a cache" is not a good argument anymore. Waymarking isn't so popular and the website is confusing and a bit messy.

 

Geocacher who started caching too late.

Share this post


Link to post

just stating the obvious- There already is a website for webcams- BUT - maybe the time put into challenges could be used to tidy up Waymarking.com?

Share this post


Link to post

just stating the obvious- There already is a website for webcams- BUT - maybe the time put into challenges could be used to tidy up Waymarking.com?

 

I dont want to use Waymarking... I dont want Munzees... I dont want Opencaching.

 

I want Groundspeak to be reasonable about Virtuals and Webcam caches so that I have a single total for things that make sense for Geocaching.

 

If Virtuals and Webcam caches didn't usually have the most favorites for a given area, I could COMPLETELY understand why they wouldn't want to have them. However, I travel to a lot of locations (now with 10 states with more than 100 caches each) and the caches that usually bubble up to the top of the favorite charts are caches that they should bring back!

Share this post


Link to post

If Virtuals and Webcam caches didn't usually have the most favorites for a given area, I could COMPLETELY understand why they wouldn't want to have them. However, I travel to a lot of locations (now with 10 states with more than 100 caches each) and the caches that usually bubble up to the top of the favorite charts are caches that they should bring back!

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

If Virtuals and Webcam caches didn't usually have the most favorites for a given area, I could COMPLETELY understand why they wouldn't want to have them. However, I travel to a lot of locations (now with 10 states with more than 100 caches each) and the caches that usually bubble up to the top of the favorite charts are caches that they should bring back!

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Okay... I know a guy with well over two thousand finds, who's still trading trackables for swag.

What does finds have to do with quality, knowledge, or responsibility?

Many of those who got Virtuals and others canned were people with thousands of finds.

With your thinking, a brand-new basic member just starting today, no clue of what caching is (really), could hit the ET Highway (or similar), rack up 1,000+ finds and now are instantly eligible for one of those "special" hides.

- I bet they'd know just were to put it...

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...