Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
turbine495

Bring back virtuals!

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I think returning Virtual Caches would be a good idea.

Virtual Caches were phased out by Waymarks, but they are completely unpopular, so I request a comeback of Virtual Caches. I love them!

Edited by turbine495

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, but unfortunately Groundspeak considers Waymarking to the alternative for virtuals, so I doubt it's going to happen any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, but unfortunately Groundspeak considers Waymarking to the alternative for virtuals, so I doubt it's going to happen any time soon.

I know, but pretty much no one uses Waymarking - I made a waymark a 2 years ago, and no one found it to this day. Geocaching is the more popular alternative.

Share this post


Link to post

I think returning Virtual Caches would be a good idea.

Virtual Caches were phased out by Challenges, and now the Challenges are gone, so I request a comeback of Virtual Caches. I love them!

 

Virtual Caches were phased out and pseudo-replaced by Waymarks which were/are basically locationless virtuals. Challenges were the next incarnation but they also were not Virtuals. I'm not sure what they were - basically a new kind of side game.

 

What aspect of Virtuals do you like? There are some aspects of the old Virtuals I liked but what I didn't like was how more and more were taking people to boring locations - like a retail store. When land managers heard about virtuals they often allowed those and not physical caches.

 

The closest thing GS currently offers is Earthcaches. Perhaps you might enjoy those.

Share this post


Link to post

I think returning Virtual Caches would be a good idea.

Virtual Caches were phased out by Challenges, and now the Challenges are gone, so I request a comeback of Virtual Caches. I love them!

 

Virtual Caches were phased out and pseudo-replaced by Waymarks which were/are basically locationless virtuals. Challenges were the next incarnation but they also were not Virtuals. I'm not sure what they were - basically a new kind of side game.

 

What aspect of Virtuals do you like? There are some aspects of the old Virtuals I liked but what I didn't like was how more and more were taking people to boring locations - like a retail store. When land managers heard about virtuals they often allowed those and not physical caches.

 

The closest thing GS currently offers is Earthcaches. Perhaps you might enjoy those.

Clarifying. I like those Virtuals that actually take you to a good place - a monument, for example. It is true that there are some boring caches, but I like most of them.

Share this post


Link to post

Where's Toz? :laughing:

 

I, too, would like to see the return of virtuals and I've not been shy saying so since they went away. There are lots of potential issues that SERIOUS discussion could mainly resolve. The others could largely be fixed by responsible cachers self-policing.

 

Just as an FYI to the OP, virtuals were not phased out in favor of Challenges. They were gone LONG before those. They were just a sad, pathetic attempt to appease those of us that want virtuals back. But they were not the same and interest QUICKLY waned.

 

Waymarks came before Challenges, again, quite a bit after virtuals (and locationless) disappeared. They were intended to also appease those that liked virtual and locationless caches. But again they utterly failed as virtual replacements and are only barely effective (IMO) as locationless alternatives.

 

What do I like about virts? The vast majority of virts took us to interesting places and showed us interesting things or taught us something and, usually, we were surprised by what we found. Were there some stinkers? Not really. Some were definitely less interesting than others, but we never encountered the now-myhological sneakers in the woods (although we did find some that were regular caches) or dead animals (though we've found many near regular caches).

 

As for land managers liking them in favor if regular caches, I don't see that as a bad thing. In some cases it would open a door to caching that otherwise would have never been opened. In others it may open areas that were closed before because containerless caches were not an option and areas where containers are allowed are very restricted. To top it all off, I would expect that, as environmental and security issues continue to take a larger role in our lives and our game, I would expect that container caches will be closed out of more and more places anyway. I truly believe that at some point, virtual caching, or some variation of containerless caching, will ultimately be the only way this game will continue into the future and the sooner we find a way to make it work, the better off the game will be.

Share this post


Link to post

I have enjoyed many virtual caches.

They have brought me to many amazing and worthy locations where a physical container wouldn't be feasible.

 

I have also driven right past other virtual caches that really didn't have anything going for them except that they could have been another cache type for the day. Had I stopped, I could have qualified for a challenge cache...but I didn't know it at the time. I have no regrets...well, maybe a little.

 

If some reasonable and fair way to allow them but limit their placement could be devised, then maybe...

 

I have no interest in a powertrail where I need to post a picture of myself next to 10,000 different utility poles, or send the CO a PM listing some numbers off said poles.

Share this post


Link to post

Virtuals have taken me to some of the most stunning locations I have visited in this game - only one traditional for me would fall into the same group. They extended the game into areas where traditional caching may never be permitted. They are the first and sometimes only caches I seek when traveling. They are my favorite cache type.

 

I would like to see them restored as part of this game. But Groundspeak's promotion of challenges as a way to satisfy those who want virtuals to return convinced me of how little they understand about why many of us have participated in these threads over the years. Challenges also convinced me how careful one would have to be in defining what constitutes a virtual cache, where they can be developed, and how many people could place.

 

It could be done, but having discussed this time and time again, I doubt that I want to wade into these waters again. And I doubt whether Groundspeak is listening.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If some reasonable and fair way to allow them but limit their placement could be devised, then maybe...

 

This idea may not be reasonable but.....Groundspeak could make some money off of Virtuals. Bring them back for $5 a piece. If someone wanted to create and own a virtual they would buy a Virtual GC number, much like travelbugs. People would probably be more selective about where they plant them if they have to pay to post them on the GC site.

 

I wouldn't want Virtuals to interfere with physical boxes. No .1 mile rule that prevents physical caches from being planted in that or near that spot.

Share this post


Link to post

 

This idea may not be reasonable but.....Groundspeak could make some money off of Virtuals. Bring them back for $5 a piece. If someone wanted to create and own a virtual they would buy a Virtual GC number, much like travelbugs. People would probably be more selective about where they plant them if they have to pay to post them on the GC site.

 

I wouldn't want Virtuals to interfere with physical boxes. No .1 mile rule that prevents physical caches from being planted in that or near that spot.

 

People would pay the $5 to place an uninteresting virtual just to get that ghost icon on the Geocaches Owned side of their profile page.

Edited by Great Scott!

Share this post


Link to post

This idea may not be reasonable but.....Groundspeak could make some money off of Virtuals. Bring them back for $5 a piece. If someone wanted to create and own a virtual they would buy a Virtual GC number, much like travelbugs. People would probably be more selective about where they plant them if they have to pay to post them on the GC site.

 

I wouldn't want Virtuals to interfere with physical boxes. No .1 mile rule that prevents physical caches from being planted in that or near that spot.

 

People would pay the $5 to place an uninteresting virtual just to get that ghost icon on the Geocaches Owned side of their profile page.

 

Ain't that the truth. But they'd probably only dish out for one Virtual for their icon collection. Hopefully serious Virtual owners who spend $25+ for a few virtuals would spend the money wisely.

Share this post


Link to post

Where's Toz? :laughing:

I find the topic boring.

 

The decision to grandfather virtual caches was made a long time ago. There have been countless threads since asking to bring back virtuals. Aside most beginning with a non-starter demand (Bring back virtuals cause I like 'em), there are occasionally be a few attempts at suggestions on how to deal with the old problems, or some theory that these really weren't problems, or that they wouldn't be problems now if virtuals were brought back. I don't anticipate this thread will have anything new to say.

Share this post


Link to post

 

This idea may not be reasonable but.....Groundspeak could make some money off of Virtuals. Bring them back for $5 a piece. If someone wanted to create and own a virtual they would buy a Virtual GC number, much like travelbugs. People would

 

This is a good idea. Actually, if they charged $20/virtual and made people fill out a long form, that would weed out most low-quality ones. :D

Share this post


Link to post

When I started geocaching in 2010 I was learning something new all the time. Different cache types --> cool! When I heard about webcam caches, virtual caches and locationless caches I thought "Why there isn't any near my house?" Then this newbie geocacher got his first dissappointment: no more can be done.

 

Later my opinion about the locationless caches changed. I agree that they actually aren't geocaches. Webcam and Virtuals are cool cache types as the caches with containers. I don't see any reason why can't a geocache be a geocache without a container? If EarthCaches are allowed too this container argument has lost its power. When the virtual caches were grandfathered I understand that there was some kind of problems out there but so the traditional caches are having problems too. Containers are lost, somebody can cheat in logging (friend logs a cache for him/her), the cache is actually a micro in a traffic sign (Wow-factor)... So should we grandfather traditional caches too? :blink:

 

When I started reading these conversations about bringing back grandfathered caches I see that people are worried about the logging. I say that if I log every geocache in the world now most of the logs are not going to be deleted. It would be my own shame. The idea of geocaching is to entertain ourselves by getting some finds and see places which wouldn't have been seen without a cache. This should not be a competition! If someone really gets satisfaction by cheating so be it! I don't see the funny side on it...

 

For example think about a webcam cache. "How a great idea!" - Thinks someone who has started the geocaching.

Some people are against the bring back grandfathered cache types operation, some people are dreaming to get them back. As I said the geocaching is a hobby where you should get some entertaiment so if some people are against it why should we ban the other cachers' joy? If you don't like them, don't log them. Easy and simple to do! This game should not be forcing anyone. If these cache types mean so much to someone, why we have to spoil the joy? The Waymarking is not so popular and it is not the same (Waymark published 2 years ago --> Last visited: never). People are interested in geocaching. I say that I would have never experienced the EarthCaches if they would not have been brought back.

 

I think that these conversations should be taken seriously. Geocachers are keeping this hobby alive and we should be listened. For now I am a premium member but I figured out that I don't actually need premium membership it is more like support for this awesome hobby. So one idea could be that Groundspeak allows the Virtuals and Webcams for the premium members. :lol:

 

Let's make this game even more awesome!

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see virtuals come back also, but you people are beating a dead horse. I think some of the reviewers didn't want them because it put too much of a burden on them doing their job and the powers that be also had arguments against them, which I think could have been remedied with a couple of rule changes. But anyway don't hold your breath that they'll be back anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if Waymarking might be more popular if it could be tied into the Geocaching app. Even if the numbers didn't count toward a person's profile (like Benchmarks), it would be great to see Waymarks pop up when I'm out searching for geocaches. Same with Benchmarks. I know there are apps and mobile sites that give users mobile access to these...but it just isn't the same if you have to use a completely different app to find and log them. Waymarks are still under Groundspeak...so I really don't understand why they choose not to tie them in somehow. I'd likely seek out and log Waymarks if I could pull them up on the GC or c:geo apps and log from there.

Share this post


Link to post

Where's Toz? :laughing:

I find the topic boring.

 

The decision to grandfather virtual caches was made a long time ago. There have been countless threads since asking to bring back virtuals. Aside most beginning with a non-starter demand (Bring back virtuals cause I like 'em), there are occasionally be a few attempts at suggestions on how to deal with the old problems, or some theory that these really weren't problems, or that they wouldn't be problems now if virtuals were brought back. I don't anticipate this thread will have anything new to say.

 

Actually, my idea of dedicated virtual reveiwers (like the handful of dedicated Earthcache reviewers) is pretty new. So is the "charge money for them" idea. But true, they have been brought up before.

 

Can we see your video of Albert Einstein explaining to The Queen why she can't place virtuals any longer? C'mon, please. :P

 

 

Waymarks came before Challenges, again, quite a bit after virtuals (and locationless) disappeared. They were intended to also appease those that liked virtual and locationless caches. But again they utterly failed as virtual replacements and are only barely effective (IMO) as locationless alternatives.

 

 

Don't mind me correcting you, I'm a self-proclaimed Geocaching history buff. :o I don't have an exact date, but Waymarking was launched to the general public sometime in November, 2005, as I logged my first one 11/29/2005, and I'm pretty certain I did it within a couple weeks of the website going online. Locationless caches were still open until 1/3/2006. I would assume the cut-off on "WOW Factor" virtuals was the same day. That was the 3 year period, where you could still technically get a virtual published, but most were rejected by reviewers because they didn't meet the "WOW Factor" imposed by TPTB.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

 

Someone came up with the convenient excuse that a Geocache consists of a container and a log. :lol: So Virtuals, Webcams and Locationless were all basically killed around the same time in 2005-2006. However, you could still create a webcam cache right up to the day Waymarking.com went live. I placed a webcam cache in April 2005 no problem. There was a de-facto moratorium on new virtuals since 2003, and a real, "we no longer accept them", moratorium on new locationless, also since 2003.

Edited by Mr.Yuck

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

Well I was thinking that if there is some kind of mission to the cacher what he/she has to do to log the cache makes it more easier if the CO can check that it is correct without visiting the actual place. If the log sheet disappears, how do you check the earlier logs?

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

Well I was thinking that if there is some kind of mission to the cacher what he/she has to do to log the cache makes it more easier if the CO can check that it is correct without visiting the actual place. If the log sheet disappears, how do you check the earlier logs?

I've been playing a while and have yet to see a log sheet disappear. Have you seen this happening?

- Swapped out for a new one maybe...

Virtuals got quite a few fake loggers over the years. Google searches will often give you all the information you need for virtuals (and some earth caches) without ever visiting the site.

A pic with the cacher at the site is the only way to be reasonably sure the cacher was indeed there.

 

I wouldn't want virtuals to return if the only reason was it was easier to maintain.

Share this post


Link to post

Waymarking would be utilized more if it was easier to use the Waymarking site and if you got smilies or some other recognition for going to them and if they were only for historical or scenic views. Going to "My favorite store" isn't a waymark to me, but going and finding some interesting sculptures in the downtown area or historical buildings was.

Share this post


Link to post
There are lots of potential issues that SERIOUS discussion could mainly resolve. The others could largely be fixed by responsible cachers self-policing.

Yeah, good luck with that. :lol:

 

We've seen how "self policing" works.

Thirty people log a smiley on a soaked, moldy cache still not fixed from two NMs six Months earlier and I finally place a NA.

- And I'm hassled for a Month for being the cache cop.

Self-policing... yeah, that'll work...

Share this post


Link to post
There are lots of potential issues that SERIOUS discussion could mainly resolve. The others could largely be fixed by responsible cachers self-policing.

Yeah, good luck with that. :lol:

 

We've seen how "self policing" works.

Thirty people log a smiley on a soaked, moldy cache still not fixed from two NMs six Months earlier and I finally place a NA.

- And I'm hassled for a Month for being the cache cop.

Self-policing... yeah, that'll work...

 

That's why I said "responsible" cachers. :laughing: Our cachers here are pretty good, overall, in reporting problematic caches. It would be a lot more effective if Groundspeak had a better policy and mechanism for dealing with the reported caches, but that's a whole other conversation.

Share this post


Link to post

There are lots of potential issues that SERIOUS discussion could mainly resolve.

There have been dozens of serious discussions before, but the issues have never been resolved. Looking through this discussion, I'm seeing all the same ideas I've seen several times before in other discussions. It's been a while since I've seen a new idea relating to bringing back Virtuals or Webcams.

 

Face it, the horse is dead. It's time to stop beating it. There may be someone out there with the ground-breaking idea that would make their return viable, but I haven't seen it yet and I don't think it'll happen. Sorry to be so negative, but I just think people are expending a lot of effort on a wild goose chase.

Share this post


Link to post

Waymarking would be utilized more if it was easier to use the Waymarking site and if you got smilies or some other recognition for going to them and if they were only for historical or scenic views. Going to "My favorite store" isn't a waymark to me, but going and finding some interesting sculptures in the downtown area or historical buildings was.

I kinda, sorta agree...

- But I think Waymarking would need an entire gutting now for it to relate to caching.

Historical/cultural would be nice. Monuments would be a good fit and waterfalls would replace the often denied Earthcaches.

- But the few who still play there, still holding on since it started, would be upset to find "Kilroy was here" and "Themed Mailboxes" removed to fit in.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

Well I was thinking that if there is some kind of mission to the cacher what he/she has to do to log the cache makes it more easier if the CO can check that it is correct without visiting the actual place. If the log sheet disappears, how do you check the earlier logs?

I've been playing a while and have yet to see a log sheet disappear. Have you seen this happening?

- Swapped out for a new one maybe...

Virtuals got quite a few fake loggers over the years. Google searches will often give you all the information you need for virtuals (and some earth caches) without ever visiting the site.

A pic with the cacher at the site is the only way to be reasonably sure the cacher was indeed there.

 

I wouldn't want virtuals to return if the only reason was it was easier to maintain.

I have seen this happening but usually it means that the whole container is muggled. + The reason I want virtuals back aren't either that they're easier to maintain. They are good variation alongside the other cache types.

Edited by Filippe125

Share this post


Link to post

There are lots of potential issues that SERIOUS discussion could mainly resolve.

There have been dozens of serious discussions before, but the issues have never been resolved. Looking through this discussion, I'm seeing all the same ideas I've seen several times before in other discussions. It's been a while since I've seen a new idea relating to bringing back Virtuals or Webcams.

 

Face it, the horse is dead. It's time to stop beating it. There may be someone out there with the ground-breaking idea that would make their return viable, but I haven't seen it yet and I don't think it'll happen. Sorry to be so negative, but I just think people are expending a lot of effort on a wild goose chase.

 

I think they are expending a lot of effort on a wild goose chase as well. I tell you though, the support for bringing back virtuals is absolutely overwhelming. I wouldn't doubt if it stands at 90% of active Geocachers. Don't be fooled by the forums here, where we're all people who spend a lot of time discussing Geocaching, as well as doing it. Yes, there's a strong "Groundspeak is never going to bring them back" sentiment here, and I'd probably go with that myself. You also see bonafide "virtual hata's" here, that don't even want them to come back. But you want to talk about a fringe minority, that would be it. :P

Share this post


Link to post

There are lots of potential issues that SERIOUS discussion could mainly resolve.

There have been dozens of serious discussions before, but the issues have never been resolved....

 

There have been serious discussions by some, but those serious discussions have most typically been drowned out by the bickering, backbiting, bloviating, history lessons, and Waymarking promotions. Any productive conversation about just about anything will never be able to be had on these forums. And for that reason, if no other, the odds of any group being able to affect any real change; for this or any other subject; are darn near nil.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying they weren't without their problems, but Challenges *could* have been a replacement for virtuals, had the community worked to make it so. Groundspeak gave us the keys to the car and said "create whatever you want" and what happened? The same flood of lame virtuals that doomed the original version. So, of course, everyone pointed and said "See! Challenges suck!" and then tried to pretend that if GS had brought back virtuals in their old form, things would've been different this time.

 

Despite an overwhelming majority of cachers who may want virtuals to return, I don't blame GS for not wanting to open Pandora's Box again. We can talk all day about how GS needs to come up with a viable solution for virtuals, but nothing is going to work as long as we have geocachers submitting them to be published.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Well if not Virtuals then at least Webcam caches. I understood that they did not have so many problems and there aren't so much webcams out there. This earlier (container or no container) discussion has lost its power because you can publish cointainerless EarthCaches today.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

I can tell you how with virtuals. There is always something at the virtual that couldn't be found by going online that the CO can ask a question about. I did one in either Nebraska or Kansas, it's been so long I don't remember every detail, but it was the grave of a local person that invented something or other and you had to get some details off his headstone and then as a kicker you had to get some info off a headstone next to his that was just an average person. It would be pretty hard to get that info unless you had been there. There was another one in a park in Spokane, WA that was a huge replica of a little red wagon that had steps up one end and a kids slide down the other end. The question was, how many steps were there. maybe nowadays with the improved satellite views you could cheat on that one, but not back then. Plus that you have to email the info to the CO so you know they actually read it and OK your info. And how many COs, if they will admit it, of regular caches actually read the log sheet and compare it to the online log?

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

I can tell you how with virtuals. There is always something at the virtual that couldn't be found by going online that the CO can ask a question about. I did one in either Nebraska or Kansas, it's been so long I don't remember every detail, but it was the grave of a local person that invented something or other and you had to get some details off his headstone and then as a kicker you had to get some info off a headstone next to his that was just an average person. It would be pretty hard to get that info unless you had been there. There was another one in a park in Spokane, WA that was a huge replica of a little red wagon that had steps up one end and a kids slide down the other end. The question was, how many steps were there. maybe nowadays with the improved satellite views you could cheat on that one, but not back then. Plus that you have to email the info to the CO so you know they actually read it and OK your info. And how many COs, if they will admit it, of regular caches actually read the log sheet and compare it to the online log?

C'mon, you've been around long enough to know that's not true...

A good half of the virtuals we've done could have been accomplished at home.

We only had two COs who responded that we had the correct info. So they may well read it, but that's just an assumption.

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

I can tell you how with virtuals. There is always something at the virtual that couldn't be found by going online that the CO can ask a question about. I did one in either Nebraska or Kansas, it's been so long I don't remember every detail, but it was the grave of a local person that invented something or other and you had to get some details off his headstone and then as a kicker you had to get some info off a headstone next to his that was just an average person. It would be pretty hard to get that info unless you had been there. There was another one in a park in Spokane, WA that was a huge replica of a little red wagon that had steps up one end and a kids slide down the other end. The question was, how many steps were there. maybe nowadays with the improved satellite views you could cheat on that one, but not back then. Plus that you have to email the info to the CO so you know they actually read it and OK your info. And how many COs, if they will admit it, of regular caches actually read the log sheet and compare it to the online log?

C'mon, you've been around long enough to know that's not true...

A good half of the virtuals we've done could have been accomplished at home.

We only had two COs who responded that we had the correct info. So they may well read it, but that's just an assumption.

 

Really, that last bit is the only thing I don't like about virtuals...lack of any response or feedback. I'd almost rather see it as form to fill out similar to a geochecker tool where the answers could be immediately verified. The few virtuals I've done, I send an email out and have no way of knowing if the person got it or if they even bothered to check my answers. I think creating a virtual sort of obligates the owner to "maintain" it in much the same way COs of traditional caches have to maintain theirs. There may not be a wet log to replace, but at a minimum they should be confirming (or denying) logs and checking occasionally that the on-site info is still obtainable and valid.

Share this post


Link to post


  •  
  • Waymarking fixes the wow factor, by neatly categorizing waymarks and letting a distributed team approve waymarks
  • people don't waymark mostly because they don't get :D + 1 ... though there are usability issues as well
  • allow a combination of Groundspeak and category owners to decide if waymarks in a category are worth getting a :D in your stats, and Waymarking would become much more popular and we wouldn't see "bring back virtuals" threads

Share this post


Link to post


  •  
  • Waymarking fixes the wow factor, by neatly categorizing waymarks and letting a distributed team approve waymarks
  • people don't waymark mostly because they don't get :D + 1 ... though there are usability issues as well
  • allow a combination of Groundspeak and category owners to decide if waymarks in a category are worth getting a :D in your stats, and Waymarking would become much more popular and we wouldn't see "bring back virtuals" threads

 

I don't like Waymarking partly because of the general lack of "wow". The waymark listing tells you what your are going to see. Most of the virtuals I ever completed did not.

 

The other factor about waymarks I don't like, especially as compared to virtuals, is the "paperwork" invovled. Some are simple, others require a bunch of stuff, but most maddening of all is that the requirements for listing and, in some cases, even just logging a visit requires something different for each waymark type. So I need to have the category info, the listing requirements, and the visiting requirements. And none of this is in any kind of reasonable downloadable format. Way too much like work. It makes me feel like I am scouting sites for a travel company or some such thing.

 

I do this stuff for fun and I just don't find the hassle of Waymarking to be fun.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying they weren't without their problems, but Challenges *could* have been a replacement for virtuals, had the community worked to make it so. Groundspeak gave us the keys to the car and said "create whatever you want" and what happened? The same flood of lame virtuals that doomed the original version. So, of course, everyone pointed and said "See! Challenges suck!" and then tried to pretend that if GS had brought back virtuals in their old form, things would've been different this time.

You're right that Challenges could have been a lot better, but I disagree about the reason they didn't.

It might have been different in your area, but the quality of the Challenges around here seemed fine. I can't recall any that you'd shake your head at and say to yourself "Why did they put that there?". Many took me to things I hadn't seen before and some were pretty entertaining.

 

I believe the biggest problem with Challenges was that Groundspeak abandoned the idea almost immediately. With a couple of minor exceptions, there was no further development after Challenges were released. There was no way to download the Challenges, whether through a one-by-one GPX or a PQ-type mass download. Challenge creators had exactly zero control over their Challenges, leading to bogus logs that couldn't be deleted. Many users were asking for these things, but Groundspeak did nothing. I think if these problems had been resolved, Challenges would still be around today and wouldn't have been so unpopular.

Share this post


Link to post


  •  
  • Waymarking fixes the wow factor, by neatly categorizing waymarks and letting a distributed team approve waymarks
  • people don't waymark mostly because they don't get :D + 1 ... though there are usability issues as well
  • allow a combination of Groundspeak and category owners to decide if waymarks in a category are worth getting a :D in your stats, and Waymarking would become much more popular and we wouldn't see "bring back virtuals" threads

 

I don't like Waymarking partly because of the general lack of "wow". The waymark listing tells you what your are going to see. Most of the virtuals I ever completed did not.

 

The other factor about waymarks I don't like, especially as compared to virtuals, is the "paperwork" invovled. Some are simple, others require a bunch of stuff, but most maddening of all is that the requirements for listing and, in some cases, even just logging a visit requires something different for each waymark type. So I need to have the category info, the listing requirements, and the visiting requirements. And none of this is in any kind of reasonable downloadable format. Way too much like work. It makes me feel like I am scouting sites for a travel company or some such thing.

 

I do this stuff for fun and I just don't find the hassle of Waymarking to be fun.

I find this just as boring as bring back virutals. Waymarking was never virtuals. When it was first realeased, a few people thought it was a neat platform that can be used for creating a lot of new GPS based games. Even Jeremy seemed to think that the platform would eventually support geocaches, though the front-end for geocaching would be separate from the Waymarking front end.

 

The way category creation and management was set up, I had the hope that people would create all sorts of categories under Waymarking games that would appeal to different groups - including those who enjoyed virtual caches.

 

Unfortunately, outside of the Waymarking games division, Waymarking.com was using the new platform as a location cataloging site. Nearly all the categories that were created were simply to list locations that fit the category. And most of these categories were not anywhere near as creative as the old locationless caches which often asked you to find querky unusual objects. Waymarking categories tend to be very ordinary.

 

When Groundspeak renamed the Games division to "Multifarious", they pretty much said that Waymarking is only about cataloging locations. The promise of using this platform to create new games beyond geocaching and Waymarking is pretty much gone. Perhaps one day Groundspeak will start an new website - maybe one built on the Waymarking platform - whose goal is not to catalog locations but instead to support the community is developing new games and trying out new ideas. Some of these ideas will no doubt be attempts to recreate the things that people liked about virtual caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I love logging Virtuals and just Friday I did a two mile detour walk for a virtual after a 7 miles hike in 97 degrees. :o Admittedly, the virtual was at a hotel where I hoped to get a taxi, but I could have tried calling a taxi at the end of the initial walk, I also could have walked to a hotel closer by. But no, the virtual called :lol:

 

Having said that, the Virtuals still alive today are certainly the better ones. All the McDonalds virtuals, and many other not so good ones are fortunately gone. And I think it's better that they don't come back. Lets be honest: the really bad ones will show up again unless some rigorous reviewing is taking place. I doubt people will be happy with that either. How can a reviewer take the decision that my brilliant Virtual is missing the wow-factor? :mad: Fortunately, nobody needs to take that decision for normal caches, however, I think this needs to be considered if Virtuals came back.

 

Mrs. terratin

Share this post


Link to post

I love logging Virtuals and just Friday I did a two mile detour walk for a virtual after a 7 miles hike in 97 degrees. :o Admittedly, the virtual was at a hotel where I hoped to get a taxi, but I could have tried calling a taxi at the end of the initial walk, I also could have walked to a hotel closer by. But no, the virtual called :lol:

 

Having said that, the Virtuals still alive today are certainly the better ones. All the McDonalds virtuals, and many other not so good ones are fortunately gone. And I think it's better that they don't come back. Lets be honest: the really bad ones will show up again unless some rigorous reviewing is taking place. I doubt people will be happy with that either. How can a reviewer take the decision that my brilliant Virtual is missing the wow-factor? :mad: Fortunately, nobody needs to take that decision for normal caches, however, I think this needs to be considered if Virtuals came back.

 

Mrs. terratin

 

I dunno...just seems like it would be an easy case of documentation on the part of the CO and a reviewer that actually READS the description and looks at the photos. Obviously there would be a fair amount of subjectivity, but it just seems like forcing the submitter to 'make their case' for the virtual cache would weed out a lot of the lazy ones who just want to put a virtual in the parkig lot of their favorite store. I wouldn't have a problem with GS having a higher standard of review for virtuals. They already do, in a manner, for earthcaches.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

I can tell you how with virtuals. There is always something at the virtual that couldn't be found by going online that the CO can ask a question about. I did one in either Nebraska or Kansas, it's been so long I don't remember every detail, but it was the grave of a local person that invented something or other and you had to get some details off his headstone and then as a kicker you had to get some info off a headstone next to his that was just an average person. It would be pretty hard to get that info unless you had been there. There was another one in a park in Spokane, WA that was a huge replica of a little red wagon that had steps up one end and a kids slide down the other end. The question was, how many steps were there. maybe nowadays with the improved satellite views you could cheat on that one, but not back then. Plus that you have to email the info to the CO so you know they actually read it and OK your info. And how many COs, if they will admit it, of regular caches actually read the log sheet and compare it to the online log?

C'mon, you've been around long enough to know that's not true...

A good half of the virtuals we've done could have been accomplished at home.

We only had two COs who responded that we had the correct info. So they may well read it, but that's just an assumption.

 

What part of my post didn't you understand? I said and will stand by my statement that there is always something you could ask about a virtual that couldn't be found online. If you could have done half of your virtuals at home it's because the CO didn't put some thought into the cache and ask the right question.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see virtuals come back also, but you people are beating a dead horse. I think some of the reviewers didn't want them because it put too much of a burden on them doing their job and the powers that be also had arguments against them, which I think could have been remedied with a couple of rule changes. But anyway don't hold your breath that they'll be back anytime soon.

 

Agreed. In fact, there have been posts by a GS lackey which explicitly said that virtual caches would not be coming back.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

 

How does a signature on a log prove anything? I could go caching, write "cerberus1" on every log I find and then email you with a list of all the caches you found that day for you to log.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea of virtuals coming back but I'd hate to see virtuals eventually dominating areas. They would need to be limited like maybe 1/year for each premium member.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe in some kind of solution. All the other cache types are having problems also. But one thing is still confusing me: Why the webcam caches were actually banned? The logging caused problems or what? Still I think that Virts and Webs are more easier to check that the cacher has actually found the cache. Log sheet can dissappear suddenly. :ph34r:

Please explain how either is easier to check than a sig on a log?

 

How does a signature on a log prove anything? I could go caching, write "cerberus1" on every log I find and then email you with a list of all the caches you found that day for you to log.

Careful when you fake-log for a friend - don't leave any fingerprints on the cache or log or the CO will discover your nefarious deed!

Share this post


Link to post

There's one simple way to decrease BS new virtuals - charge $$ for them. The volunteet reviewers would get a small tribute for their time. You submit a virtual it costs $2 if it is approved $3. All the other suggested listed here would also apply (can't be where you can put a traditional caches etc. And the $$ would compensate the reviewers for filtering through bogus requests.

Share this post


Link to post

There's one simple way to decrease BS new virtuals - charge $$ for them. The volunteet reviewers would get a small tribute for their time. You submit a virtual it costs $2 if it is approved $3. All the other suggested listed here would also apply (can't be where you can put a traditional caches etc. And the $$ would compensate the reviewers for filtering through bogus requests.

 

Maybe more to the point to make it so virtuals could only be placed by premium members, and each member could only place a limited number of virtual caches. It would seem like a much easier option than dealing with endless small payments to submit a cache and then more small payments once it was approved.

 

If you charge for each listing you'd end up with just about every rejection referred to Groundspeak, especially if people had paid to submit the cache and were then told they weren't getting their money back when the cache was rejected on what they thought were spurious grounds.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Maybe more to the point to make it so virtuals could only be placed by premium members....

 

 

Or better yet, make it an additional perk of the super-duper double-secret PLATINUM membership! :ph34r:

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 7

×
×
  • Create New...