Some old cache types have their virtues

[+Michaelcycle]

As I mentioned in my modest proposal (post 19) multis are avoided like the plague by a lot of geocachers because of poor experiences with missing stages and so on.

I wonder how relevant this is, with regards to the topic? Granted, my rose colored glasses may be louding my judgement, as I am a fan of multis. I will concur that DNFing a multi because a stage is missing can cause some angst for those who are only focused on the end results, but I'm not sure it applies here.

 

Assume you create an offset multi in a National Park, with the final outside the boundaries of the park. What comes to mind for me is being directed to some specific landmark n the Park, and gathering numbers off of a plaque or other permanent fixture. Then you do whatever number crunching the CO requires to get the final coordinates. Unlike some multi stage caches, there really would be no fear that the needed numbers would go missing, unless the landmark itself disappeared.

 

I would argue that not going forward with this idea, (dump virts in favor of offsets), just because a small minority deliberately excludes them is flawed logic.

 

Waymarking has been proposed as an alternative. That will only succeed if we stop counting smilies all together.

The eight people who actually log Waymark finds might not like that.

 

My experience is that the cachers that generally avoid multis are not a small minority (as it happens I am the CO of three that are well received by the handful that find them.) This especially true of people on vacation who are most likely to encounter virtuals at National Parks and the like. They are generally not interested in leaving the park to find the (often insubstatial)final when they have so much else to do and see. We know that people are interested in many of the existing virtuals (find numbers do not lie.)

I suggest it is flawed logic to replace virtuals with a cache type that is less attractive. Rather, we should strive to find a mechanism to reintroduce them in a controlled fashion that addresses many of the previous complaints.

[+niraD]

Rather, we should strive to find a mechanism to reintroduce them in a controlled fashion that addresses many of the previous complaints.

Well, the main "previous complaint" was from the reviewers who had to deal with the fallout from reviewing the acceptability of virtual cache submissions. The poorly named Geocaching Challenges addressed that complaint by eliminating the need for submissions to be reviewed.

[+BlueMoth]

You want to reinstate Virtuals and ensure a Wow factor? Easy.

Limit their creation to one per CO per year. That's right, you get One.

Want to be more restrictive? Limit their once a year creation to pm's only. Sort of a perk.

I am not necessarily advocating the latter, but I think my first suggestion would make people think twice before they put one at their local sewer grate. Or it would probably have to be a pretty stellar sewer grate.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

My experience is that the cachers that generally avoid multis are not a small minority (as it happens I am the CO of three that are well received by the handful that find them.)

 

While I like the offset idea, this has been my experience as well. I have find notifications set up for the town I live in. I like seeing when cachers are in town, finding area caches. Time and time again, someone will start caching around town, clean out all the traditionals and not do a single multicache. As an owner who prefers to place multicaches, I find this disheartening. It's not absolute proof that an offset virtual wouldn't work...but so many cachers avoid multi's like the plague.

[+geodarts]

I have done a few offset multis that begin in national parks. Under certain circumtances they work fine. But it can get more complicated if a park has several entrances involving long distances in an area where locals may or may not be able to maintain.

 

Some of the best virtuals I have done have not been linked to plaques or monuments, but have taken me to unique places that I would have otherwise missed: an unmarked historical object on a little used trail in Yosemite; an object down a trail through Incan salt ponds; a Grand Canyon overlook 60 miles from the nearest polygamist; a Neolithic Barrow standing alone on unmarked trails. Virtuals have extended this game by taking me to places where traditional caching is not permitted or appropriate.

 

They are the first - and along with earthcaches - may be the only type of cache that I will seek when traveling. And yes, in my mind they are more of a "real cache" than a nano in a parking lot or something placed on a repetitive trail. That threads like this continue to pop up speaks to a perceived need to have virtuals be a part of this game - which is a different thing than Waymarking; a different concept from challenges; and a different game than other sites that continue to list virtuals.

 

I don't believe there are insurmountable obstacles to new virtuals. Limit a pm account to a single one or two (period). Have a well defined focus. Develop a peer system or nonappealable group of reviewers. Require permission from land managers. Limit them to specific types of areas (demonstrate why a traditional cache is not appropriate). The permanency requirement alone would deal with the rotting deer that Briansnat brought up.

 

It would be a step just to allow old virtuals to be adopted so they can remain a part of this game. But Groundspeak has made their decision. When we asked for virtuals we were given challenges.

Edited August 14, 2013 by geodarts

[+lamoracke]

You want to reinstate Virtuals and ensure a Wow factor? Easy.

Limit their creation to one per CO per year. That's right, you get One.

Want to be more restrictive? Limit their once a year creation to pm's only. Sort of a perk.

I am not necessarily advocating the latter, but I think my first suggestion would make people think twice before they put one at their local sewer grate. Or it would probably have to be a pretty stellar sewer grate.

 

To limit the # of virtuals or webcams, assuming they were ever reinstated, which is sadly unlikely, I think this would be a great idea to test them while limiting their # of submissions. I think many of us have one very cool virtual in mind, but I doubt many of us have 12 of them.

[Clan Riffster]

As I mentioned in my modest proposal (post 19) multis are avoided like the plague by a lot of geocachers because of poor experiences with missing stages and so on.

I wonder how relevant this is, with regards to the topic? Granted, my rose colored glasses may be louding my judgement, as I am a fan of multis. I will concur that DNFing a multi because a stage is missing can cause some angst for those who are only focused on the end results, but I'm not sure it applies here.

 

Assume you create an offset multi in a National Park, with the final outside the boundaries of the park. What comes to mind for me is being directed to some specific landmark n the Park, and gathering numbers off of a plaque or other permanent fixture. Then you do whatever number crunching the CO requires to get the final coordinates. Unlike some multi stage caches, there really would be no fear that the needed numbers would go missing, unless the landmark itself disappeared.

 

I would argue that not going forward with this idea, (dump virts in favor of offsets), just because a small minority deliberately excludes them is flawed logic.

 

Waymarking has been proposed as an alternative. That will only succeed if we stop counting smilies all together.

The eight people who actually log Waymark finds might not like that.

 

My experience is that the cachers that generally avoid multis are not a small minority (as it happens I am the CO of three that are well received by the handful that find them.) This especially true of people on vacation who are most likely to encounter virtuals at National Parks and the like. They are generally not interested in leaving the park to find the (often insubstatial)final when they have so much else to do and see. We know that people are interested in many of the existing virtuals (find numbers do not lie.)

But again we're defining a problem by looking at a small percentage of the whole. While it's a given that a P&G in a Burger King hedge will get more finds than a multi requiring a 5 mile hike through a swamp, hunting half a dozen stages. No one will argue that. Even before this hobby plummeted over the mainstream event horizon, I would guess there were more folks interested in quick and easy smilies, versus physically challenging caches. Since we've crossed that threshold, things have only gotten worse. But this has little to do with vacationing cachers, as they only make up a small portion of the whole.

 

Personally, I fall on the opposite side of that matrix. When I travel, my first search will be for events, then virtuals, then Wherigo caches, then multis, then puzzles. The last thing I check for are traditionals, unless I've heard through word of mouth, or by checking favorite points, that a traditional is awesome.

 

But I know I don't represent the masses.

 

As to the number of finds on tourist trap virtuals, such as the Magic Kingdom, are these really representative of most virtuals? Eighty bajillion people visit there every day. Of corse it's gonna get a butt load of finds. But what of those awesome virts GeoDarts mentioned? Are they getting more finds than relatively nearby P&Gs? The ones with nothing available which could easily be turned into coordinates could still make for a great Wherigo. With the steady increase in smart phones amongst our ranks, it is a rare player these days who cannot do them.

 

I suggest it is flawed logic to replace virtuals with a cache type that is less attractive. Rather, we should strive to find a mechanism to reintroduce them in a controlled fashion that addresses many of the previous complaints.

Maybe a new cache type is in order? Just playing Devil's advocate here. Not really promoting the concept. But it could work. Some sort of cache, similar to a multi or Wherigo, where you visit one really kewl spot, then go off site to the final? Maybe? Since we could accomplish this using tools currently available, I doubt it will happen. But still... Folks do go Koo-Koo for Cocoa Puffs over new icons.

 

If Groundspeak archived every virtual on the planet, those way kewl places across our globe which prohibit caches would still exist. There would still be a desire to visit them. What would fill that vacuum? A multi, a Wherigo, or some new icon could accomplish this.

[+geodarts]

As to the number of finds on tourist trap virtuals, such as the Magic Kingdom, are these really representative of most virtuals?

 

They gave me something to do when my noncaching family wanted to stand in line for an hour to do a ride that I had no interest in doing. I also did a number of "ispy" missions (iphone gps game) and was able to have a great Disney time. There is something to be said about virtual alternatives in a virtual kingdom.

 

If Groundspeak archived every virtual on the planet, those way kewl places across our globe which prohibit caches would still exist. There would still be a desire to visit them. What would fill that vacuum? A multi, a Wherigo, or some new icon could accomplish this.

 

That day will eventually come as the last of the virtuals will eventually be archived. Multis are not always doable in locations where there are now virtuals. Wherigos offer another alternative, but there are some practical limitations in convincing people to do the cartridge and then to go significantly off site, and perhaps in a completely different location, to find the cache.

 

Maybe they could create a new icon and call them "Challenges." I have to say that I created a few challenges that took people to some of my favorite spots where traditional caching cannot be done or is not appropriate. They got a handful of "thumbs down" entries -- there are apparently people who do not appreciate little known waterfalls down an unmaintained trail in a national recreation area (although I suspect that some people were voting thumbs down on everything). They got a handful of positive votes. And maybe two or three people did any of them.

 

Unless the experience is part of this game, it would not amount to much. It would be like earthcaches when they were moved over to Waymarking. Or wherigos that do not have a physical cache associated with it. A few people might do them, but it would not fill the vacuum on this site. There is a way to fill that vacuum. They are called "virtuals."

Edited August 14, 2013 by geodarts

[Clan Riffster]

As to the number of finds on tourist trap virtuals, such as the Magic Kingdom, are these really representative of most virtuals?

 

They gave me something to do when my noncaching family wanted to stand in line for an hour to do a ride that I had no interest in doing. I also did a number of "ispy" missions (iphone gps game) and was able to have a great Disney time. There is something to be said about virtual alternatives in a virtual kingdom.

 

If Groundspeak archived every virtual on the planet, those way kewl places across our globe which prohibit caches would still exist. There would still be a desire to visit them. What would fill that vacuum? A multi, a Wherigo, or some new icon could accomplish this.

 

That day will eventually come as the last of the virtuals will eventually be archived. Multis are not always doable in locations where there are now virtuals. Wherigos offer another alternative, but there are some practical limitations in convincing people to do the cartridge and then to go significantly off site, and perhaps in a completely different location, to find the cache.

 

Maybe they could create a new icon and call them "Challenges." I have to say that I created a few challenges that took people to some of my favorite spots where traditional caching cannot be done or is not appropriate. They got a handful of "thumbs down" entries -- there are apparently people who do not appreciate little known waterfalls down an unmaintained trail in a national recreation area (although I suspect that some people were voting thumbs down on everything). They got a handful of positive votes. And maybe two or three people did any of them.

 

Unless the experience is part of this game, it would not amount to much. It would be like earthcaches when they were moved over to Waymarking. Or wherigos that do not have a physical cache associated with it. A few people might do them, but it would not fill the vacuum on this site. There is a way to fill that vacuum. They are called "virtuals."

But isn't the popularity of virtuals largely contrived? I suspect that the vast majority of their popularity is because they are so rare. Looking at locations that have both virtuals and traditionals, it is oft the virtual which gets the praise, even though both caches bring you there. If the only love being expressed is in the form of gratitude for being taken to ground zero, both the virtual and the traditional should get equal praise. But, at least according to my experience, this is not the case. Folks are showing love for the virtual for no other reason than because it is a cherished icon.

 

If the objective on the seeker's part is simply to get to the way kewl spots which aren't appropriate for caches, then their should be no complaints regarding having that activity show up as a different cache type. I personally don't believe that seeing these kewl spots is the sole objective for those who deliberately seek virtuals in leu of other cache types. True, the kewl spot is certainly part of the equation, but I doubt it's the only part. I don't even believe it's the greatest part. What I suspect is the driving force behind these folks is the relatively rare icon. After all, if all they wanted to do was visit neat spots, Waymarking has a butt load of them. If the motivation is sufficient, folks should have no qualms about spending the required 10 minutes to learn how to filter out all the nonsense on the Waymarking site.

 

But they wouldn't get the kewl ghost dude icon.

 

Heck, they wouldn't even get an increase in their smilie count, which I know is important for a whole lot of players. If seeing the way kewl spot and getting an increase in their smilie count are equal in their motivation, then listing virtuals as a different, existing cache type, such as multis or Wherigos, would satisfy these folks. I'm not sure I would accept as reasonable someone who griped about having to go locate an ammo can off site just to log their visit to said kewl spot.

 

Assume that Groundspeak caves to the vocal minority who keep squawking for the return of virtuals. My guess is that roughly 8.2 seconds after they brought this nightmare back, their servers would be walloped by the 2 or 3 million folks who are still active on this site creating their proposed, one per customer, virtual. Once the Reviewers completed the publication of these 2 or 3 million virtuals, the icon would no longer be rare.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[+tozainamboku]

Assume that Groundspeak caves to the vocal minority who keep squawking for the return of virtuals. My guess is that roughly 8.2 seconds after they brought this nightmare back, their servers would be walloped by the 2 or 3 million folks who are still active on this site creating their proposed, one per customer, virtual. Once the Reviewers completed the publication of these 2 or 3 million virtuals, the icon would no longer be rare.

Not only that, but most of these new virtuals wouldn't be in kewl spots.

 

The reason that people associate virtuals with cool locations it the "wow" requirement.

 

The main idea of virtuals was to allow geocaching in places where a physical cache couldn't be placed - either the land manager wouldn't give permission or leaving a physical cache would be inappropriate. In the early days, Groundspeak was trying to grow the sport by getting a lot of listing in a lot of places. With over 2 million active caches, there is no longer a pressing need for caches in places that don't allow physical caches.

 

When they were allowed and prior to the 'wow' requirement virtual placements were not significantly different in coolness from physical cache locations. It may be true that overtime more and more physical caches got placed in mundane locales. The kewl spots that were easy to get to got used up or perhaps people really do hide these cache just for the numbers. But prior to the "wow" requirement virtuals were heading in the same direction. I did one early virtual in Death Valley that is an entry kiosk where you purchase an entry pass from a machine (there isn't even a ranger there). For the virtual you had to find the cost for a tour bus of 20 or more people. So even though Death Valley is (forgive the pun) a kewl place, you can see that virtual caches didn't neccesarily bring you to something particualarly interesting. I'm sure there were virtuals to get numbers of sewer grates or from a sign by the dumpster.

 

Even limiting the number of virtuals a person can isn't going to ensure wowness. It may ensure that virtual are only used where a physical cache can't be (since people will use a film can or other cheap container instead of wasting there one virtual), but it ain't going to guarantee quality.

[Keystone]

I have never seen a sewer grate virtual.

That's because reviewers, like me, rejected lame submissions like that. I took more abuse over saying "no" to virtual caches than for any other enforcement issue under the listing guidelines. Virtuals were time vampires, fun killers and guarantors of inconsistency. I think your baby is ugly, but maybe the reviewer in the next state over thought that a very similar baby was photogenic.

 

As a player, I enjoy a good virtual. They just aren't worth the effort it took to get the best ones published. Sort of like hunting for truffles, and I am the pig.

 

You like the sewer grate? Dangle a bison tube from it. It has one redeeming quality: a container to find and a log to sign. In a game dedicated to finding hidden containers, a lame traditional beats a virtual.

[Keystone]

A couple of off-topic posts have been hidden from view. Please stick to discussing virtual caches and the specific viewpoints raised by the various posters. Thank you.

[+Don_J]

Assume that Groundspeak caves to the vocal minority who keep squawking for the return of virtuals. My guess is that roughly 8.2 seconds after they brought this nightmare back, their servers would be walloped by the 2 or 3 million folks who are still active on this site creating their proposed, one per customer, virtual. Once the Reviewers completed the publication of these 2 or 3 million virtuals, the icon would no longer be rare.

Not only that, but most of these new virtuals wouldn't be in kewl spots.

 

The reason that people associate virtuals with cool locations it the "wow" requirement.

 

The main idea of virtuals was to allow geocaching in places where a physical cache couldn't be placed - either the land manager wouldn't give permission or leaving a physical cache would be inappropriate. In the early days, Groundspeak was trying to grow the sport by getting a lot of listing in a lot of places. With over 2 million active caches, there is no longer a pressing need for caches in places that don't allow physical caches.

 

When they were allowed and prior to the 'wow' requirement virtual placements were not significantly different in coolness from physical cache locations. It may be true that overtime more and more physical caches got placed in mundane locales. The kewl spots that were easy to get to got used up or perhaps people really do hide these cache just for the numbers. But prior to the "wow" requirement virtuals were heading in the same direction. I did one early virtual in Death Valley that is an entry kiosk where you purchase an entry pass from a machine (there isn't even a ranger there). For the virtual you had to find the cost for a tour bus of 20 or more people. So even though Death Valley is (forgive the pun) a kewl place, you can see that virtual caches didn't neccesarily bring you to something particualarly interesting. I'm sure there were virtuals to get numbers of sewer grates or from a sign by the dumpster.

 

Even limiting the number of virtuals a person can isn't going to ensure wowness. It may ensure that virtual are only used where a physical cache can't be (since people will use a film can or other cheap container instead of wasting there one virtual), but it ain't going to guarantee quality.

 

I think that if we gave everyone one Virtual to place, a great many would waste it as soon as possible just to get that rare icon in their Placed column.

[+geodarts]

I think that if we gave everyone one Virtual to place, a great many would waste it as soon as possible just to get that rare icon in their Placed column.

 

Sadly, you might be right. If the quality of some of the challenges that were published (eat an ice cream at a certain ice cream parlor) is any guide, there might be a lot of quick and easy virtuals (take a picture of the ice cream sign at the ice cream parlor).

 

That is not the only alternative, of course. Limit submissions (not placements) to one per premium member. Have a well defined saturation requirement separating virtuals from physical caches. A reasonable distance, like a mile, would limit virtuals to places where containers cannot or have not been placed -- and if there is a location less than a mile, it could be made into a multi or Wherigo instead. Require that they be placed with express permission in parks -- make virtuals into a celebration of our commons. Perhaps have guidelines that focus the subject of virtuals or require an explanation of why a container cannot be placed. Use a dedicated reviewing team, like earthcaches have.

 

If a wow factor is needed, use a team approach, a percentage of those who have agreed to undertake such review, with a decision that is not subject to further review. Or provide for ways for virtual caches to be archived if actual visitors find that they are the equivalent of a lamp post hide (let the experience of users define whether there is a wow factor). If you have one submission and a sewer grate is not likely to pass team review, your time is probably best spent by thinking of something that might achieve a certain consensus. And if you do it anyway, it would be a single shot.

 

But a virtual placed a half-mile or a mile from a physical cache, with express permission from a land manager, will probably be something other than a quick and easy placement. People would have to go out of their way to place one. They may not want to ask a land manager for permission to make a sewer grate into a virtual. I would not expect a flood.

 

At some point, Keystone might be right: "They just aren't worth the effort it took to get the best ones published." It might be something that is better suited to a smaller game, like the locationless caches (which would not work today as they were originally designed). But in that case, if what we are seeing are the equivalent of the truffles, after reviewers sorted out the deer carcasses and the sewer grates, then why not let the existing ones, the ones with the wow factor, be adopted so that they can remain a part of this game?

Edited August 16, 2013 by geodarts

[+coachstahly]

I personally would like to see virtuals re-instated and have figured out a way for Groundspeak to allow them to come back AND for them to be able to make some money off of these. Someone has already mentioned that only PM members be allowed to place a virtual. I'd like to add that in order for a PM member to be able to place a virtual each person would be charged a one time fee for the ability to place one. It may not be the way that the membership would like to go, but only those willing to place one AND spend the money to place one would be up for it. You let your membership lapse for an extended period of time (say 6 months), the virtual is archived. As others have mentioned, the "WOW" factor would probably need to be ensured in some way, shape, or manner by GS, the lackeys, the reviewers, the cachers themselves, or some combination of some or all of the above.

 

Barring that, like CR, I'm a multi enthusiast and if the family doesn't mind a side trip, I'll make the time to go get the final. I like Wherigos too and I don't see why those couldn't be incorporated in the same manner as the offset. Finally, there's a new type of cache that falls under the unknowns umbrella called an intercache that you do solely on your smart phone. I haven't done one yet but there's one within an hour's drive from me that I'm going to try now that the kiddos are back in school. After I see how that one works I plan on creating one myself to place near where I live. Only issue with that, possibly, is the requirement that you have cell service and you can forget about that in most parks, national or otherwise.

[+Don_J]

I personally would like to see virtuals re-instated and have figured out a way for Groundspeak to allow them to come back AND for them to be able to make some money off of these. Someone has already mentioned that only PM members be allowed to place a virtual. I'd like to add that in order for a PM member to be able to place a virtual each person would be charged a one time fee for the ability to place one. It may not be the way that the membership would like to go, but only those willing to place one AND spend the money to place one would be up for it. You let your membership lapse for an extended period of time (say 6 months), the virtual is archived. As others have mentioned, the "WOW" factor would probably need to be ensured in some way, shape, or manner by GS, the lackeys, the reviewers, the cachers themselves, or some combination of some or all of the above.

 

Barring that, like CR, I'm a multi enthusiast and if the family doesn't mind a side trip, I'll make the time to go get the final. I like Wherigos too and I don't see why those couldn't be incorporated in the same manner as the offset. Finally, there's a new type of cache that falls under the unknowns umbrella called an intercache that you do solely on your smart phone. I haven't done one yet but there's one within an hour's drive from me that I'm going to try now that the kiddos are back in school. After I see how that one works I plan on creating one myself to place near where I live. Only issue with that, possibly, is the requirement that you have cell service and you can forget about that in most parks, national or otherwise.

 

First, this would be a big departure from the current mindset and break a promise that Jeremy made over 10 years ago. Second, it wouldn't solve anything. Those that have the funds to travel all over the landscape, finding 5-10 thousand caches in a single year and placing hundreds of caches in spots that they don't ever intend on visiting again, would probably have no issue paying a fee to place a cache and get their special Ghost icon in their placed column. Meanwhile, those of us that might be able to provide the community a worthwhile Virtual, might find the cost of doing so prohibitive. If I'm going to spend money to place a cache, it's going to be on a something substantive, like a water resistant container.

[+Colonial Cats]

A couple of off-topic posts have been hidden from view. Please stick to discussing virtual caches and the specific viewpoints raised by the various posters. Thank you.

Thank you for doing the needful.

[Clan Riffster]

I personally would like to see virtuals re-instated and have figured out a way for Groundspeak to allow them to come back AND for them to be able to make some money off of these. Someone has already mentioned that only PM members be allowed to place a virtual. I'd like to add that in order for a PM member to be able to place a virtual each person would be charged a one time fee for the ability to place one. It may not be the way that the membership would like to go, but only those willing to place one AND spend the money to place one would be up for it. You let your membership lapse for an extended period of time (say 6 months), the virtual is archived. As others have mentioned, the "WOW" factor would probably need to be ensured in some way, shape, or manner by GS, the lackeys, the reviewers, the cachers themselves, or some combination of some or all of the above.

 

Barring that, like CR, I'm a multi enthusiast and if the family doesn't mind a side trip, I'll make the time to go get the final. I like Wherigos too and I don't see why those couldn't be incorporated in the same manner as the offset. Finally, there's a new type of cache that falls under the unknowns umbrella called an intercache that you do solely on your smart phone. I haven't done one yet but there's one within an hour's drive from me that I'm going to try now that the kiddos are back in school. After I see how that one works I plan on creating one myself to place near where I live. Only issue with that, possibly, is the requirement that you have cell service and you can forget about that in most parks, national or otherwise.

 

First, this would be a big departure from the current mindset and break a promise that Jeremy made over 10 years ago.

If you're talking about the promise I'm thinking of, I'm not sure this suggestion would break that promise, any more than charging for a premium membership does. Paying the Virtual Listing Fee would be entirely voluntary. Groundspeak would not be forcing anyone to submit a new virtual. I'm not arguing in favor of such a fee, mind you. I'm sure there are gobs of perfectly good reasons to argue against a virtual listing fee, but Jeremy's decade old promise isn't one of them.

[+coachstahly]

I haven't come across a spot yet I would even consider worthy of placing a virtual that doesn't already have one. I thought I looked at 4 corners but only saw a multi (actually a couple close by) that might take you there. THAT would be a neat place to put one.

 

I'm not advocating a fee to place one (purely a suggestion) but if it limits the amount of people that would place one, it would just be one more way to possibly reduce the number submitted. As to the post about people dropping hundreds of caches in places they'll never visit again, I find it hard to believe that the reviewers in my part of the country allowed someone on vacation to publish a traditional where they were vacationing. I'm hoping that the visitor was working in conjunction with a local cacher but I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. I personally believe that there should be a limit to the amount of caches one can hide. I currently have 51 active caches and try to do an early spring and late fall maintenance run each year, as well as visits to ones that have been DNFed but shouldn't be or ones that haven't been found for an extended period of time. I can't imagine keeping up with many more past my total as they keep me busy enough.

[+SwineFlew]

I haven't come across a spot yet I would even consider worthy of placing a virtual that doesn't already have one. I thought I looked at 4 corners but only saw a multi (actually a couple close by) that might take you there. THAT would be a neat place to put one.

 

I'm not advocating a fee to place one (purely a suggestion) but if it limits the amount of people that would place one, it would just be one more way to possibly reduce the number submitted. As to the post about people dropping hundreds of caches in places they'll never visit again, I find it hard to believe that the reviewers in my part of the country allowed someone on vacation to publish a traditional where they were vacationing. I'm hoping that the visitor was working in conjunction with a local cacher but I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. I personally believe that there should be a limit to the amount of caches one can hide. I currently have 51 active caches and try to do an early spring and late fall maintenance run each year, as well as visits to ones that have been DNFed but shouldn't be or ones that haven't been found for an extended period of time. I can't imagine keeping up with many more past my total as they keep me busy enough.

Used to be a virtual there at 4 corners. http://coord.info/GC6A98

[+BlueDeuce]

I once logged a Yellow Jeep Locationess cache. Oh yeah. Chew on that.

[+coachstahly]

It's a shame that was archived. That location screams for a virtual. My boys enjoyed the one where OK, KS, and MO meet, running around the monument all the while shouting the state they were in at a given point in time! It DID get annoying the 100th time they did it, but it was still neat to see and visit.

[+cheech gang]

It's a shame that was archived. That location screams for a virtual. My boys enjoyed the one where OK, KS, and MO meet, running around the monument all the while shouting the state they were in at a given point in time! It DID get annoying the 100th time they did it, but it was still neat to see and visit.

 

I just checked. Both locations are still there.

[+coachstahly]

I know it's still there but because the boss coach isn't an enthusiastic cacher by any stretch of the imagination and "tolerates" my caching, I have to come up with reasons to go to places like these. She's not the type to go to out of the way/slight detour-y locations that I would like to go to and to keep the peace in the family, if there's no cache at a location like that, we end up not going, which is exactly what she prefers - drive from point A to point B in as little time and distance as you can. I went to Barney Smith's Toilet Seat Museum last month and the only reason I could convince her to go with the family was that A) there was a virtual there and it was close to where we were headed anyway. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to go as vacation time is family time in her eyes, which makes caching that much more difficult. Those types of virtuals make it worthwhile for me and to her credit, she even enjoyed meeting Barney.

Edited August 18, 2013 by coachstahly

[+RocklinGerbs]

I would like to add my voice to those asking for Virtuals to return. Some of the best caches I've ever done have been Virtuals. I understand the arguments on the other side, but I really think the clever folks at Groundspeak could figure out a way to make it work within the current system. The fact of the matter is that many of us use Geocaching as a way to explore new and interesting places and many spots either do not make for a good real cache or they are not allowed. Virtuals fill that gap.

 

The Waymarking webpage is a disaster. I couldn't even figure out how to show local Waymarks on a map... if it's possible. Could Waymarks be integrated into the Geocaching pages?

[+Colonial Cats]

So, will virtuals be coming back soon?

[Clan Riffster]

So, will virtuals be coming back soon?

Load some porcine into a trebuchet.

Launch them.

If they hit the ground, I'd say "No".

[+DanOCan]

An offset multi has always been the simple answer to replacing virts, and it's beyond me why the folks who are still hollering "bring back virtual caches" aren't out there doing that. Maybe simple obvious solutions are not what they really want...there's no drama involved with them.

 

It's a numbers thing. Number hunters don't want the work involved with a Multi, they want to be able to walk up to a plaque and get a smiley.

[+DanOCan]

I would like to add my voice to those asking for Virtuals to return. Some of the best caches I've ever done have been Virtuals. I understand the arguments on the other side, but I really think the clever folks at Groundspeak could figure out a way to make it work within the current system. The fact of the matter is that many of us use Geocaching as a way to explore new and interesting places and many spots either do not make for a good real cache or they are not allowed. Virtuals fill that gap.

 

I have to disagree. Groundspeak had a hard enough time making Virtuals work back in the old days before numbers were such "a thing". Now if people thought they could rack up large numbers without ever having to hide/place a container, you can imagine how bad the situation would become.

 

I like Virtuals but I realize there is a certain sense of nostalgia they invoke as they harken back to a simpler time in caching history. I just don't think they would work now.

[Clan Riffster]

I would like to add my voice to those asking for Virtuals to return. Some of the best caches I've ever done have been Virtuals. I understand the arguments on the other side, but I really think the clever folks at Groundspeak could figure out a way to make it work within the current system. The fact of the matter is that many of us use Geocaching as a way to explore new and interesting places and many spots either do not make for a good real cache or they are not allowed. Virtuals fill that gap.

 

I have to disagree. Groundspeak had a hard enough time making Virtuals work back in the old days before numbers were such "a thing". Now if people thought they could rack up large numbers without ever having to hide/place a container, you can imagine how bad the situation would become.

Unless you are a numbers oriented cacher. Then, like power trails consisting of 80 bajillion mindless smilies, virtuals could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Birds will sing, and unicorns will poop rainbows.

[+Colonial Cats]

Unicorns pooping rainbows. Now that would be good for a Virtual.

 

Proof - Post a picture of your GPSr with a pooping Unicorn in the background.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Unicorns pooping rainbows. Now that would be good for a Virtual.

 

Proof - Post a picture of your GPSr with a pooping Unicorn in the background.

 

I think it would be a locationless or traveling cache because those pooping unicorns are constantly on the move.

[cezanne]

As much as I like Virtual caches they can be replaced by other caches with a little extra work. Make an offset multi cache or a Wherigo.

 

But "can be replaced" does not mean that this is always the best solution. I have a cache http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2M4N8_a-trip-between-worlds?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb (A Trip Between Worlds) where I really would have liked to omit the final stage/container. I hate the hideout location, but there is no better one within a large radius. It's more or less an urban area and I hate urban hideouts and hate to hide a micro.

 

Note that my cache is not simply structured - it is a mystery with multi stage character anyway. So my desire to implement this cache as a containerless cache is not a matter of laziness. I invested a lot of work into this cache. I decided after all to hide a container and not to drop the idea, but I would have been much happier with a containerless cache. Waymarking and the challenges (that only existed for a while) did not even come close to what I've had in mind. Using other platforms also offered no option as they are not used in my area.

 

I do not have a single cache that is attractive to number hounds. So my wish that a certain type of containerless cache existed comes from an entirely different direction that only those will understand that appreciate complex caches and like me do not like to search or place caches in areas where stealth is required.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 5, 2013 by cezanne

[+Crow-T-Robot]

As much as I like Virtual caches they can be replaced by other caches with a little extra work. Make an offset multi cache or a Wherigo.

 

But "can be replaced" does not mean that this is always the best solution. I have a cache http://www.geocachin...02-044043baf0bb (A Trip Between Worlds) where I really would have liked to omit the final stage/container. I hate the hideout location, but there is no better one within a large radius. It's more or less an urban area and I hate urban hideouts and hate to hide a micro.

 

Note that my cache is not simply structured - it is a mystery with multi stage character anyway. So my desire to implement this cache as a containerless cache is not a matter of laziness. I invested a lot of work into this cache. I decided after all to hide a container and not to drop the idea, but I would have been much happier with a containerless cache. Waymarking and the challenges (that only existed for a while) did not even come close to what I've had in mind. Using other platforms also offered no option as they are not used in my area.

 

I do not have a single cache that is attractive to number hounds. So my wish that a certain type of containerless cache existed comes from an entirely different direction that only those will understand that appreciate complex caches and like me do not like to search or place caches in areas where stealth is required.

 

Cezanne

 

I think Wherigo's had a huge amount of potential for something just like this...a totally virtual caching experience but then GS decided that a Wherigo published on gc.com had to have a container.

[+DonB]

Personally I'd rather they not come back, so no.

 

For those who want them back, do they want them back in the original form were flag poles and sewer grates were considered appropriate subjects for virtuals, or do they want them back with the "wow factor" that was introduced in 2003?

We have had this discussion before. If the reviewers were as fussy with virtuals as they were with normal caches there shouldn't be a problem with flag pole or sewer grate virtuals. Another argument TPTB used to get rid of virtuals was that people were doing armchair virtuals. I find this to be a feeble argument because I have done enough virtuals to know there can always be a question asked as a logging requirement that would be impossible to get the answer to on the internet. My opinion on getting rid of virtuals was for some unknown reason someone at headquarters just decided they didn't want them anymore and there would be no argument no matter how valid would bring them back. Instead we got challenges, what a joke they were.

[+MartyBartfast]

If the reviewers were as fussy with virtuals as they were with normal caches there shouldn't be a problem with flag pole or sewer grate virtuals.

 

I can't agree with that. Reviewers aren't at all fussy with normal caches, hence the proliferation of LPCs (in the US), and micros/nanos stuck to guardrails, and micros stuck by every signpost every 161m etc, the virtual equivalent of an LPC trad would be the flag pole or sewer gate.

 

I liked virtuals and at first I wanted them back, but the way geocaching has gone since they were abolished leads me to expect that if they came back there would be a proliferation of low quality virtuals, so sadly I think their time has passed.

[cezanne]

You like the sewer grate? Dangle a bison tube from it. It has one redeeming quality: a container to find and a log to sign. In a game dedicated to finding hidden containers, a lame traditional beats a virtual.

 

For those who are into geocaching because they like to search for hidden objects regardless of where they are located, what you write will apply.

 

For those like me who started with geocaching to be brought to locations that are interesting, beautiful and/or scenic or to be shown new and rewarding hiking and biking routes or to be taught something new, a lame cache with a container will of course not beat a well done containerless caches. While I agree that sorting out virtuals with the wow factor has been a great burden to the reviewers, I still feel that containerless caches are something that is much closer to my personal idea of geocaching than what Waymarking, challenges and all these ideas ever could come up with.

 

There are so many cases where I would wish that virtuals still existed and these cases go far beyond the cases where a container cannot be placed. For example, I often encounter hiking caches where the hike is manageable for me without problems, but reaching the final is either not possible for me or too dangerous for me. Often these hideouts are chosen only to reduce the danger that the containers get muggled. I live in a country with much less remote locations than are available in the US.

If virtual hiking caches were possible, I do know hiders that would refrain from hiding a container at a difficult to reach and dangerous location (of course some would still hide such caches in particular because they enjoy adventures, but not everyone does).

 

Of course I can go for a hike also without a cache or just refrain from getting to the final and only logging a note, but notes and DNFs are not visible via my profile for my friends and also for myself I have a much better overview of my finds than about the other log types. I somehow use my find logs as a kind of very convenient personal tour book that is easily available also to others without causing me to invest some extra work.

 

The containers themselves never ever had any value for me in my personal approach to geocaching.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

You like the sewer grate? Dangle a bison tube from it. It has one redeeming quality: a container to find and a log to sign. In a game dedicated to finding hidden containers, a lame traditional beats a virtual.

 

For those who are into geocaching because they like to search for hidden objects regardless of where they are located, what you write will apply.

While there is what I call the great schism of Geocaching, I think Keystone is correct. This game was started a hide-and-seek game. You hide a container and someone finds it, using GPS to locate the cache.

 

Certainly some people used the opportunity to bring you to a "special" place. The cache page gave a way to provide a write up describing the history or to post pictures that showed the natural beauty. The schism began to form early on as some people prefer this kind of cache to a sewer grate or a dumpsters.

 

Virtual caches were first proposed because some people found "special" places they wanted to share but couldn't hide a physical cache there. In the early days, it was in the interest of geocaching to get more caches hidden. That was the only way to provide opportunities for those who wanted to play the game more often. So the idea of "virtual" cache was a good way to promote more caches. One version of the early guidelines said that "a virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates." The idea was that there was something to find, just like a physical container and that you would use GPS to locate that object. What happened is that many people didn't follow the guideline. They just want to take you to a "special" place. They were essentially creating Waymarking. Others decided that they wanted not just to take to a place but they wanted to give you a history lesson or a geology lesson. They were creating something akin to EarthCaches. In either case this is not geocaching but an attempt to hijack geocaching for some other purpose.

 

When used correctly, virtual caches still have another problem. With no log to sign, there was a question of how to verify you found the object. In many case you could have a picture of the object on the cache page and ask people to post their own picture. Another option was to have people find some information on the object an have them send that to the cache owner. This method has several weakness. One is that cache owners have to answer their emails and accept the answers. In many case they didn't and people simply logged the caches after sending the email or even logged without sending email. Another issue was where people managed to find the information without visiting the cache. This left cache owners confused - what to do if someone sent the right answers but you didn't know if they had actual visited. There many be ways to handle these problems - probably the most obvious is to not count virtual caches in the find count. Until there is agreement on what constitutes a legitimate find of a virtual cache and an understanding by cache owners that they must enforce this, it will be difficult to consider them caches.

[cezanne]

some people used the opportunity to bring you to a "special" place. The cache page gave a way to provide a write up describing the history or to post pictures that showed the natural beauty.

 

Actually, in my area not only some, but actually almost all hiders back then hid their caches with the idea that they wanted to show something.

I would never have got attracted into an activity that was mainly about searching.

 

In either case this is not geocaching but an attempt to hijack geocaching for some other purpose.

 

It is however the way how geocaching started in my country and how it got developped by the people who were active back then.

From my local point of view I'd rather say that those who put put containers at arbitrary places hijacked what geocaching used to be around here.

 

I had never ever an issue with deciding what's a legitimate find for my virtual cache. There never ever has even a debate about it. A difficult tree climbing cache

causes much more issues in this respect than my virtual can ever cause.

 

Call it whatever you want - I just think that there is no decent offer for what I refer to as containerless geocache. Waymarking is something very different.

 

Cezanne

[+Glenn]

We'll see just how loved they really are if cachers don't receive a smiley and a +1 to their overall find count. I wager they'll be as popular as benchmarks and waymarks are despite all of the people gushing about the wonderful, educational places virtuals bring them.

100% agree.

 

If people really wanted to discover interesting places they would hit up Waymarking. I've found many interesting locations using that site. It doesn't take a lot of work to eliminate a bunch of categories that don't interest you and focus on the good stuff. In fact, being able to eliminate entire categories in a single shot makes it actually EASIER to filter out the lame stuff then it was with Virtuals.

 

Of course, a lame Virtual gets you a smiley whereas a cool Waymark doesn't so it's easy to see why Waymarking never caught on in a big way.

 

I've always thought that geocaches would make an excellent Waymarking department and each cache type would make an excellent Waymarking category. Groundspeak could then bring back virtual caches as a Waymarking category in the geocaching department. This way people who don't like virtuals can easily filter them out. As a bonus, people who like to collect smilies can collect other icons too!

[4wheelin_fool]

Virtuals are lame. No container? Sheesh. The good ones survive which rally the cry for their return. if you really want them back, go find 100 McDonald waymarks and then report back. The lame waymarks are an indicator of the lame virts to come..

[cezanne]

I've always thought that geocaches would make an excellent Waymarking department and each cache type would make an excellent Waymarking category. Groundspeak could then bring back virtual caches as a Waymarking category in the geocaching department. This way people who don't like virtuals can easily filter them out. As a bonus, people who like to collect smilies can collect other icons too!

 

If they offered waymark categories which offer the same flexibility and the same options than are available for geocaches except that there is no container and no inclusion in the found count, I'd be happy to implement some of my ideas there. The way Waymarking is right now it does not offer anything geocaching-like to me and I still prefer to hide a container at a location I hate to tweaking the waymark concept to make my ideas that are best implemented without a container work. That says a whole lot about Waymarking which is far from what I have in mind when thinking of the concept of containerless caches. The statement that Waymarking is a replacement for virtual caches comes mainly from those for whom traditionals or short offset multi caches are what they have in mind when thinking about a geocache.

 

Cezanne

[+Glenn]

I've always thought that geocaches would make an excellent Waymarking department and each cache type would make an excellent Waymarking category. Groundspeak could then bring back virtual caches as a Waymarking category in the geocaching department. This way people who don't like virtuals can easily filter them out. As a bonus, people who like to collect smilies can collect other icons too!

 

If they offered waymark categories which offer the same flexibility and the same options than are available for geocaches except that there is no container and no inclusion in the found count, I'd be happy to implement some of my ideas there. The way Waymarking is right now it does not offer anything geocaching-like to me and I still prefer to hide a container at a location I hate to tweaking the waymark concept to make my ideas that are best implemented without a container work. That says a whole lot about Waymarking which is far from what I have in mind when thinking of the concept of containerless caches. The statement that Waymarking is a replacement for virtual caches comes mainly from those for whom traditionals or short offset multi caches are what they have in mind when thinking about a geocache.

 

Cezanne

 

What I am saying is to implement Geocaching as a Waymarking department. Not just virtual caches but ALL caches. For example, the traditional category will require a person listing a Traditional Geocache Waymark to place a physical container with a log book. The logging requirements for the Traditional Geocache Waymark will include finding the container and signing the logbook.

 

Your find count will increase. Except it won't be your Geocaching find count that increases but instead your Waymarking find count will increase. This will increase your Waymarking and Geocaching find counts, at Waymarking.com only. It wouldn't make any sense for your finds at Waymarking.com to be counted at Geocaching.com. In fact there would be no need for the Geocaching.com website anymore because everything that was recorded at Geocaching.com will now be recorded at Waymarking.com.

 

There is far more flexibility and options with Waymarks than there is with Geocaches. The Geocaching website currently list 16 different caches types. Three of those cache types have already been successfully converted to Waymarking categories. There really is no good reason to exclude the 13 other cache types from becoming Waymarking categories.

 

When I say bonus what I mean is that in Waymarking you will continue to collect smilies (if the smilie is chosen to represent one or more of the geocaching categories). If you choose to do so, you'll be able to collect the icons that represent the hundreds of other Waymarking categories, but there is no requirement to do so. If Geocaching is all that you are interested in then you can limit yourself to just the Geocaching category.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Glenn

[+Semper Questio]

I've always thought that geocaches would make an excellent Waymarking department and each cache type would make an excellent Waymarking category. Groundspeak could then bring back virtual caches as a Waymarking category in the geocaching department. This way people who don't like virtuals can easily filter them out. As a bonus, people who like to collect smilies can collect other icons too!

 

If they offered waymark categories which offer the same flexibility and the same options than are available for geocaches except that there is no container and no inclusion in the found count, I'd be happy to implement some of my ideas there. The way Waymarking is right now it does not offer anything geocaching-like to me and I still prefer to hide a container at a location I hate to tweaking the waymark concept to make my ideas that are best implemented without a container work. That says a whole lot about Waymarking which is far from what I have in mind when thinking of the concept of containerless caches. The statement that Waymarking is a replacement for virtual caches comes mainly from those for whom traditionals or short offset multi caches are what they have in mind when thinking about a geocache.

 

Cezanne

 

What I am saying is to implement Geocaching as a Waymarking department. Not just virtual caches but ALL caches. For example, the traditional category will require a person listing a Traditional Geocache Waymark to place a physical container with a log book. The logging requirements for the Traditional Geocache Waymark will include finding the container and signing the logbook.

 

Your find count will increase. Except it won't be your Geocaching find count that increases but instead your Waymarking find count will increase. This will increase your Waymarking and Geocaching find counts, at Waymarking.com only. It wouldn't make any sense for your finds at Waymarking.com to be counted at Geocaching.com. In fact there would be no need for the Geocaching.com website anymore because everything that was recorded at Geocaching.com will now be recorded at Waymarking.com.

 

There is far more flexibility and options with Waymarks than there is with Geocaches. The Geocaching website currently list 16 different caches types. Three of those cache types have already been successfully converted to Waymarking categories. There really is no good reason to exclude the 13 other cache types from becoming Waymarking categories.

 

When I say bonus what I mean is that in Waymarking you will continue to collect smilies (if the smilie is chosen to represent one or more of the geocaching categories). If you choose to do so, you'll be able to collect the icons that represent the hundreds of other Waymarking categories, but there is no requirement to do so. If Geocaching is all that you are interested in then you can limit yourself to just the Geocaching category.

 

The instant Groundspeak makes that move, I'm finding something else to do for recreation and I know a LOT of, probably most of, the cachers in my area would do the same.

[cezanne]

Your find count will increase. Except it won't be your Geocaching find count that increases but instead your Waymarking find count will increase. This will increase your Waymarking and Geocaching find counts, at Waymarking.com only. It wouldn't make any sense for your finds at Waymarking.com to be counted at Geocaching.com. In fact there would be no need for the Geocaching.com website anymore because everything that was recorded at Geocaching.com will now be recorded at Waymarking.com.

 

The geocaching.com site is far superior to the Waymarking site from the technological point of view, maps, search options, PQs etc

Moreover, additional waypoints, attributes, D and T-ratings, better accessibility for basic members are further assets of the geocaching site in comparison to the Waymarking site to name just a few.

 

There is far more flexibility and options with Waymarks than there is with Geocaches.

 

It depends on your point of view. From my point of view I do not agree.

 

Have a look at my existing virtual cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCGWG5_a-walk-to-the-past-virtual-bonus-cache?guid=a7f277de-e3bd-4550-99cb-b07e5baad7f6

or at this cache of mine

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2M4N8_a-trip-between-worlds?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

Neither of them really fits into Waymarking. Even of possible (which is not the case), I would not want to categorize them. When coming up with cache ideas in urban settings (I'm not talking about hiking caches), I'm not at all thinking in categories.

 

I neither would want to fight for a new category for each new idea I have nor would I want to fight for acceptance for my ideas that are untypical for the US type of approach in existing Waymarking groups. I would need helpers anyway as a BM I could not come up with a waymark category and even if I could my interest would not to review other's listings from all over the world, but just offer some fun to some local people who want to visit my caches).

 

I'm already refraining from creating Earth caches because I'm not willing to accept that someone tells me which language I have to use for my write-up. I'm not eager for further authorities telling what I should do when it is not about laws or anything else that makes sense to me.

 

The Geocaching website currently list 16 different caches types. Three of those cache types have already been successfully converted to Waymarking categories. There really is no good reason to exclude the 13 other cache types from becoming Waymarking categories.

 

You mean which ones? Webcams, locationless and virtuals? If you include virtuals, I do not agree at all. Or did you mean Earthcaches?

 

I'm fully convinced that caches of the type I mentioned above do not really fit into Waymarking.

Of course the virtuals that bring you to a historic marker can easily be set up as waymarks. That's no big deal.

But mix multiple stages with a mystery character and deal with different topics (and not just geology or history) and tell me where the outcome really fits on Waymarking.

It costs too much energy trying to find a niche on Waymarking for such things and the outcome is too meagre.

 

When I say bonus what I mean is that in Waymarking you will continue to collect smilies (if the smilie is chosen to represent one or more of the geocaching categories). If you choose to do so, you'll be able to collect the icons that represent the hundreds of other Waymarking categories, but there is no requirement to do so. If Geocaching is all that you are interested in then you can limit yourself to just the Geocaching category.

 

My statement rather came from the owner point of view. Waymarking is not flexible enough to allow for the type of virtuals I'd like to come up with - there are too many compromises involved and then the compromise to hide a container even if I do not like to do so is still the less annoying solution.

 

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

The instant Groundspeak makes that move, I'm finding something else to do for recreation and I know a LOT of, probably most of, the cachers in my area would do the same.

At one point in time, there was some of talk of making geocaching a Waymarking category and moving everything to the Waymarking database. However, even then, Geocaching.com would continue to exist with essentially the same front end. I would only be the database that was shared.

 

One possibility was that you could go on Waymarking and find waymarks in all categories, while Geocaching.com would limit what you see to the geocache category. Another posssibility would allow you to go on Waymarking and create your own personal view of the data by selecting just the categories or departments you wanted to see - including geocaches if you wanted to see them.

 

Somewhere along the way, TPTB abandoned this idea. There were so many features of geocaching that needed to be moved to Waymarking that this became a bigger and riskier project than they were willing to take on. They decided to let Waymarking take it's course with the features it already had, and instead work on the Geocaching side separately.

 

I can't argue with the decision to avoid a big risky project and concentrate on making smaller more managable changes in the exisiting code base. However, I think it would still be workable to use Waymarking as platform for developing new features and exposing some of these on the geocaching site. When the geocaching challenges were trotted out, I thought that this could have be done by creating a few categories on Waymarking and providing a frontend in Geocaching. Similarly, other ideas for "virtual-like" geocaches could be started as Waymarking categories with a way to view these categories from Geocaching.com.

[+Glenn]

 

The geocaching.com site is far superior to the Waymarking site from the technological point of view, maps, search options, PQs etc

Moreover, additional waypoints, attributes, D and T-ratings, better accessibility for basic members are further assets of the geocaching site in comparison to the Waymarking site to name just a few.

 

 

All of the features that you mention are either already implemented, just not yet configured for geocaching, or can be added, with some changes to the website code. After all, Waymaking and Geocaching are run by the SAME company.

 

 

It depends on your point of view. From my point of view I do not agree.

 

Have a look at my existing virtual cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCGWG5_a-walk-to-the-past-virtual-bonus-cache?guid=a7f277de-e3bd-4550-99cb-b07e5baad7f6

or at this cache of mine

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2M4N8_a-trip-between-worlds?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

Neither of them really fits into Waymarking. Even of possible (which is not the case), I would not want to categorize them. When coming up with cache ideas in urban settings (I'm not talking about hiking caches), I'm not at all thinking in categories.

 

...

 

I'm fully convinced that caches of the type I mentioned above do not really fit into Waymarking.

Of course the virtuals that bring you to a historic marker can easily be set up as waymarks. That's no big deal.

But mix multiple stages with a mystery character and deal with different topics (and not just geology or history) and tell me where the outcome really fits on Waymarking.

It costs too much energy trying to find a niche on Waymarking for such things and the outcome is too meagre.

 

 

I'm not saying to find or create a category for each and every cache. I'm saying make a traditional cache category and put all traditional caches in that category. Then make a multicache category and place all multicaches in that category. Then make an earth cache category and place all earth caches in that category. Repeat for all remaining cache types.

 

 

My statement rather came from the owner point of view. Waymarking is not flexible enough to allow for the type of virtuals I'd like to come up with - there are too many compromises involved and then the compromise to hide a container even if I do not like to do so is still the less annoying solution.

 

Cezanne

 

 

Waymarking is more flexible than what you are saying. Have you ever seen the management options that are available to the officers of the groups that manage the categories? As an officer you have a lot of control over a category and how it looks and feels.