Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Pond Bird

Bring Back Virtual Caches!

Recommended Posts

I think we need to bring back Virtual caches! There are many good ones still active but it would be nice if those newer cachers (or not so new) cachers have a chance to create a Virtual cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree. There are some very good virtuals out there. They certainly have more validity than challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

This has been suggested before.

 

As a practical matter, Virtual Caches won't return unless the problems that caused them to be grandfathered are solved. Groundspeak tried to do that a few years ago with Geocaching Challenges (not at all the same thing as Challenge Caches, despite the similarity of the names), but after a few months they declared Geocaching Challenges to be a failed experiment and eliminated all trace of them from the site.

Share this post


Link to post

No thanks.

There seems to be enough issues with the remaining ones.

Always someone looking to push the boundaries, locationless was a good example.

I'd bet Groundspeak would have to hire some more minions just to keep up with the appeals. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I vote no (again). Want to hide a geocache? Do something creative.

 

Oh, you mean like hiding a cache where you have to complete a geocaching-related feat in order to qualify to hide the cache? :)

 

Seriously, though ... when was the last time that a new type of cache (not a Challenge, not a Waymark, not a Trackable ...) was created by Groundspeak? I've only been caching for 4 years, so I don't know the history of the various cache types.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be for them in a very limited capacity. Maybe let each premium/charter member who has been active for x # of years be allowed to submit one and to a special reviewer team (am sure many folks would be willing). We do not need 1000s of them. Course, I'd like limited locationless caches back too, or at least a few back on a retro weekend. I think variety is fun.

 

The last purely physical container that was allowed was a Wherigo back in 2008 but obviously we recently just got lab caches but those are not usually physical containers and are limited time so not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with lamoracke, I would like to see virtuals (webcams included) and locationless returned with quite a few limitations. There a just some places that a physical cache will not work with. In Australia, all of the national parks in New South Wales are off limits to physical caches without filling out paperwork. It would be nice to see a weekend every five years or so where new virtuals are created. Most of the waymarks near me are for commercial businesses, which is pretty boring.

 

I posted some ideas (and stats) in one of these forums a few years ago: (Click Here)

Share this post


Link to post

I vote no (again). Want to hide a geocache? Do something creative.

 

Oh, you mean like hiding a cache where you have to complete a geocaching-related feat in order to qualify to hide the cache? :)

 

Seriously, though ... when was the last time that a new type of cache (not a Challenge, not a Waymark, not a Trackable ...) was created by Groundspeak? I've only been caching for 4 years, so I don't know the history of the various cache types.

 

Moving caches are rare, generate excitement & I hope the grandfathered ones remain. I was a day late when one came within 5 miles of me recently.

:sad:

Share this post


Link to post

I think we need to bring back Virtual caches! There are many good ones still active but it would be nice if those newer cachers (or not so new) cachers have a chance to create a Virtual cache.

Yet you've only found about 10% of the available Virtuals in your home State? It looks like you have a fair amount to find, and it begs the question, if you love them so much, why haven't you found more?

Share this post


Link to post

Virtuals weren't wildly popular when they were allowed. Many geocachers felt they weren't geocaching. When the the end of new virtuals was announced, there was a segment of cachers who were upset but their demise was generally met with indifference.

 

For those who want them back, would it be in the original form where nearly anything goes? When manhole covers, flag poles other mundane objects where submitted? There were a lot of trash virtuals back then. I think that if they came back in that form the virtual lovers would soon get bored. Kind of like finding a LPC but without the container and the log to sign.

 

Or would it be in "wow factor" form introduced in 2003, which was an effective ban. You will find very few virtuals that were published after the wow factor was introduced, because there were two requirements. The virtual had to be something so cool that it would blow you away and make you say "wow" AND you had to prove there was no way you could hide a real cache at that location. The first factor was subjective and the second was difficult to prove.

 

The "wow factor" days also had some negative effects on the sport. It it created a lot of animosity between the reviewers and those who submitted the virtuals. Of course those who submitted them insisted they were "wow!" and became angry when the reviewer disagreed. Anybody who frequented these forums back then remembers the the nearly weekly threads complaining that the reviewer refused their virtual because they didn't think it was "wow" enough.

 

Another negative effect of virtuals was that when geocachers firest began negotiating with land managers over allowing geocaching, the land managers would often say virtuals were welcome, but containers were not. By taking virtuals of the table it allowed the discussion to focus on geocaches. That has been pretty successful, as many land mangers around the world have eventually accepted geocaching as a legitimate activity on their lands. If virtuals were still an option, that may have never happened.

 

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I'm sure all of us here like (good) virtuals. Perhaps a solution would be to allow, but limit them. Not to people with X amounts of finds, or who have been caching X amount of years, but to events. Like they did (still do?) with lab caches. Base it on attendance, and history. Giga events could get a 3 or 4. Mega's 2 or 3. Smaller annual events that have been going for 4 or 5 years could get one. Event hosts could apply to get a virtual, and it would be reviewed more strictly, by long time lackeys or reviewers. Provide a good reason for a virtual, that wow factor. They could even expire so to speak after the event is over - based on the attendance of course. Larger events have them open to log for longer.

 

That way, we get virtuals. They are good places. They are limited in time and numbers so they are that much more special.

 

After all if they're everywhere, it's not really anything special or cool is it? It's basically like a single cache from a power trail.

 

Just thinking what if here.

Share this post


Link to post

 

.... when geocachers first began negotiating with land managers over allowing geocaching, the land managers would often say virtuals were welcome, but containers were not. By taking virtuals of the table it allowed the discussion to focus on geocaches.... If virtuals were still an option, that may have never happened.

 

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

Whenever I see "bring back virts", this is the first thing comes to my mind. Even more recently than the end of Virtual caches (Nov 2005), there are public properties that have banned physical caches and only allow new Earthcaches. These are places that used to allow physical caches. If there's a virtual option, the physical option will fall.

 

One of the requirements to get a virt published was that a physical caches was not allowed. Guideline on virts in 2003, "Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it." This put the onus of asking permission for a physical cache on a cacher who WANTED TO PLACE a VIRTUAL. This is a "how to" on ending the option to place physical caches.

 

The Waymarking site works okay (not great) for the virtual option. Try it if you're interested in finding or creating virts.

Share this post


Link to post

Many places where a physical cache is not feasible an offset cache can work instead.

Share this post


Link to post

No more virtuals.

 

I'd also like to see a complete audit done on existing virtuals and webcams...particularly the latter. Get rid of any webcam cache that no longer has a functioning webcam and allows people to post cellphone selfies.

Share this post


Link to post

No more virtuals.

 

I'd also like to see a complete audit done on existing virtuals and webcams...particularly the latter. Get rid of any webcam cache that no longer has a functioning webcam and allows people to post cellphone selfies.

 

That would be easy to do in your state. Using the new search indicated that isn't a single web cam cache in your entire state. There are only 3 in New York.

 

Personally, I like the idea of a webcam cache (if done correctly) and have thought GS should allow mega/giga event creators to create a temporary web cam at these events which is only available for the duration of the event. The lab cache platform was used to test out the idea of temporary caches and could be used in this case (but with full logging and stats support like a "real" cache).

Share this post


Link to post

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

There is no website for say guided city tours and hiking routes where along the way one has to collect information and or solve certain tasks which in the end

can be put together to something like a codeword in very much the same way as they can be put together to obtain the coordinates of a final cache.

If I go for a multi cache that involves a 50km hike, I do it for the hike and the container at the end is the least I care about.

What I have in mind does not fit at all to Waymarking and also not the existing sites for hikes, city tours etc

Share this post


Link to post

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

There is no website for say guided city tours and hiking routes where along the way one has to collect information and or solve certain tasks which in the end

can be put together to something like a codeword in very much the same way as they can be put together to obtain the coordinates of a final cache.

 

 

That sounds like a business opportunity, unless of course there are so few people interested in playing such a game that it wouldn't be profitable.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

There is no website for say guided city tours and hiking routes where along the way one has to collect information and or solve certain tasks which in the end

can be put together to something like a codeword in very much the same way as they can be put together to obtain the coordinates of a final cache.

 

That sounds like a business opportunity, unless of course there are so few people interested in playing such a game that it wouldn't be profitable.

 

In my eyes it is already questionable that the business aspect has become that important in geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

There is no website for say guided city tours and hiking routes where along the way one has to collect information and or solve certain tasks which in the end

can be put together to something like a codeword in very much the same way as they can be put together to obtain the coordinates of a final cache.

If I go for a multi cache that involves a 50km hike, I do it for the hike and the container at the end is the least I care about.

What I have in mind does not fit at all to Waymarking and also not the existing sites for hikes, city tours etc

Even with my limited imagination, I can think of workarounds and/or other websites that do exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post

Even with my limited imagination, I can think of workarounds and/or other websites that do exactly that.

 

I do not know a single existing one that does exactly that. There are sites which offer tour descriptions and some gpx downloads and even some limited user comments but I have not seen

sites where direct contact between those who created a route and those who use it is possible and in particular no sites where tasks are offered along the way like in question to answer stages of

geocaches. So I would not agree that there exist workarounds for "exactly that" (actually not even for something close to what I have in mind).

 

The interesting part of most urban picture hunting caches is to find all photo locations and not to find a micro at the end. A tour description through a city like in guide book is something different.

Share this post


Link to post

Even with my limited imagination, I can think of workarounds and/or other websites that do exactly that.

 

I do not know a single existing one that does exactly that. There are sites which offer tour descriptions and some gpx downloads and even some limited user comments but I have not seen

sites where direct contact between those who created a route and those who use it is possible and in particular no sites where tasks are offered along the way like in question to answer stages of

geocaches. So I would not agree that there exist workarounds for "exactly that" (actually not even for something close to what I have in mind).

 

The interesting part of most urban picture hunting caches is to find all photo locations and not to find a micro at the end. A tour description through a city like in guide book is something different.

Best of luck in your future adventures.

Share this post


Link to post

No thanks. I can't imagine the lameness that would come if virtuals were opened back up again.

 

Waymarking solved many of the problems of virtuals, though unfortunately it has very little love from GS in the last number of years. It has very little love from geocachers because it doesn't "count" in stats.

Share this post


Link to post

Even with my limited imagination, I can think of workarounds and/or other websites that do exactly that.

 

I do not know a single existing one that does exactly that. There are sites which offer tour descriptions and some gpx downloads and even some limited user comments but I have not seen

sites where direct contact between those who created a route and those who use it is possible and in particular no sites where tasks are offered along the way like in question to answer stages of

geocaches. So I would not agree that there exist workarounds for "exactly that" (actually not even for something close to what I have in mind).

 

The interesting part of most urban picture hunting caches is to find all photo locations and not to find a micro at the end. A tour description through a city like in guide book is something different.

Best of luck in your future adventures.

 

Currently no such offer exists. I just took the liberty to disagree with what briansnat claimed. I do not believe that what I have in mind can work well with the old system of virtual caches (due to the involved reviewer issue) but

that does not change the fact that neither Waymarking nor other sites I'm aware of offer what I described.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

There is no website for say guided city tours and hiking routes where along the way one has to collect information and or solve certain tasks which in the end

can be put together to something like a codeword in very much the same way as they can be put together to obtain the coordinates of a final cache.

 

That sounds like a business opportunity, unless of course there are so few people interested in playing such a game that it wouldn't be profitable.

 

In my eyes it is already questionable that the business aspect has become that important in geocaching.

 

There are costs associated with managing or purchasing server hardware as well as costs associated with the development of software. If one expects a web site to be used there are marketing costs as well. Someone has to pay for that and, as a result, it becomes a business.

 

Perhaps thinly veiled in my post was the suggestion that perhaps nobody has created a web site which lists "guided city tours and hiking routes where along the way one has to collect information and or solve certain tasks which in the end can be put together to something like a codeword" because there isn't a large enough market for it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

There are costs associated with managing or purchasing server hardware as well as costs associated with the development of software. If one expects a web site to be used there are marketing costs as well. Someone has to pay for that and, as a result, it becomes a business.

 

Of course there are costs involved. But there are lots of geocaching and hiking sites where no business/company is behind. The developpers are usually people who use the site themselves and they donate their work to the project.

Others donate money, facilities or whatever.

Sites like this one have the need to grow and to become very well known - hobby projects do not have that need.

Share this post


Link to post

I really truly like the ghost icon. It is by far the best icon. The remaining caches themselves are very hit or miss. As everyone else has mentioned, Waymarking isn't very good. When people are Waymarking Walmarts and McDonalds, you know the reintroduction of virtuals would be terrible.

Share this post


Link to post

Virtuals weren't wildly popular when they were allowed. . , ,

 

By taking virtuals of the table it allowed the discussion to focus on geocaches. That has been pretty successful, as many land mangers around the world have eventually accepted geocaching as a legitimate activity on their lands. If virtuals were still an option, that may have never happened.

 

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

For me, virtuals have always extended the game into areas where containers may not be appropriate. They have brought me to domes in Yosemite, natural and historical wonders in Yellowstone, a bucket list experience on the Rim of the Grand Canyon (60 miles from the nearest polygamist). They have encompassed hidden places that I would not have discovered, provided "aha" moments of discovery in Incan salt ponds or monuments in D.C, and generally have always been the first thing that I seek while traveling.

 

As to taking physical caches "off the table," I look at the state parks where I live in California. The land managers had no problem in being able to distinguish between areas where only virtual caches are allowed and areas where physical caches are appropriate (within three feet of a designated trail). At the same time, it has been over ten years since the federal land managers in my area removed all the grandfathered geocaches they could find -- although a few have been periodically replaced by cachers after the rangers removed them -- and the superintendent has told me that he will never allow physical caches on his watch.

 

If land managers do not want to permit physical caches, there already are many alternatives they can cite -- earthcaches, Waymarking, alternative websites that permit virtual caching. other location-based games. In some instances, doors have been opened to physical caches because earthcaching provided an opportunity to develop a relationship with the agency. The same could be true with other virtuals. So I do not agree with the "physical or nothing" approach.

 

There are some areas where I would not want to see physical containers, but they do not necessarily teach a geological lesson suitable for earthcaches.

 

At the same time, I would not want to see people having to negotiate the "wow" factor or placing virtuals at every historical plaque. Are there alternatives? Some alternatives have been discussed over the years. As a starting point, Groundspeak could allow existing virtuals to be adopted, so that caches like the recently-archived "weary traveler" could be maintained. Then it might be worth having a discussion about how new virtuals could be implemented.

 

But it seems like spinning wheels at this point. It is clear that the "geocaching challenges" were never a "replacement" for virtuals. Waymarking does not provide the same kind of experience and is not a part of this game.

 

So I geocache. I like finding containers on occasion. At least in certain places. But I consider an earthcache, a virtual, or events to also be a "find" within this game. When the last virtual disappears, the game will have lost something special.

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

The closest non-virtuals we've found to virtuals is puzzles and/or multis where you need to go to a notable location (building, sign, cannon, etc.) and collect information to either solve the puzzle or move on to the next stage. These can be really enjoyable and educational.

 

We do think it's a shame they're not ghost-worthy, though.

Share this post


Link to post

If you're going to ban virtuals, why not earthcaches? And if you're going to allow those, why not watercaches, or skycaches, or botanycaches? What's so special about geology?

Share this post


Link to post

If you're going to ban virtuals, why not earthcaches? And if you're going to allow those, why not watercaches, or skycaches, or botanycaches? What's so special about geology?

I missed someone mentioning banning virtuals, have to reread the thread. Thanks!

 

Off-topic, but a group of professionals in their field took on the role of Reviewers for Earthcaches.

They play nice in Groundspeak's sandbox, and brought their own toys. :)

 

I'm sure if a similar professional group offered to help with other Earth sciences, they'd probably be welcomed.

So far, it seems none have offered...

Share this post


Link to post

No thanks. I used to want them brought back too, but we have the Waymarking site here for virtual listings. :)

 

Just the most recent threads on the same topics:

 

Unable to Post or Visit waymarks error description for visits

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333353

 

Waymarking Site down ?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=332830

 

 

B.

 

Yes, I visit the site several times a day reviewing and submitting new waymarks, so I'm quite aware of it's issues. I don't believe that Groundspeak will ever work to improve the site, but that is the option we are given here for virtual geocaches.

 

I have quite a few virtual listings published on other geocache listing services and have taken part in the review process. Virtual geocaches are not the popular choice and should be limited to those places where physical geocaches are not allowed and include a search, seek, or do activity at the coordinates, ideally with an educational, outdoor, or human interest.

 

If virtuals were ever brought back to this site they would require a special group of reviwers similar to how GSA reviews EarthhCaches, and I don't think that will ever happen here. We were given the Waymarking site for virtuals and it is widely unsued.

Share this post


Link to post

If you're going to ban virtuals, why not earthcaches? And if you're going to allow those, why not watercaches, or skycaches, or botanycaches? What's so special about geology?

 

Do have to agree that the best answer to this is to expand the EarthCache program. Probably something attached to UNESCO (at least that style of organisation) with cache types to handle the Historical and the Natural. Still the same tight guidelines that earthcaches have in regard to what can be used as the subject of the cache so you aren't brought to a Maccas built 10 years ago just because the CO can.

Share this post


Link to post

I think we need to bring back Virtual caches! There are many good ones still active but it would be nice if those newer cachers (or not so new) cachers have a chance to create a Virtual cache.

Yet you've only found about 10% of the available Virtuals in your home State? It looks like you have a fair amount to find, and it begs the question, if you love them so much, why haven't you found more?

 

I am working on finding more. But I've found all the ones near me. And I'm a college student so its hard to make trips to certain places JUST to find a Virtual cache.

Share this post


Link to post

If you're going to ban virtuals, why not earthcaches? And if you're going to allow those, why not watercaches, or skycaches, or botanycaches? What's so special about geology?

 

Well...it IS called Geocaching...not aquacaching or aerocaching. :anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post

Virtuals weren't wildly popular when they were allowed. Many geocachers felt they weren't geocaching. When the the end of new virtuals was announced, there was a segment of cachers who were upset but their demise was generally met with indifference.

 

For those who want them back, would it be in the original form where nearly anything goes? When manhole covers, flag poles other mundane objects where submitted? There were a lot of trash virtuals back then. I think that if they came back in that form the virtual lovers would soon get bored. Kind of like finding a LPC but without the container and the log to sign.

 

Or would it be in "wow factor" form introduced in 2003, which was an effective ban. You will find very few virtuals that were published after the wow factor was introduced, because there were two requirements. The virtual had to be something so cool that it would blow you away and make you say "wow" AND you had to prove there was no way you could hide a real cache at that location. The first factor was subjective and the second was difficult to prove.

 

The "wow factor" days also had some negative effects on the sport. It it created a lot of animosity between the reviewers and those who submitted the virtuals. Of course those who submitted them insisted they were "wow!" and became angry when the reviewer disagreed. Anybody who frequented these forums back then remembers the the nearly weekly threads complaining that the reviewer refused their virtual because they didn't think it was "wow" enough.

 

Another negative effect of virtuals was that when geocachers firest began negotiating with land managers over allowing geocaching, the land managers would often say virtuals were welcome, but containers were not. By taking virtuals of the table it allowed the discussion to focus on geocaches. That has been pretty successful, as many land mangers around the world have eventually accepted geocaching as a legitimate activity on their lands. If virtuals were still an option, that may have never happened.

 

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

Image the age of people who liked them back then? Oh wait nobody knew about geocaching, and ten years after the ban on new ones Geocaching is more world-wide and known and people have access to finding new ones and getting those numbers of "finds" higher. But the Virtual caches aren't poping up because these are "grandfathered" I've tried the Waymarking site, but it doesn't show a map of any real caches. Just businesses and very private/personally information gets leaked, no thanks! On Virtuals all you gotta do is contact the CO with the answers. simple as that!

Share this post


Link to post

Virtuals weren't wildly popular when they were allowed. Many geocachers felt they weren't geocaching. When the the end of new virtuals was announced, there was a segment of cachers who were upset but their demise was generally met with indifference.

 

For those who want them back, would it be in the original form where nearly anything goes? When manhole covers, flag poles other mundane objects where submitted? There were a lot of trash virtuals back then. I think that if they came back in that form the virtual lovers would soon get bored. Kind of like finding a LPC but without the container and the log to sign.

 

Or would it be in "wow factor" form introduced in 2003, which was an effective ban. You will find very few virtuals that were published after the wow factor was introduced, because there were two requirements. The virtual had to be something so cool that it would blow you away and make you say "wow" AND you had to prove there was no way you could hide a real cache at that location. The first factor was subjective and the second was difficult to prove.

 

The "wow factor" days also had some negative effects on the sport. It it created a lot of animosity between the reviewers and those who submitted the virtuals. Of course those who submitted them insisted they were "wow!" and became angry when the reviewer disagreed. Anybody who frequented these forums back then remembers the the nearly weekly threads complaining that the reviewer refused their virtual because they didn't think it was "wow" enough.

 

Another negative effect of virtuals was that when geocachers firest began negotiating with land managers over allowing geocaching, the land managers would often say virtuals were welcome, but containers were not. By taking virtuals of the table it allowed the discussion to focus on geocaches. That has been pretty successful, as many land mangers around the world have eventually accepted geocaching as a legitimate activity on their lands. If virtuals were still an option, that may have never happened.

 

I think this site should focus on geocaching and for those who enjoy finding "things", there is a website for that.

 

Image the age of people who liked them back then? Oh wait nobody knew about geocaching, and ten years after the ban on new ones Geocaching is more world-wide and known and people have access to finding new ones and getting those numbers of "finds" higher. But the Virtual caches aren't poping up because these are "grandfathered" I've tried the Waymarking site, but it doesn't show a map of any real caches. Just businesses and very private/personally information gets leaked, no thanks! On Virtuals all you gotta do is contact the CO with the answers. simple as that!

 

What?!?! How does finding a waymark give up any "very private/personally information"? Can you elaborate on this point, please?

Share this post


Link to post

I love Virtuals and have driven many miles out of my way to find them. I used to really want them brought back. However, I have found several Virtuals which are so lame that it explains vividly that point others have made....that if Virtuals were to return, there would likely be one (probably lame) on every street corner. Part of why I think Virtuals are great to find is that there are simply not that many around. Of course, there are some extremely awesome Virtuals, but the process of regulating them to produce only "awesome caches" would be cumbersome and impose a ridiculous work load on reviewers. They will never be brought back. So just go enjoy the ones that are still out there!

Share this post


Link to post

No thanks. They'll be pushed to the extreme again of "This tree is AWESOME!".

Share this post


Link to post

I love Virtuals and have driven many miles out of my way to find them. I used to really want them brought back. However, I have found several Virtuals which are so lame that it explains vividly that point others have made....that if Virtuals were to return, there would likely be one (probably lame) on every street corner. Part of why I think Virtuals are great to find is that there are simply not that many around. Of course, there are some extremely awesome Virtuals, but the process of regulating them to produce only "awesome caches" would be cumbersome and impose a ridiculous work load on reviewers. They will never be brought back. So just go enjoy the ones that are still out there!

 

While I agree that Groundspeak will continue to let virtuals fade away from attrition (which is why existing ones cannot be adopted), many of us who would like to see them continue as part of this game do not want a free for all. There already are places with containers on every corner without adding virtuals in the mix. There have been suggestions to make virtuals a premium member feature, allowing a single virtual, only in places where physical containers cannot be placed, to set wide saturation requirements apart from containers, require permission similar to earthcaches, have separate reviewers, educational goals, and the like. But at this point, the issue is not how virtuals could be implemented, but whether Groundspeak should envision them as part of this game.

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

 

Image the age of people who liked them back then? Oh wait nobody knew about geocaching, and ten years after the ban on new ones Geocaching is more world-wide and known and people have access to finding new ones and getting those numbers of "finds" higher. But the Virtual caches aren't poping up because these are "grandfathered" I've tried the Waymarking site, but it doesn't show a map of any real caches. Just businesses and very private/personally information gets leaked, no thanks! On Virtuals all you gotta do is contact the CO with the answers. simple as that!

 

Of course the Waymarking map does not show any real caches, after all it is Waymarking.com. Geocaching.com does a pretty good job of showing where geocaches are but does not show any real Waymarks. :unsure: Checking your area (using your first cache owned as a center point) it appears that 10-15% are business and the other 85-90% are not businesses. As far as personal/private information getting leaked, I have no idea what you are talking about, thus I will assume you are misinformed. Visiting a waymark normally requires you to upload a photo of the subject of the waymark and make a comment or two about your visit, not much personal/private about that.

Edited by BruceS

Share this post


Link to post

Go ahead and allow virtual...but the CO will need to pay GS 25 bucks a year to keep their virtual going. If not...its locked.

Share this post


Link to post

Go ahead and allow virtual...but the CO will need to pay GS 25 bucks a year to keep their virtual going. If not...its locked.

 

$25? Why not $100/year? Elitist Cache could be the new cache type for these.:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Go ahead and allow virtual...but the CO will need to pay GS 25 bucks a year to keep their virtual going. If not...its locked.

 

$25? Why not $100/year? Elitist Cache could be the new cache type for these.:ph34r:

:lol: Where is Roman!? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I also think that virtuals have their place in geocaching, especially places like Washington DC or where physical caches just wouldn't work. I also see the flipside of how virtual caches could be abused and sine catchers would even try to make a virtual power trail or some other silliness.

 

I'd suggest only permitting lackeys and reviewers to list a New virtual or locationless. Perhaps the new virtuals could be setup like the LAB caches that require an answer to be inputted in along with your found it log to reduce the amount of messaging answers back and forth. I'd also create 1 locationless cache, that'd be signal the frog.

 

There has to be some sort of compromise between all the folks that want them and the naysayers.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see new virtuals, but agree that they must be closely controlled and not impose an additional burden on reviewers.

 

We have Earthcaches which are effectively virtuals which teach an earth science lesson. I would suggest 3 new categories of virtuals. All would be restricted by a virtual saturation rule. No new virtual within 0.5 miles of a physical cache (please suggest a better value for this).

 

1. Scenic virtual. These must be located at an official scenic lookout.

 

2. Historic virtual. These must be located at a site of historic significance. There must be a plaque or other marker showing the significance of the site.

 

3. Artistic virtual. This must be at a piece of artwork: a statue, sculpture or mural.

 

The logging requirement for any of the above must include a question which proves that the person was there. This will probably be unrelated to the significance of the location - maybe the colour of a nearby object or the wording of a nearby sign. Questions about the focus of the virtual would be encouraged.

 

The submission process would require a photograph of the lookout, the plaque or the artwork.

Share this post


Link to post

Visiting a waymark normally requires you to upload a photo of the subject of the waymark and make a comment or two about your visit, not much personal/private about that.

 

I agree that there is not much personal/private involved except if a photo is required which shows the visitor.

 

What you write above however also implicitly points to one essential difference between Waymarking and (virtual) geocaching. The former mainly concentrates on a single object and on proving the visit while aspects of

searching something, doing some research to find answers etc are not present or play hardly any role.

 

I'm aware of concepts like waytours but apart from the fact that for logging them it suffices to post a photo of a single involved waypoint the typical setting is that all waypoints are given and the most which is required (if at all) is to visit the locations - there are no challenges and no tasks involved. That's very different from say for example a picture hunting cache where the task is to find the locations where 20 photos have been taken and no waypoints are provided whatsoever. The task there is to find the locations and not to walk from given location to location. That's much closer to geocaching than to Waymarking - searching for nice locations and finding many other beautiful objects on the way is a way of a search challenge that can be way more interesting than searching for an urban micro at a location with many muggles around just to be able to log a physical container. Caches of the type I'm describing involve a major search component which is almost entirely missing in Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×