Bring Back Virtual Caches!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Hmm. To test this out I chose a random (almost) geocache in California and did a Waymark search. 4th in the list is Mape Memorial Park Arch - eminently loggable, but no-one has - despite it being easy to spot.

Good example. That's the 4th waymark in the list...and it's also the 5th, exactly the same waymark, even exactly the same picture, by the same person, just in a different category. Then the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th in the list are the same park, just different elements of it. Also, all the waymarks on the page are by the same person. And I'm not sure how you picked this random location, but although the first page might be vaguely interesting locations, in the second page we get into the fastfood joints and by the third page they dominate.

 

Don't tell me I don't do waymarks because I don't get credit for them in my geocaching found count.

I think you need to tweak your settings if too many irrelevant categories appear. And I chose one of your caches as my random location (plus, I've been there!).

The fact that there are several "locationless" type waymarks in the same area (and that this one is in more than one category) is a good illustration of what I was saying about the weakness of Waymarking. With a little adjustment these problems could be eliminated and you'd satisfy the requirements of the old-fashioned Virtual bagger (which is what this thread is about).

 

I'd suggest an indicator on each Waymark listing to allow the owner to signify whether the Waymark listing is meant to be logged (i.e. "Virtual Cache" style) or whether it's really a Category log (which could still be logged itself, but this is not expected). At the moment there's too much emphasis on the Categories, and sometimes the Category isn't the focus but the location.

 

Then if you're looking for interesting places to visit in an area that aren't merely examples of a category, a search filter would be available so you can view only those that the owner has set up to be visited. The Category owners could be in charge of reviewing this, so as to prevent too many anomalies. A side effect would be that a lot of unlogged listings wouldn't look quite so unloved. Another side effect is that your logs on this type of Waymark could feed a statistic on your geocaching profile...

[+thebruce0]

I think we agree on the fact that for many cachers anything that does not provide them with a score on gc.com is not attractive.

Actually I think the primary reason would be visibility and that waymarks aren't even a known concept to a vast majority of geocachers who began in the last few years at least.

At any cache, not only does any mobile geocaching app (that I know of) not provide waymark lookups, GPS devices don't generally support them unless you do extra work to load them manually, and they're even on an entirely different website were someone to be even curious.

No, I would say the primary reason is not that they're not "attractive" -it's that most today don't even know they exist.

 

Now, if/when it becomes more visible, even only partially as ubiquitous as geocaching listings to people who geocache, then we can debate about whether it's because Waymarking stats aren't included in geocaching stats (and whether "most" people don't find them attractive because they're not considered as part of "their score")

 

Don't tell me I don't do waymarks because I don't get credit for them in my geocaching found count.

This.

 

Per the comment that was in reply to, were the geocaching app to provide an option to view nearby waymarks, I think in most places the user would be overwhelmed with the sheer amount of listings, many/most duplicates and variants, having to filter through numerous categories, etc. Compared to a cache search, is Waymarking (as it currently exists) better off completely segmented, or even somewhat connected? I think the former. Unless something changes.

Edited January 29, 2016 by thebruce0

[+J Grouchy]

I think they (Waymarks) would be more attractive to people if one or more of the following were true:

 

1 - More "visible" and accessible through a mobile app or quick PQ

2 - Credit was given through their profile...whether it was a separate stat or just a basic accounting of found/discovered

3 - Something actually happened once the location was reached...similar to a Wherigo where entering a designated region caused something to occur. Otherwise it all just "yep...it's an interesting rock...let's go!".

 

[cezanne]

I think you need to tweak your settings if too many irrelevant categories appear.

 

I have two questions: Do the waymark settings help when using "search nearby waymarks" from a cache page on gc.com? (I think that the answer is no, but I have not tried it out.)

How can you avoid getting shown the some object location times because it has been re-listed many times without excluding whole categories that might contain other waymarks of interest?

 

If I look at all waymarks around my home coordinates within a very big search radius, there is none that shows me any location that is unknown to me. Geocaches very often lead me to unknown locations

or let me learn something I have not been aware before. The typical waymark description in my area cannot even cope with the level of wikipedia. Many geocaches go far beyond (have a look e.g. at this traditional https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCM2QP_rescue-you which got archived as the owner was annoyed about the effects of a power trail).

[cezanne]

I think we agree on the fact that for many cachers anything that does not provide them with a score on gc.com is not attractive.

Actually I think the primary reason would be visibility and that waymarks aren't even a known concept to a vast majority of geocachers who began in the last few years at least.

 

Well, I experienced the times when Waymarking was introduced and I watched what was published in my area for quite a while. There has not been

any single interesting waymark among them in the sense that it would have shown me anything new. I decided not to take part and so did most of the other locals.

It remained a categorizing initiative which never was really intended for showing anything new. The same people who hid interesting caches at locations new to me

came up with the boring sort of waymarks which are at best of interest to tourists (but even there geocaches exist or existed there which do/did a way better job).

 

It could well be that by making waymarks more known to the newer cacher and making them available in apps, there would be more visit logs for certain types of waymarks but I

do not believe that this is the target audience who would create waymarks that are of interest to me or write waymarks logs that are enjoyable for me to read.

 

There is only a small percentage among the newer caches who have a geocaching philosophy which is compatible with my own and they are typically more old fashioned in their approach, caching and logging style. I'm not interested into the contribution of the big mass (which very often just ruins what is highly valued by a smaller group).

 

Another example compare this EC

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC387R3_austein?guid=5f0e6d26-e996-45d1-b0be-bc0ee6a530ca

with this waymark

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMPVCN_Austein_Graz_Austria

 

While I have been at the location many times before my EC visit, the EC visit paid off and it made me note something I have never noted before and made me reflect about the geology there. It's completely unattractive for me to visit the waymark - it does not have anything to offer to me. There is no activity involved, I do not end up with anything by visiting the location again where I have been many times in my life. This attitude "just have fun" and having no requirements at all or at best some photo requirement simply does not capture the activity type of motivation behind geocaching. (The challenge idea was a concept that tried to approach that but in the wrong manner.)

Edited January 29, 2016 by cezanne

[+geodarts]

I think we agree on the fact that for many cachers anything that does not provide them with a score on gc.com is not attractive.

 

To phrase it as a "score on gc.com" is both accurate and oversimplified. I like virtuals that are part of this game. By definition, that creates a score on this site, but it has to do more with the way that geocaching can be played and less than any particular score.

 

When earthcaches were moved to Waymarking, I enjoyed the ones that were grandfathered on this site but never looked at the others. I will do some of the remaining webcams, but do not seek them out as waymarks. And although I like many wherigos, I have not done any of the cartridges that do not have an associated cache. In the end, I am not looking for another location-based game to play.

 

To me, that is why Groundspeak has never been as successful with its other games. Waymarking was billed as an answer for both locationless and virtuals - but it seems like just another check in game played on a gpsr rather than my phone. The Geocaching Challenges were supposed to appeal to those of us who like virtuals, but was separated from caching and accordingly missed the mark in how it was designed. I could never quite figure out Groundspeak's egg hunt game (a short lived ios app) but it appears very few people did either. I'll stick with caching, at least until the last virtual is archived.

 

There are plenty of other location-based games or check-in apps that I could be playing right now. I dabbled with a couple (Gowalla and Ispy) when they were around. I could be doing virtual or locationless caches elsewhere. But I am not looking for ways in which virtuals could be part of a different game. I would like them to continue to be part of what I do now, even if it seems unlikely.

Edited January 29, 2016 by geodarts

[+dprovan]

I think you need to tweak your settings if too many irrelevant categories appear.

This would not be a "tweak". To eliminate the pointless waymarks, I think I'd have to ignore 95% of the categories. Even if I were willing to do the research to figure out which categories might contain interesting waymarks, I don't think I'd bother to do the work to then mark all the other ones. And that's before I start wondering if the result would be enough waymarks worth doing within striking distance to make the exercise worth the effort.

 

But that's all beside the point, really. The fact that most waymarks aren't even remotely interesting somehow eliminates, for me, the value of seeking the rare exception.

[cezanne]

I think we agree on the fact that for many cachers anything that does not provide them with a score on gc.com is not attractive.

To phrase it as a "score on gc.com" is both accurate and oversimplified. I like virtuals that are part of this game. By definition, that creates a score on this site, but it has to do more with the way that geocaching can be played and less than any particular score.

 

I don't think that it was oversimplified as I did not refer to all cachers. I agree with you however that there are other reasons not to use Waymarking.

 

You are not the only example. Though I like certain types of virtual caches, I have not visited a single waymark. I have done a few caches which are available on opencaching only and I offer my caches there as well, but it's definitely a bit tedious to do so and every additional site adds to the chore.

 

That's why me too would prefer to have new virtual caches on this site (though I have zero hopes that this is going ever to happen), but would not want them to have the same count as the physical caches.

 

In recent years I have sometimes be very close to archiving my virtual cache as the number of those who visit it only to score a virtual or an Austrian virtual increases.

Back when I started caches were visited for their own sake. That has changed considerably.

[+BruceS]

Do the waymark settings help when using "search nearby waymarks" from a cache page on gc.com? (I think that the answer is no, but I have not tried it out.)

 

Again you are incorrect in your assumption but we are getting used to that. If you have set up categories or even complete sets of categories (such as businesses) to be ignored waymarks in those categories will not show when you do a search of nearby waymarks from a cache page on gc.com.

[cezanne]

Do the waymark settings help when using "search nearby waymarks" from a cache page on gc.com? (I think that the answer is no, but I have not tried it out.)

 

Again you are incorrect in your assumption but we are getting used to that. If you have set up categories or even complete sets of categories (such as businesses) to be ignored waymarks in those categories will not show when you do a search of nearby waymarks from a cache page on gc.com.

 

I wrote that I did not try it out and asked a question - if I had been sure I would not have asked. I could just as well have left out the comment in parentheses but I have seen no reason why I should do so - it did not violate any forum rule and not everyone has the same writing style.

 

One of the issues is of course that in any case I would need to log into Waymarking separately which I never will understand and find it inacceptable - the rare cases when I use the command "search for nearby waymarks" I'm never logged into Waymarking. In any case it would not help anyhow as most waymarks around me (except a few businesses) are in categories of potential interest - just the waymarks there are not interesting to me.

Edited January 29, 2016 by cezanne

[+HHL]

[...] One of the issues is of course that in any case I would need to log into Waymarking separately which I never will understand and find it inacceptable. [...]

 

You accept the additional login here in the forums? Why?

 

Hans

[+Manville Possum]

[...] One of the issues is of course that in any case I would need to log into Waymarking separately which I never will understand and find it inacceptable. [...]

 

You accept the additional login here in the forums? Why?

 

Hans

 

Makes no sense to me either.

[cezanne]

[...] One of the issues is of course that in any case I would need to log into Waymarking separately which I never will understand and find it inacceptable. [...]

 

You accept the additional login here in the forums? Why?

 

Easy answer though off-topic as the question: Even the separate login on Waymarking is acceptable to me too if I want to use the Waymarking site in its own right (I have logged into the site quite a number of times) but not when I quickly want to check whether a waymark is nearby a cache and I use the link on gc.com. (If I do so it's typically without genuine interest into Waymarking - it's just to see whether there might be an interesting location nearby when I'm in an unknown area).

 

Forum softwares are typically separate and I use forums not at the same time when I look for geocaches. In my opinion virtual caching would have a better place integrated on gc,com and not on a site with a separate login, rules and concepts different from caching etc. The gc.com site offers the much better framework for virtual caches as Waymarking will ever manage to offer (think of the download options, additional waypoints, PQs and many other things).

Edited January 29, 2016 by cezanne

[+BruceS]

[...] One of the issues is of course that in any case I would need to log into Waymarking separately which I never will understand and find it inacceptable. [...]

 

You accept the additional login here in the forums? Why?

 

Easy answer though off-topic as the question: Even the separate login on Waymarking is acceptable to me too if I want to use the Waymarking site in its own right (I have logged into the site quite a number of times) but not when I quickly want to check whether a waymark is nearby a cache and I use the link on gc.com. (If I do so it's typically without genuine interest into Waymarking - it's just to see whether there might be an interesting location nearby when I'm in an unknown area).

 

 

Easy solution. Put a check in the Remember me checkbox on the Waymarking login page. Problem solved.

[cezanne]

Is there a way to search on Waymarking with respect to the requirements for a visit?

I found no way to search for categories which neither use photo requirements nor use the "no requirements, just have fun" variant.

I know that for a short ECs had their home on Waymarking. While still locations of geological interest can be found on Waymarking, I found no categories where correct answers to a number of questions is required. They might well exist, but it in any case hard to find them.

I will anyhow never get used to the search routines available at Waymarking. Not even typing in simple keyword there works as I expect a search to work.

[+Touchstone]

Is there a way to search on Waymarking with respect to the requirements for a visit?

I found no way to search for categories which neither use photo requirements nor use the "no requirements, just have fun" variant.

I know that for a short ECs had their home on Waymarking. While still locations of geological interest can be found on Waymarking, I found no categories where correct answers to a number of questions is required. They might well exist, but it in any case hard to find them.

I will anyhow never get used to the search routines available at Waymarking. Not even typing in simple keyword there works as I expect a search to work.

From the Waymark FAQ:

 

How do I post a visit?

 

Once you are logged in, visit the individual waymark page and click the "Visit Waymark (Post Visit)" link at the right. Enter your comment and select a visit type, then click "submit visit". You may also choose to rate the waymark and include additional coordinates.

 

As far as I know, any Additional Logging Requirements, beyond maybe posting a picture, is purely optional. It's pretty much the "wild, wild, West" regarding logging visits on the site. Since you have been a pretty vocal dissenter of the Guidelines and Policies on GC.com, this would appear to be a perfect site. No real rules or issues to deal with. Pretty much do what you want, other than if you want to submit Waymarks, in which case, you have to deal with Category Officers.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I think we agree on the fact that for many cachers anything that does not provide them with a score on gc.com is not attractive.

 

To phrase it as a "score on gc.com" is both accurate and oversimplified. I like virtuals that are part of this game. By definition, that creates a score on this site, but it has to do more with the way that geocaching can be played and less than any particular score.

 

When earthcaches were moved to Waymarking, I enjoyed the ones that were grandfathered on this site but never looked at the others. I will do some of the remaining webcams, but do not seek them out as waymarks. And although I like many wherigos, I have not done any of the cartridges that do not have an associated cache. In the end, I am not looking for another location-based game to play.

 

To me, that is why Groundspeak has never been as successful with its other games. Waymarking was billed as an answer for both locationless and virtuals - but it seems like just another check in game played on a gpsr rather than my phone. The Geocaching Challenges were supposed to appeal to those of us who like virtuals, but was separated from caching and accordingly missed the mark in how it was designed. I could never quite figure out Groundspeak's egg hunt game (a short lived ios app) but it appears very few people did either. I'll stick with caching, at least until the last virtual is archived.

 

There are plenty of other location-based games or check-in apps that I could be playing right now. I dabbled with a couple (Gowalla and Ispy) when they were around. I could be doing virtual or locationless caches elsewhere. But I am not looking for ways in which virtuals could be part of a different game. I would like them to continue to be part of what I do now, even if it seems unlikely.

 

I like this post and think it speaks for most of us....I also only seek the earthcaches listed on this site.

For the life of me I can't figure why GS won't bring back the Virtuals because so many really liked them and for a business to ignore what a customer wants is not a good thing. Power trails are here not because they are a good thing but because the customer wanted them.....O.K. I buy that. I think Virtuals were WAY better for the game than PT's....there is nothing " interesting " about a PT.

Come on GS, just do it....let the reviewers weed out the really lame stuff and maybe set a limit of Virtuals per account.

[+Touchstone]

I think that part of the problem is defining "the lame stuff".

[cezanne]

 

As far as I know, any Additional Logging Requirements, beyond maybe posting a picture, is purely optional.

 

But then how did the Earthcaches work in the time when they were on Waymarking?

 

It's pretty much the "wild, wild, West" regarding logging visits on the site. Since you have been a pretty vocal dissenter of the Guidelines and Policies on GC.com, this would appear to be a perfect site. No real rules or issues to deal with.

 

The reason why I asked has nothing to do with being happy with certain guidelines. I thought that if there existed waymark categories where the task is more than posting a picture, those might be interesting ones for me to look at. The lack of an activity is what is one of the essential aspects that I think can be implemented with a virtual cache but which is missing in all waymarks I know.

 

The really good ECs have much more to offer than just a visit to the location. Have a look at the comparison between an EC and a waymark at the same location (Austein, in Graz) which I have provided earlier in this thread. Maybe that helps to understand why I think that Waymarking does not cover virtuals.

[+Manville Possum]

On the alternative geocache listing services that accept virtuals, a logging code can be employed that unless you enter it correctly the virtual can not be logged as found. This would give the seeker a required activity.

 

I don't recall ever logging a virtual on any geocache listing service that is not already Waymarked.

[cezanne]

On the alternative geocache listing services that accept virtuals, a logging code can be employed that unless you enter it correctly the virtual can not be logged as found. This would give the seeker a required activity.

 

I'm not sure to which site you refer as there are several that allow pass codes.

With activity I did not mean an activity performed at the time of logging.

Answers to meaningful ECs e.g. cannot be cast into logging codes. Logging codes would work fine for hikes however.

 

In any case, I'm aware that there exist sites that accept virtual caches. My message is however that not every virtual cache fits onto Waymarking.

 

I don't recall ever logging a virtual on any geocache listing service that is not already Waymarked.

 

Probably because you live in an area where Waymarking is much more popular. The geocache with the highest number of visits in

my country has way more visits than all waymarks all together (also including some neighbouring countries).

Another reason could be that you publish everything as waymark that you encountered as virtual.

Edited January 30, 2016 by cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

Probably because you live in an area where Waymarking is much more popular. The geocache with the highest number of visits in

my country has way more visits than all waymarks all together (also including some neighbouring countries).

Another reason could be that you publish everything as waymark that you encountered as virtual.

 

You may not believe this, but I am one of two Waymarkers within about 250 miles.

 

You have me interested, which geocache are you referring to?

[Keystone]

Come on GS, just do it....let the reviewers weed out the really lame stuff and maybe set a limit of Virtuals per account.

I've said before, the day they do that is the day I retire as a volunteer here. I lived through the wild wild west days and have no desire to return to them.

[+dprovan]

For the life of me I can't figure why GS won't bring back the Virtuals because so many really liked them and for a business to ignore what a customer wants is not a good thing.

All you have to do it poke around the Waymarking site to see why: you'd get a flood of lame virtuals that would drowned out the few good ones.

 

Probably because you live in an area where Waymarking is much more popular.

You may not believe this, but I am one of two Waymarkers within about 250 miles.

He meant more popular than in his area, and 2 waymarkers might be enough to satisfy that claim. I think it does for my area.

[+Manville Possum]

Another reason could be that you publish everything as waymark that you encountered as virtual.

 

I have never (published) Waymarked a virtual, but have logged (found) virtuals as Waymarks. However I have (published) Waymarked several Earthcaches.

 

It is true that the answers to most virtuals published here can be found by clicking on the nearest Waymarks link on the cache page.

 

As for Waymarking being popular, it is not very popular at all here in the US as compared to Europe. My interests in Waymarking is history related subjects. It take time to learn how to navigate the site and filter out categories that are not of interest to the user.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Manville Possum

[+Touchstone]

 

As far as I know, any Additional Logging Requirements, beyond maybe posting a picture, is purely optional.

 

But then how did the Earthcaches work in the time when they were on Waymarking?

 

It's pretty much the "wild, wild, West" regarding logging visits on the site. Since you have been a pretty vocal dissenter of the Guidelines and Policies on GC.com, this would appear to be a perfect site. No real rules or issues to deal with.

 

The reason why I asked has nothing to do with being happy with certain guidelines. I thought that if there existed waymark categories where the task is more than posting a picture, those might be interesting ones for me to look at. The lack of an activity is what is one of the essential aspects that I think can be implemented with a virtual cache but which is missing in all waymarks I know.

 

The really good ECs have much more to offer than just a visit to the location. Have a look at the comparison between an EC and a waymark at the same location (Austein, in Graz) which I have provided earlier in this thread. Maybe that helps to understand why I think that Waymarking does not cover virtuals.

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself? It makes discussion about the merits of your idea very difficult.

[cezanne]

You do realize that you're contradicting yourself? It makes discussion about the merits of your idea very difficult.

 

Where is the contradiction? It must be a misunderstanding.

 

I'm also not sure what you refer to as my idea. My claim is just that there are virtual caches that do not fit on Waymarking. As I said before, I do not expect GS to reintroduce virtuals on this site.

[+Manville Possum]

As I said before, I do not expect GS to reintroduce virtuals on this site.

 

Under current ownership I don't thinK they will ever be reintroduced, and I don't think that GS is going to continue to dump money into the Waymarking site either. Matter of fact, they pretty much pulled out years ago.

[+Sagefox]

Come on GS, just do it....let the reviewers weed out the really lame stuff and maybe set a limit of Virtuals per account.

I've said before, the day they do that is the day I retire as a volunteer here. I lived through the wild wild west days and have no desire to return to them.

Your retirement would be a big loss to this game.

 

I remember the Virtual whine-a-thon. I started out, quite vocally, on the Save the Virtual side but when I learned of the problems they posed for the Reviewers and took notice of how many of the later Virts were so ho-hum I switched over. I often pop in on these recurring topics just to say Let the Dead Dog Rest in Peace.

[+niraD]

I remember the Virtual whine-a-thon. I started out, quite vocally, on the Save the Virtual side but when I learned of the problems they posed for the Reviewers and took notice of how many of the later Virts were so ho-hum I switched over.

Yep. And now it looks like challenge caches may be headed the same way, mainly because of the problems they create for the volunteer reviewers and the Groundspeak appeals staff.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Come on GS, just do it....let the reviewers weed out the really lame stuff and maybe set a limit of Virtuals per account.

I've said before, the day they do that is the day I retire as a volunteer here. I lived through the wild wild west days and have no desire to return to them.

 

We can't exist without reviewers so if it was that bad I guess we could do without.

I found 315 virtuals and don't remember many as " lame " but then almost everything interest me....again, its been awhile so my memory may not be what it should on this.

[+noncentric]

Come on GS, just do it....let the reviewers weed out the really lame stuff and maybe set a limit of Virtuals per account.

I've said before, the day they do that is the day I retire as a volunteer here. I lived through the wild wild west days and have no desire to return to them.

 

We can't exist without reviewers so if it was that bad I guess we could do without.

I found 315 virtuals and don't remember many as " lame " but then almost everything interest me....again, its been awhile so my memory may not be what it should on this.

I think that's because the ones you found weren't "lame" enough for the reviewers to suppress them. As I understand the history, there were many "lame" virtuals that the reviewers did not publish (so you never saw them). The CO's did not think their virtuals were "lame" and went to appeals after back-and-forth time with the reviewers.

 

I think something similar is happening with Challenge caches, unfortunately. Some 'bad apple' CO's are causing such a ruckus that the entire barrel is being spoiled, but that's a discussion best suited for the thread that niraD linked above.

[+Sagefox]

I found 315 virtuals and don't remember many as " lame " but then almost everything interest me....again, its been awhile so my memory may not be what it should on this.

You know, I don't really recall just what percentage of the Virts were ho-hum. Possibly even a low number could be skewing my thinking. Two thirds of mine I should never have submitted and that's probably about right for the entire group. Can you imagine a Volunteer Reviewer having to reject that quantity of new submittals.

 

Around the time of the Virt hold I was also getting a bit annoyed at Locationless caching. Certainly my wife was not happy at the sudden stops on blue highways to photo and waypoint a flag pole or smiley face.

 

Certainly these caches, if they were still around, could be ignored but I am a geocacher and caches MUST be found.

 

Since these cache types were closed down so many years ago I'm still in agreement with the Prime Directive: Hunt for a physical object containing a log to sign. I like to find something!

[cezanne]

Come on GS, just do it....let the reviewers weed out the really lame stuff and maybe set a limit of Virtuals per account.

I've said before, the day they do that is the day I retire as a volunteer here. I lived through the wild wild west days and have no desire to return to them.

 

First, one could have a different set of reviewers for virtuals (which would be the case anyway in case GS would e.g. allow certain spezialized classes of virtual, but unfornutately I have no hope that this will ever happen - as long as there are no positive signals it's not realistic that someone tries to talk an organization like the GSA into a special type of virtuals just to find out in the end that there is no interest at GS).

 

Sesond, I do believe that there would not be that many submissions of the type you had them in the wild wild west days if the new virtuals did have a separate find and hide count and an icon not counting for challenge caches.

 

The advantage would be that all the search infrastructure and the other options that the geocaching site offers were available.

[+geodarts]

t percentage of the Virts were ho-hum. Possibly even a low number could be skewing my thinking. Two thirds of mine I should never have submitted and that's probably about right for the entire group. Can you imagine a Volunteer Reviewer having to reject that quantity of new submittals.

 

Around the time of the Virt hold I was also getting a bit annoyed at Locationless caching. Certainly my wife was not happy at the sudden stops on blue highways to photo and waypoint a flag pole or smiley face.

 

Certainly these caches, if they were still around, could be ignored but I am a geocacher and caches MUST be found.

 

Since these cache types were closed down so many years ago I'm still in agreement with the Prime Directive: Hunt for a physical object containing a log to sign. I like to find something!

 

I liked the sudden stops for a locationless and the research needed to find a place that was not taken, given the limited number of categories that were frozen in place by the time I started. I still think of it when I spot something that would have qualified for an obscure locationless, particularly if the category eluded me. But as the game grew, the available spots became fewer and fewer. The purpose behind locationless had been served. It was time for it to end when it ended. It did give me one of the fun trips I have had while playing this game, tracking down as many as I could during the final week.

 

As far as the prime directive goes, I like to find things, too. Still, there are places where traditionals are not appropriate and its nice to find things as part of this game. Some of my favorite finds - in every sense of the word - have been virtuals.

 

I am planning a trip now, and have identified a handful of traditionals I want to find. The rest are earthcaches and virtuals, although there are some virtuals that have been archived since we first began thinking about the trip so I have less to find.

 

That does not mean I want virtuals to return without limits or to go back to the wow factor. Those are not the only options. But since Groundspeak will not even allow virtuals to be adopted, to keep the existing virtuals into play, I know I will have less to find as time goes on.

Edited January 31, 2016 by geodarts

[+BAMBOOZLE]

t percentage of the Virts were ho-hum. Possibly even a low number could be skewing my thinking. Two thirds of mine I should never have submitted and that's probably about right for the entire group. Can you imagine a Volunteer Reviewer having to reject that quantity of new submittals.

 

Around the time of the Virt hold I was also getting a bit annoyed at Locationless caching. Certainly my wife was not happy at the sudden stops on blue highways to photo and waypoint a flag pole or smiley face.

 

Certainly these caches, if they were still around, could be ignored but I am a geocacher and caches MUST be found.

 

Since these cache types were closed down so many years ago I'm still in agreement with the Prime Directive: Hunt for a physical object containing a log to sign. I like to find something!

 

I liked the sudden stops for a locationless and the research needed to find a place that was not taken, given the limited number of categories that were frozen in place by the time I started. I still think of it when I spot something that would have qualified for an obscure locationless, particularly if the category eluded me. But as the game grew, the available spots became fewer and fewer. The purpose behind locationless had been served. It was time for it to end when it ended. It did give me one of the fun trips I have had while playing this game, tracking down as many as I could during the final week.

 

As far as the prime directive goes, I like to find things, too. Still, there are places where traditionals are not appropriate and its nice to find things as part of this game. Some of my favorite finds - in every sense of the word - have been virtuals.

 

I am planning a trip now, and have identified a handful of traditionals I want to find. The rest are earthcaches and virtuals, although there are some virtuals that have been archived since we first began thinking about the trip so I have less to find.

 

That does not mean I want virtuals to return without limits or to go back to the wow factor. Those are not the only options. But since Groundspeak will not even allow virtuals to be adopted, to keep the existing virtuals into play, I know I will have less to find as time goes on.

 

Well, the one Virtual and three Earthcaches I put out are still in play.

We never pass a virtual and will go well out of our way to grab one....I'll say, hey there is a virtual and we get a little excited.

It sure seems like there would be a way to make it work. Maybe the Virtual reviewer would remain anonymous and his say is final, no appeals...if he says no, its no...done. I'd take the job on that basis.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Well, the one Virtual and three Earthcaches I put out are still in play.

We never pass a virtual and will go well out of our way to grab one....I'll say, hey there is a virtual and we get a little excited.

It sure seems like there would be a way to make it work. Maybe the Virtual reviewer would remain anonymous and his say is final, no appeals...if he says no, its no...done. I'd take the job on that basis.

 

Yes. That has been suggested over the years. A group of virtual reviewers, not from the area. They vote: Yes or No. No appeals. Groundspeak does not seem to be interested. Rather sad. There are a lot of spots that would work well for a virtual cache.

[TahoeJoe]

I enjoyed virtuals back in the time when traditional caches were for the most part ammo cans or something similar. Virtuals were a nice complement to the game where a traditional cache would not always work. Perhaps I was lucky where I lived or maybe it was because geocaching was still relatively new but I never though of virtuals being placed just because the CO wanted to inflate their hide count with little effort or thought. When virtuals were banned, they were still the exception to the traditional caches in my area. Once real traditional size geocaches started becoming the exception and poor quality micro caches started poping up every 500 feet along a trail I no longer accepted the train of thought that virtuals were degrading the game and that virtuals were not real geocaches. That’s pretty hard to swallow with the size and quality of most caches I see now days. That’s a consequence of when numbers become more important than the creativity and though that used to go into the placement of the cache. I for one would like to see virtuals come back as the very least they would discourage power trail caches and might encourage the placement of caches in some interesting locations. As a side note, my most visited cache with lots of favorite points happens to be a virtual.

Edited February 1, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+J Grouchy]

t percentage of the Virts were ho-hum. Possibly even a low number could be skewing my thinking. Two thirds of mine I should never have submitted and that's probably about right for the entire group. Can you imagine a Volunteer Reviewer having to reject that quantity of new submittals.

 

Around the time of the Virt hold I was also getting a bit annoyed at Locationless caching. Certainly my wife was not happy at the sudden stops on blue highways to photo and waypoint a flag pole or smiley face.

 

Certainly these caches, if they were still around, could be ignored but I am a geocacher and caches MUST be found.

 

Since these cache types were closed down so many years ago I'm still in agreement with the Prime Directive: Hunt for a physical object containing a log to sign. I like to find something!

 

I liked the sudden stops for a locationless and the research needed to find a place that was not taken, given the limited number of categories that were frozen in place by the time I started. I still think of it when I spot something that would have qualified for an obscure locationless, particularly if the category eluded me. But as the game grew, the available spots became fewer and fewer. The purpose behind locationless had been served. It was time for it to end when it ended. It did give me one of the fun trips I have had while playing this game, tracking down as many as I could during the final week.

 

As far as the prime directive goes, I like to find things, too. Still, there are places where traditionals are not appropriate and its nice to find things as part of this game. Some of my favorite finds - in every sense of the word - have been virtuals.

 

I am planning a trip now, and have identified a handful of traditionals I want to find. The rest are earthcaches and virtuals, although there are some virtuals that have been archived since we first began thinking about the trip so I have less to find.

 

That does not mean I want virtuals to return without limits or to go back to the wow factor. Those are not the only options. But since Groundspeak will not even allow virtuals to be adopted, to keep the existing virtuals into play, I know I will have less to find as time goes on.

 

Well, the one Virtual and three Earthcaches I put out are still in play.

We never pass a virtual and will go well out of our way to grab one....I'll say, hey there is a virtual and we get a little excited.

It sure seems like there would be a way to make it work. Maybe the Virtual reviewer would remain anonymous and his say is final, no appeals...if he says no, its no...done. I'd take the job on that basis.

 

So then there would be those cases where multiple people are trying to submit the same place. Or people trying to submit the same thing again and again with tweaks to the description or changes to coordinates. Then they'd probably end up having to create "exclusion zones" to automatically block submittals...but then there might be areas truly worthy of a virtual in a different spot but within that exclusion zone, so then you have all sorts of whining and complaining and supposed unfairness.

 

Nope...best just to not even open the door for all that.

[cezanne]

This is relevant when it comes to discussing about whether you are right with your statement that Waymarking covers virtuals.

The only contradictory example you came up with is your own virtual, which is quite unusual but which I didn't think could not be converted to a Waymark. The reason you thought that it couldn't was because of dummy coordinates. I still haven't seen one that couldn't be a Waymark so it seems that from my point of view the argument stands.

 

Another example:

 

Take this cache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1FPN1_munchen-venedig-munich-venice-monaco-venezia?guid=9e649f3d-7a10-43d8-ad2f-6db609c1a574

(I selected it because it also has an English description)

 

It could easily be set up as a virtual cache by omitting the container in the end and using the collected infos for a mandatory password.

 

A waymark implementation would be in some trail sort of category and would provide some waypoints along the way (or just the start and the end) and ask for a photo (or several photos).

That's definitely very, very different from having a place where those who completed the whole trail share their experiences.

 

Noone would request a pin available for those who have finished a long distance hiking trail project if they only have been at the start of the trail or at some point of the trail. The aim of Waymarking is a different one - it's mainly about categorizing locations and attracting attention to the locations - the activity part is typically only playing a side role if present at all and is what every visitor who becomes aware of a location with a waymark can decide on their own. In my opinion the focus is a different one though of course there are cases where a waymark can serve several purposes.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Happy Humphrey]

Well, yes, but in the days when virtual caches were allowed that one would most likely still have been classed a multicache. I'm not saying that multicaches can be easily converted to Waymarks (even though the Cregneash example I gave earlier is in fact a multi). And of course you could convert GC1FPN1 easily enough to a single Waymark, put it in a suitable category (or create a new one), and state that you require a password before a log is allowed to stand.

 

It's surprising that that one gets so many finds - in the UK a multi has to be pretty simple and quick before it gets attempted. I suspect that if you converted it to a Virtual (by special dispensation) the number of finds would drop off significantly. If it was a Waymark it would be pretty much the same experience but would attract no logs.

 

Generally, very lengthy multicaches like that are converted to geocache trails, where you log each stage as a separate traditional and pick up clues to the location of the final "bonus" cache. But that's another discussion!

 

Anyway, this discussion is academic as virtuals aren't going to be "brought back"...in my opinion they're better off out of the way in Waymarking and all geocaches should have a container to log in the field.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Happy Humphrey

[cezanne]

Well, yes, but in the days when virtual caches were allowed that one would most likely still have been classed a multicache.

 

No as there not have been a container in the containerless version.

 

And of course you could convert GC1FPN1 easily enough to a single Waymark, put it in a suitable category (or create a new one), and state that you require a password before a log is allowed to stand.

 

First, there is no suitable category and second, I doubt that a new category with such compulsory visit requirements would be allowed on Waymarking.

 

I suspect that if you converted it to a Virtual (by special dispensation) the number of finds would drop off significantly.

 

I do not think so. Noone goes on such a hike to hunt for a container.

 

If it was a Waymark it would be pretty much the same experience but would attract no logs.

 

It would be quite annoying on Waymarking anyway due to the lack of additional waypoints that can be downloaded. Moreover, as said above I do not believe that the concept of having to walk the entire trail to log a visit fits into the concept of Waymarking.

 

Generally, very lengthy multicaches like that are converted to geocache trails, where you log each stage as a separate traditional and pick up clues to the location of the final "bonus" cache. But that's another discussion!

 

Anyway, this discussion is academic as virtuals aren't going to be "brought back"...in my opinion they're better off out of the way in Waymarking and all geocaches should have a container to log in the field.

 

We agree with respect that virtuals are not brought back. However there is no place for virtuals of the type I would like to visit/publish on Waymarking either.

Personally, I do not care a bit about a container. I do care however about the exclusivity of logs and when it comes to hiking trails I do not want to be exposed to logs by cachers who visit the trail head.

Edited February 2, 2016 by cezanne

[+Touchstone]

I can think of several ways to make your scenario work. The only thing lacking is imagination.

 

BTW, we had a Virtual listed as a Multi for several years, so your statement is erroneous.

[cezanne]

I can think of several ways to make your scenario work. The only thing lacking is imagination.

 

I cannot think of one on Waymarking that does not end up with tons of compromises while the scenario works without any compromises

on any site that allows virtual geocaches which in my opinion proves that virtual geocaching is not a subset of Waymarking.

(By the way; locationless caches are also not a real subset of Waymarking as the most interesting aspect of locationless caches in my opinion

was that one had to find an object not yet logged by someone else.)

 

BTW, we had a Virtual listed as a Multi for several years, so your statement is erroneous.

 

Well, I should have phrased it more carefully. In the very early phase even real multi caches were labeled as traditionals.

At least from the time on when I started to cache, it was not possible to get a cache without a container listed as a non virtual type.

Of course at the time when the cache type could be changed by the cache owner, some cacher owners abused this but that's a different story.

[+briansnat]

I personally don't see a huge difference between these. You still use your GPS to navigate to the location and find the same thing:

 

Passaic Falls Waymark

Passaic Falls Virtual

 

Mary Ellis Grave Waymark

Mary Ellis Grave virtual

 

Old Oak waymark

Old oak virtual

 

Grave waymark

Grave virtual

 

Sign waymark

Sign virtual

Edited February 2, 2016 by briansnat

[cezanne]

I personally don't see a huge difference between these. You still use your GPS to navigate to the location and find the same thing:

 

Apart from the fact that the log requirements do not always match, I do not see an essential difference too in the examples you listed.

I never said that there are no virtual caches that fit well on Waymarking.

My claim is that there are types of virtual caches that do not fit on Waymarking implying that the reference to Waymarking is not a complete

answer to those who would like to have virtual caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I personally don't see a huge difference between these. You still use your GPS to navigate to the location and find the same thing:

 

Apart from the fact that the log requirements do not always match, I do not see an essential difference too in the examples you listed.

I never said that there are no virtual caches that fit well on Waymarking.

My claim is that there are types of virtual caches that do not fit on Waymarking implying that the reference to Waymarking is not a complete

answer to those who would like to have virtual caches.

 

Waymarking nor the main Geocaching site are never going to be a perfect solution for every type of cache imaginable. Perhaps Waymarking is not a complete answer, but I strongly suspect that the types of Virtual caches that *you* would like to see there are so rare that it's not worth the effort to change the way it handles containerless caches. What's that alternative? I don't have an answer to that but I can pretty much guarantee that it's not going to be a perfect solution either for all the different types of caches you want.

 

 

[+gpsblake]

This link examples the problem with Waymarking

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=38.906983&lon=-77.032017&t=6

 

There is so much duplication of waymarks, it makes it impossible or very time consuming to weed out to find interesting waymarks. Also a game where you can log 15 different waymark finds for the same thing is horribly flawed. No easy way to download data to a GPS unit.

 

But the days of the virtual are gone (as are locationless geocaches) for the reasons people mentioned above. The "wow" factor never worked.

[+BruceS]

I can think of several ways to make your scenario work. The only thing lacking is imagination.

 

I cannot think of one on Waymarking that does not end up with tons of compromises while the scenario works without any compromises

on any site that allows virtual geocaches which in my opinion proves that virtual geocaching is not a subset of Waymarking.

(By the way; locationless caches are also not a real subset of Waymarking as the most interesting aspect of locationless caches in my opinion

was that one had to find an object not yet logged by someone else.)

 

 

For someone that has done ZERO Waymarking you sure try to pass yourself out as an expert on the subject.

 

A couple categories come to mind that probably would accomplish what is desired, Waytours and Best Kept Secrets are both fairly free form categories and there are probably other categories as well.

 

As far as locationless caches, each time a new waymark is submitted/created it is the same (maybe a bit more work) as logging a locationless ie. "one had to find an object not yet logged by someone else"

[cezanne]

For someone that has done ZERO Waymarking you sure try to pass yourself out as an expert on the subject.

 

First, I have looked at the Waymarking site many times (of course on an international level). There are less than 75 waymarks within about 75km of my home and this already counts the duplicate ones on the castle hill. There are several thousand geocaches within the same radius and among them a considerable number of attractive ones while all waymarks available to me are boring.

 

Second, I never claimed to be an expert for Waymarking.

 

Third, I have asked in this thread about waymark categories with other type of visit requirements than photos or have fun and none have been suggested..

 

A couple categories come to mind that probably would accomplish what is desired, Waytours and Best Kept Secrets are both fairly free form categories and there are probably other categories as well.

 

I know both of them and none of the two would serve the purpose and that should be very apparent.

 

From the description of waytours

Waymarking tours (WayTours) are short, guided tours of towns. These are for any visitors to a town who want an "insider's look" of where to go, what to see, and what to do.

 

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

You must include an original photo showing one of the stops along the tour route.

 

Do you really think that a 560km hike from Munich to Venice is a short guided tour? It's not a best kept surprise either.

Yes, I know there are categories for hiking trails too but again the idea of Waymarking is not matching the idea of walking the entire trail and proving it.

 

Is my English that bad that I did not bring it across that there is a huge difference between allowing visit logs if someone just visits one arbitrary point? The point of long distance hiking is to walk the entire route and not to visit some places along the route. What you suggest works well to make a certain trail known to those who have not known it before and that's actually the main purpose of Waymarking in my opinion anyway.

 

It feels special to complete a long distance hiking trail and it feels special to complete a cache like Munich-Venice (and also shorter long distance hiking caches/trails) and logs/visits should be restricted to the special audience.

 

 

 

As far as locationless caches, each time a new waymark is submitted/created it is the same (maybe a bit more work) as logging a locationless ie. "one had to find an object not yet logged by someone else"

 

It's not the same as the waymark itself allows visits.

 

For example, I'm planning to set up a locationless cache dealing with the art works in the public space of an artist whose works I admire on a geocaching site that allows such listings.

On Waymarking one would need a category for this which makes no sense at all to have a separate category for an artist which is not world renowed or otherwise everything would be mixed up in some arbitary art category. I'm just interested into getting to see with which works of the artist cachers will come up.

 

It again shows my trouble. My interests and cache ideas are often relatively special - not well suited to be categorized which would not be required within the framework of general virtual geocaching (of course there is the inherent review isssue, but that's a different topic not related to the power of Waymarking).

Edited February 2, 2016 by cezanne