Bring Back Virtual Caches!

[+T0SHEA]

Yes, I also visited Washington D.C. too many places to see, not enough time.

 

I found about 35 virtual caches in the general area of the Plaza and Arlington.

 

In about that same radius, check this out: http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=38.8939088&lon=-77.0404403&t=3&id=38.894077+-77.040591&wo=True&r=10&st=2

 

Even if you allow for multiple listings there are still approximately 1,001 interesting places to visit.

 

I find it interesting how the Red Cross building is listed in ten different Waymarking categories.

 

Looks like a fun area to visit for virtual listings.

 

You need to read the ENTIRE POST: Even if you allow for multiple listings there are still approximately 1,001 interesting places to visit.

[+Manville Possum]

Yes, I also visited Washington D.C. too many places to see, not enough time.

 

I found about 35 virtual caches in the general area of the Plaza and Arlington.

 

In about that same radius, check this out: http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=38.8939088&lon=-77.0404403&t=3&id=38.894077+-77.040591&wo=True&r=10&st=2

 

Even if you allow for multiple listings there are still approximately 1,001 interesting places to visit.

 

I find it interesting how the Red Cross building is listed in ten different Waymarking categories.

 

Looks like a fun area to visit for virtual listings.

 

You need to read the ENTIRE POST: Even if you allow for multiple listings there are still approximately 1,001 interesting places to visit.

 

Please don't assume that I did not read or understand your entire post. I just commented on what I thought was interesting.

[+niraD]

And...isn't it the reviewers who get to determine whether they meet the criterea?

That's the problem that led to virtual caches being grandfathered more than a decade ago.

 

The volunteer reviewers do not want to be in the business of telling geocachers that their babies are ugly (i.e., that their virtual cache submissions don't meet whatever subjective criteria are being used).

[+edexter]

"That's the problem that led to virtual caches being grandfathered more than a decade ago.

The volunteer reviewers do not want to be in the business of telling geocachers that their babies are ugly (i.e., that their virtual cache submissions don't meet whatever subjective criteria are being used)."

 

You know, I always wondered what the rationale was for killing virtuals, and let's assume for the sake of discussion, that an unwillingness to make a subjective aesthetic judgement, was the reason. If this is/was the case, then the decision was made to avoid deciding "what is quality and what is not". Based on the the great majority of caches placed since, it is clear that "quality" is not at all a requirement for listing a cache. The popularity of power trails, lamp post hides, guardrails, "geo-art", multiple choice "puzzles" all flow out of that decision. 50% of all new caches placed near me are now actually on or directly above pavement. The addition of favorite points is the only attempt I see to inject quality into the game and it's very telling statistically: Perception of quality is subjective, but there is remarkable agreement that most caches are not worthy...

edexter

[+dprovan]

You know, I always wondered what the rationale was for killing virtuals, and let's assume for the sake of discussion, that an unwillingness to make a subjective aesthetic judgement, was the reason.

Well, I think it was an unwillingness to enforce a subjective judgement. The problem wasn't that reviewers couldn't tell which virtuals were junk and which weren't, it's just that they got tired of arguing about their decision. (At least, that's my interpretation: I didn't know about geocaching at the time, so I wasn't involved.)

 

If this is/was the case, then the decision was made to avoid deciding "what is quality and what is not". Based on the the great majority of caches placed since, it is clear that "quality" is not at all a requirement for listing a cache. The popularity of power trails, lamp post hides, guardrails, "geo-art", multiple choice "puzzles" all flow out of that decision. 50% of all new caches placed near me are now actually on or directly above pavement. The addition of favorite points is the only attempt I see to inject quality into the game and it's very telling statistically: Perception of quality is subjective, but there is remarkable agreement that most caches are not worthy...

Again, I have no actual knowledge about it, but my guess is that the problem with virtuals was that there was no investment by the CO: since it cost nothing for them to submit a virtual, some COs saw no reason for the virtual to have value. With other caches, the CO has to make a container, place it, and get coordinates. I think that investment keeps the number of bad caches down to a reasonably small number.

[+hzoi]

[+Touchstone]

"That's the problem that led to virtual caches being grandfathered more than a decade ago.

The volunteer reviewers do not want to be in the business of telling geocachers that their babies are ugly (i.e., that their virtual cache submissions don't meet whatever subjective criteria are being used)."

 

You know, I always wondered what the rationale was for killing virtuals, and let's assume for the sake of discussion, that an unwillingness to make a subjective aesthetic judgement, was the reason. If this is/was the case, then the decision was made to avoid deciding "what is quality and what is not". Based on the the great majority of caches placed since, it is clear that "quality" is not at all a requirement for listing a cache. The popularity of power trails, lamp post hides, guardrails, "geo-art", multiple choice "puzzles" all flow out of that decision. 50% of all new caches placed near me are now actually on or directly above pavement. The addition of favorite points is the only attempt I see to inject quality into the game and it's very telling statistically: Perception of quality is subjective, but there is remarkable agreement that most caches are not worthy...

edexter

That would be a brief explanation, but for a more comprehensive explanation, I recommend the following:

 

Edited October 1, 2016 by Touchstone

[+Walts Hunting]

I found my stick. Where's the dead horse

[+ChrisDen]

What I find interesting is that when I sort my found caches in order of favourite points then the ones with the most FPs are mostly Virtuals.

 

Pokemon Go has had an explosive growth based on virtuals only. Could the introduction of virtuals genereate new interest in geocaching?

[+Touchstone]

What I find interesting is that when I sort my found caches in order of favourite points then the ones with the most FPs are mostly Virtuals.

 

Pokemon Go has had an explosive growth based on virtuals only. Could the introduction of virtuals genereate new interest in geocaching?

I would describe that other game as augmented rather than virtual, since the only thing to find at the locations is generated by the game. You can achieve the same sort of player experience with Wherigo, sort of, which has been out for several years now.

[+Manville Possum]

Could the introduction of virtuals genereate new interest in geocaching?

 

I don't think that the re-introduction of virtual geocaches here would spark any new interests other than what the company was trying to avoid when and why they created the Waymarking site and we all can see how that turned out. Just too much lame stuff of little or no interest.

[+dprovan]

What I find interesting is that when I sort my found caches in order of favourite points then the ones with the most FPs are mostly Virtuals.

There's no denying that virtuals are immensely popular. They are no longer allowed for other reasons. But, having said that, there are some factors to keep in mind when looking at the number of FPs virtuals have. First, all virtuals are old, so they've had more time to collect FPs. Second, survival of the fittest: the virtuals that are still here are the ones COs think are worth preserving. Third, they're often in tourist areas where someone that doesn't look for physical geocaches can still find them.

[+Harry Dolphin]

There's no denying that virtuals are immensely popular. They are no longer allowed for other reasons. But, having said that, there are some factors to keep in mind when looking at the number of FPs virtuals have. First, all virtuals are old, so they've had more time to collect FPs. Second, survival of the fittest: the virtuals that are still here are the ones COs think are worth preserving. Third, they're often in tourist areas where someone that doesn't look for physical geocaches can still find them.

 

Yes. Checking out someone's virtual finds on a trip to NYC. Three virtuals. Total 22.974 visits. 795 favorite points. One was great. One was interesting. The third was 'Why did you bother bringing me here?' All three from 2002. Of course, finding regular caches in a major city can be quite difficult.

My thoughts are that the same was true of our visit to the National Mall in DC. A few good ones. But most were "Yeah? And?" The best one there was archived. That one was spectacular.

[Andronicus]

Rather than starting yet another virtual cache thread, I will post here.

 

Some virtuals have been archived because the subject monument was removed. I think that is a good plan.

 

However, on Friday, I found a virtual that had been archived for this reason, but had had the monument replaced. I was planning to log a find, but found the cache page was locked after a couple other cachers found the replaced monument. WUWT? Why does the frog care if we log old virtuals after legitimately finding the subject item?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Andronicus

[+colleda]

Rather than starting yet another virtual cache thread, I will post here.

 

Some virtuals have been archived because the subject monument was removed. I think that is a good plan.

 

However, on Friday, I found a virtual that had been archived for this reason, but had had the monument replaced. I was planning to log a find, but found the cache page was locked after a couple other cachers found the replaced monument. WUWT? Why does the frog care if we log old virtuals after legitimately finding the subject item?

Ah ha. A throwdown monument! Snap!

[+lee737]

I find the cool thing about virtuals now is their rarity.... I say leave them as is, maybe allow them to be adopted to active owners....

Edited October 11, 2016 by lee737

[+Manville Possum]

I find the cool thing about virtuals now is their rarity.... I say leave them as is, maybe allow them to be adopted to active owners....

 

Grandfathered cache types can't be adopted, and I don't think that will ever change.

[+Touchstone]

Why does the frog care if we log old virtuals after legitimately finding the subject item?

 

To be honest, I don't think the frog really cares. But they get complaints from the Community regarding "fake finds" (which no doubt, there are a number of threads on the subject). A pretty well documented number situations involving people armchair logging a number of Virtuals (both active and archived) probably led to the situation you encountered.

 

If you need someone to blame, blame the armchair loggers. Groundspeak was merely responding to the vitriol.

 

Locking of Archived Virtuals is pretty common. I wouldn't even waste my time trying to search out an Archived Virtual, even if the subject of the Listing was replaced months/years later.

[+GrateBear]

My only "wish" about virtual caches, is that they could be adopted instead of archived when the original cacher no longer participates. I don't want to see new ones brought back--I suspect they would end up being somewhat like LPCs/guard rail caches are now.

[+hzoi]

However, on Friday, I found a virtual that had been archived for this reason, but had had the monument replaced. I was planning to log a find, but found the cache page was locked after a couple other cachers found the replaced monument. WUWT? Why does the frog care if we log old virtuals after legitimately finding the subject item?

Did you confirm that the cache owner didn't ask for the listing to be locked?

 

I have not seen a clear pattern on locking archived virtual caches -- some are locked and some are not. Some of the locks have come from a reviewer or Groundspeak, as evidenced by notes in the logs. Others are just locked without explanation, which may mean the cache owners themselves were tired of logs and asked for them to be locked.

 

I do see a pattern on archived webcams, though -- nearly all of the cams I've found that were since archived are now locked. Since webcams are rarer, no doubt this was to stop the flow of fake selfie logs taken at coordinates after the webcam stopped working.

[Andronicus]

However, on Friday, I found a virtual that had been archived for this reason, but had had the monument replaced. I was planning to log a find, but found the cache page was locked after a couple other cachers found the replaced monument. WUWT? Why does the frog care if we log old virtuals after legitimately finding the subject item?

Did you confirm that the cache owner didn't ask for the listing to be locked?

 

I have not seen a clear pattern on locking archived virtual caches -- some are locked and some are not. Some of the locks have come from a reviewer or Groundspeak, as evidenced by notes in the logs. Others are just locked without explanation, which may mean the cache owners themselves were tired of logs and asked for them to be locked.

 

I do see a pattern on archived webcams, though -- nearly all of the cams I've found that were since archived are now locked. Since webcams are rarer, no doubt this was to stop the flow of fake selfie logs taken at coordinates after the webcam stopped working.

Yes, I contacted the CO, and he replied that he had tried to have it unlocked, but the frog wouldn't allow it.

 

As for armchair logs, the virtual in question has had none. I have had it on my watch list for a long time, and every log has been either a note while the monument was AWOL, and only 2 found logs after the monument was replaced, both with photos confirming legitimacy.

 

Maybe I should mirror the virtual in question on an alternate geocaching site so I can record my legitimate find.

[+Manville Possum]

I do see a pattern on archived webcams, though -- nearly all of the cams I've found that were since archived are now locked. Since webcams are rarer, no doubt this was to stop the flow of fake selfie logs taken at coordinates after the webcam stopped working.

 

The last web cam that I visited has a broken link and the owner has not signed on in some while. There is a active web cam there, but most of the photos are just selfies.

[+Manville Possum]

Maybe I should mirror the virtual in question on an alternate geocaching site so I can record my legitimate find.

 

I bet if you check the nearest Waymark link on the cache page the monument is listed there as well, and you could log your find there.

[Andronicus]

Maybe I should mirror the virtual in question on an alternate geocaching site so I can record my legitimate find.

 

I bet if you check the nearest Waymark link on the cache page the monument is listed there as well, and you could log your find there.

Oh man, I haven't even thought about Waymarking in years. I forgot that even exists.

 

PS, just checked, and I can't find a waymark for the monument in question.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Andronicus

[+Manville Possum]

Maybe I should mirror the virtual in question on an alternate geocaching site so I can record my legitimate find.

 

I bet if you check the nearest Waymark link on the cache page the monument is listed there as well, and you could log your find there.

Oh man, I haven't even thought about Waymarking in years. I forgot that even exists.

 

Yes, Waymarking is not very popular but it's still better for virtual listings than the lesser used alternative site that I play with.

 

I learned not to expect any visits to my Waymarks, it's just a good place to share photos with others that have similar GPS fun interests.

[Andronicus]

Well, there are other geocache listing websites that do allow virtual caches (I don't think we are allowed to discuss them here, so I won't mention the URL). So, because geocaching.com won't allow me to, I have logged my legitamit find of https://coord.info/GC6C0C over there.

[+cerberus1]

Well, there are other geocache listing websites that do allow virtual caches (I don't think we are allowed to discuss them here, so I won't mention the URL). So, because geocaching.com won't allow me to, I have logged my legitamit find of https://coord.info/GC6C0C over there.

I'd bet they're happy to have someone playing there too.

[+Manville Possum]

Well, there are other geocache listing websites that do allow virtual caches (I don't think we are allowed to discuss them here, so I won't mention the URL). So, because geocaching.com won't allow me to, I have logged my legitamit find of https://coord.info/GC6C0C over there.

I'd bet they're happy to have someone playing there too.

You know it. They were happy to have my web cam cache that has a broken link here.

[+Manville Possum]

Well, there are other geocache listing websites that do allow virtual caches (I don't think we are allowed to discuss them here, so I won't mention the URL). So, because geocaching.com won't allow me to, I have logged my legitamit find of https://coord.info/GC6C0C over there.

 

I have to ask, how were you able to log your own listing there on the other site? I can't seem to find the option to log my own listings as found.

[Andronicus]

Well, there are other geocache listing websites that do allow virtual caches (I don't think we are allowed to discuss them here, so I won't mention the URL). So, because geocaching.com won't allow me to, I have logged my legitamit find of https://coord.info/GC6C0C over there.

 

I have to ask, how were you able to log your own listing there on the other site? I can't seem to find the option to log my own listings as found.

I know people...

[+Manville Possum]

Well, there are other geocache listing websites that do allow virtual caches (I don't think we are allowed to discuss them here, so I won't mention the URL). So, because geocaching.com won't allow me to, I have logged my legitamit find of https://coord.info/GC6C0C over there.

 

I have to ask, how were you able to log your own listing there on the other site? I can't seem to find the option to log my own listings as found.

I know people...

 

Sure. Even the site admins are stumped on how you pulled that one off.

[Andronicus]

Well, there are other geocache listing websites that do allow virtual caches (I don't think we are allowed to discuss them here, so I won't mention the URL). So, because geocaching.com won't allow me to, I have logged my legitamit find of https://coord.info/GC6C0C over there.

 

I have to ask, how were you able to log your own listing there on the other site? I can't seem to find the option to log my own listings as found.

I know people...

 

Sure. Even the site admins are stumped on how you pulled that one off.

Which admins? Maybe they should talk to each other a little more. I just logged a note, and my 'colleague' 'fixed' it.

 

Anyway, their 'no logging your own cache' isn't so much their rule or guidline, as it is an artifact of cloning the opencaching.pl code. It is 'hardwired' into the code (although by definition, code is not hardwired (unless it is on a EPROM or something similar)).

[Keystone]

Side conversations about how to log finds on an alternative listing service ought to take place in private messages, or on social media platforms provided by that listing service. Thanks, and I now return you to our regularly scheduled debate about bringing back virtual caches to Geocaching.com.

[Andronicus]

OK, so back on topic, my stance is that it is fine to not allow new virtual caches, but GS should be make it easier to keep existing ones alive. And they definitely should unlock the virtual cache in question.

 

https://coord.info/GC6C0C

[+Manville Possum]

OK, so back on topic, my stance is that it is fine to not allow new virtual caches, but GS should be make it easier to keep existing ones alive. And they definitely should unlock the virtual cache in question.

 

https://coord.info/GC6C0C

 

Yes,we both agree.

[+Harry Dolphin]

OK, so back on topic, my stance is that it is fine to not allow new virtual caches, but GS should be make it easier to keep existing ones alive. And they definitely should unlock the virtual cache in question.

 

https://coord.info/GC6C0C

 

Tough one. I've done two of the First Post caches. The one in question was removed. That's why it was archived. The replacement First Post is a replacement, not the original. Obviously, the question for the Virtal would have changed, but that's minor. It was archived for being missing. The replacement is a new benchmark, and not at the original location. Though, I will agree that it is a shame that a new Virtal could not be placed. These are very interesting.

[+Sagefox]

OK, so back on topic, my stance is that it is fine to not allow new virtual caches, but GS should be make it easier to keep existing ones alive.

 

I disagree. I like the old grandfathers and still search them out because they are collector's items now but the essence of "grandfathering" is that they will be phased out when they become needy. The idea is that they will eventually be gone unless continually maintained.

 

Once the original benchmark was removed during demolition this virtual crossed that line.

 

And they definitely should unlock the virtual cache in question.

 

We have to let it go peacefully to virtual cache heaven.

[Andronicus]

OK, so back on topic, my stance is that it is fine to not allow new virtual caches, but GS should be make it easier to keep existing ones alive. And they definitely should unlock the virtual cache in question.

 

https://coord.info/GC6C0C

 

Tough one. I've done two of the First Post caches. The one in question was removed. That's why it was archived. The replacement First Post is a replacement, not the original. Obviously, the question for the Virtal would have changed, but that's minor. It was archived for being missing. The replacement is a new benchmark, and not at the original location. Though, I will agree that it is a shame that a new Virtal could not be placed. These are very interesting.

Harry, have you been to the replacement. It is the original plaque, and it is the original brass cap. The surrounding stuff is indeed new, but like I said, the heart of the monument is still original.

[+Manville Possum]

It is the original plaque, and it is the original brass cap. The surrounding stuff is indeed new, but like I said, the heart of the monument is still original.

 

I see several potential Waymarks there. Sometimes I enjoy them more than the old grandfathered virtuals. The only thing I enjoy more about them is the icon and how few and far between they are.

[+hzoi]

I brought back virtuals just for the weekend. Enjoy.

 

(Trick.)

 

[+Mama514]

I brought back virtuals just for the weekend. Enjoy.

 

(Trick.)

 

I have the answer to "What does the object rest on?" No clue on the other questions.

 

Great Jack-O-Lantern carving! I was gonna do the same thing this year, and with a GC code carved in..Then the detail involved skeeered me.

[LeataCharity]

I haven't read the entire page but virtuals and webcamcaches should , in my opinion, come back with limits and I know that there have been some limited releases.

 

And there should be,  like earthcaches, historycaches.

 

Sorry that I'm 5 years late for this post.  

[Keystone]

1.  Virtual Caches were brought back, in 2017 with the introduction of Virtual Rewards.  Since then, more than 5,800 new Virtual Caches have been published.  The "limited release" has worked quite well to overcome the many issues which led to the end of Virtual Caches many years ago.

2.  Earthcaches are a success because they have an official sponsor that helps greatly in setting and enforcing the rules for that cache type - the Geological Society of America.  Do you know of an internationally recognized historical organization that could support historycaches?  If so, please put them in touch with Geocaching HQ!

3.  Webcams are a category at Waymarking.com.  For many reasons, they don't do well as geocaches.  I don't expect to see them come back, but you never know.

[LeataCharity]

 

7 minutes ago, Keystone said:

1.  Virtual Caches were brought back, in 2017 with the introduction of Virtual Rewards.  Since then, more than 5,800 new Virtual Caches have been published.  The "limited release" has worked quite well to overcome the many issues which led to the end of Virtual Caches many years ago.

2.  Earthcaches are a success because they have an official sponsor that helps greatly in setting and enforcing the rules for that cache type - the Geological Society of America.  Do you know of an internationally recognized historical organization that could support historycaches?  If so, please put them in touch with Geocaching HQ!

3.  Webcams are a category at Waymarking.com.  For many reasons, they don't do well as geocaches.  I don't expect to see them come back, but you never know.

I think that virtual rewards are great but I hope to see more in the future.

 

 I will work on the idea of historycaches. 

 

Thanks for the number of virtual reward caches I didn't know that there  were that many. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by LeataCharity

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, LeataCharity said:

16 hours ago, Keystone said:

1.  Virtual Caches were brought back, in 2017 with the introduction of Virtual Rewards.  Since then, more than 5,800 new Virtual Caches have been published.  The "limited release" has worked quite well to overcome the many issues which led to the end of Virtual Caches many years ago.

2.  Earthcaches are a success because they have an official sponsor that helps greatly in setting and enforcing the rules for that cache type - the Geological Society of America.  Do you know of an internationally recognized historical organization that could support historycaches?  If so, please put them in touch with Geocaching HQ!

3.  Webcams are a category at Waymarking.com.  For many reasons, they don't do well as geocaches.  I don't expect to see them come back, but you never know.

I think that virtual rewards are great but I hope to see more in the future.

 

 I will work on the idea of historycaches. 

 

See Keystones 2nd point.  There have been posts about the creation of history caches since I started playing in 2007.  It's never gone past a couple of posts supporting the idea because so far,  there hasn't been an organization to step up to plate and volunteer to support them.  

[+NLBokkie]

On 6/19/2021 at 5:59 AM, LeataCharity said:

I haven't read the entire page but virtuals and webcamcaches should , in my opinion, come back with limits and I know that there have been some limited releases.

 

And there should be,  like earthcaches, historycaches.

 

Sorry that I'm 5 years late for this post.  

 

Agree. I would also welcome naturecaches, for interesting areas in nature that don't fit in the earthcaches theme.

And I too would love to see webcamcaches back. I would prefer for geocaching.com to allow these on a project-basis that would include a maintenance plan for the coming years to ensure the webcamcache can stay alive for some time. Also for organisers of Mega- and Giga events to get an opportunity to create a new one that can stay after the event. I really see technical and organisational possibilities for that, if there only was a possibility to create one under requirements from HQ.

Edited June 23, 2021 by NLBokkie

[+TeamRabbitRun]

8 hours ago, NLBokkie said:

 

<...>

And I too would love to see webcamcaches back. I would prefer for geocaching.com to allow these on a project-basis that would include a maintenance plan for the coming years to ensure the webcamcache can stay alive for some time. Also for organisers of Mega- and Giga events to get an opportunity to create a new one that can stay after the event. I really see technical and organisational possibilities for that, if there only was a possibility to create one under requirements from HQ.

 

I think one of the biggest problems with webcam caches, aside from the unreliability of service was the fact with EVRYBODY carrying a network-enabled camera in their pocket, the de-facto standard log was becoming SELFIES taken at vaguely the site.

 

So, while webcam caches were cool, they were pretty much unworkable due to the burden placed on the CO. It was a limited "Additional Logging Requirement" (ALR) allowed as an exception to the strict "No-ALR" rule, akin to establishing a rule that says that I'll delete your log if I find a spelling error.

 

 

 

[+Max and 99]

On 6/18/2021 at 10:59 PM, LeataCharity said:

I haven't read the entire page but virtuals and webcamcaches should , in my opinion, come back with limits and I know that there have been some limited releases.

 

And there should be,  like earthcaches, historycaches.

 

Sorry that I'm 5 years late for this post.  

Interested parties have about 2 weeks to opt in for Virtual Rewards 3.0.

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/370176-announcing-virtual-rewards-30/

Edited February 8, 2022 by Max and 99