Jump to content

Bring Back Virtual Caches!


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Actually, I do not agree as I'm interested into a wide segment of virtual geocaches. One big class that is definitely not a minority segment are

all sorts of EC-like educational caches in nearly any area (history, arts, biology, physics, ecology and many others).

 

Of course long distance hiking caches are attracting a smaller audience than say history caches with an educational focus (which are not offered on Waymarking).

Edited by cezanne
Link to post

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.

 

For one this idea is such an edge case of a virtual that is not near typical of virtual caches (I have a fair amount experience with them over 500 finds on virtuals). Have you attempted to submit this to Best Kept Secret category? Best Kept Secrets is there for those who want to create the "true" virtual cache experience (whatever that means) and it is fairly open category for creating experiences and does not have photo requirements. If you have not attempted or asked the leader of that category if your idea would be accepted then don't say it does not fit.

 

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.

 

I understand your niche category would have problems on the Waymarking site. Not with the actual structure of the site but more with the criteria that are applied to category creation namely the global criteria and the prevalence criteria. A few years back I had proposed that a new type of categories be allowed for this type of niche category where they would not be included in the global game statistic etc but would be searchable on the site. However that idea was not supported by the community.

Link to post

This topic got me interested in looking at the Waymarking site for the first time in years. (Mostly out of curiosity to see if anyone had ripped off any of our earthcaches.) Perhaps it's my connection, but I'm having a very hard time uploading images that would be a snap to upload to a virtual log -- when I try, my connection is reset, and any other pages I'm trying to load at the same time are in limbo until the connection resets.

 

Bottom line, this site does not appear to have anywhere near the infrastructure as the main geocaching.com website. I'll continue to play around with it, but I must certainly differ from anyone who claims this is a viable alternative to virtual caches. If it was, the Waymarking site would (and should) work better.

Link to post

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.

 

For one this idea is such an edge case of a virtual that is not near typical of virtual caches (I have a fair amount experience with them over 500 finds on virtuals).

 

It's definitely an edge case among those virtuals that have been published on gc.com for many reasons (the virtual I own is an edge case from that perspective).

 

Most of the virtuals that have been published have been published in countries where long/complex caches have never been popular and where traditionals and single stage caches dominate by far.

I'm meanwhile a bit below 25% multis and I'm very sad about the decrease - when I started with caching a proportion of around 33% was normal for me without any need of ignoring caches.

 

 

While the Munich-Venice cache is particularly long (however nothing in comparison with the newer hiking cache of the same finder which starts in my home town

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC11PTE_graz-monaco ), there are quite a number of shorter local long distance hiking caches in my country which all have their audience

(e.g. a 120km hiking multi cache around Vienna has already 100 found it logs).

 

Over the last year I have thought a lot about both setting up a long distance hiking caching project myself (in a way that it is maintainable for me) and about how much I'd like to have a way of

somehow "logging" and certifying longer hikes I have went for. The hiking sites that exist do not offer such options.

The concept of virtual caches is by far the best fit I have found so far.

 

I do not know a single cacher who goes for a long distance hiking cache that cares about the container and while I do not mind DNFs for normal caches, for such caches they terribly hurt as the real idea of such caches is to go for the hike and prove that one has done it. Being offered a log permission for a missing container is lame while a virtual set-up is a more honest approach of what's really behind such caches.

 

 

Have you attempted to submit this to Best Kept Secret category? Best Kept Secrets is there for those who want to create the "true" virtual cache experience (whatever that means) and it is fairly open category for creating experiences and does not have photo requirements. If you have not attempted or asked the leader of that category if your idea would be accepted then don't say it does not fit.

 

Of course I did not try to submit the Munich-Venice trail (that's not my cache anyway).

 

I would never consider to submit e.g. a pilgrimage trail to a well known pilgrimage location as best kept secrets. I'm familiar with the category and do think that the category is a nice idea that helps to integrate some types of virtual caches into Waymarking which would not have a place there otherwise.

 

Even in the case that some of my ideas were accepted at Waymarking by some tweaking which is absurd in my eyes, I would not be happy. If I do not feel that my project fits to Waymarking, then the only appropriate and sincere decision for me is not to send it there.

 

 

I understand your niche category would have problems on the Waymarking site.

 

And that was just one example idea. Somehow most of my ideas for virtual projects just do not fit to the general philospophy of Waymarking, for one or other reasons.

I'm not claiming that with a will to end up with many compromises that not at least some of them could implemented as that's definitely not true. However the cost reward ratio is too bad in my opinion.

Link to post

Bottom line, this site does not appear to have anywhere near the infrastructure as the main geocaching.com website. I'll continue to play around with it, but I must certainly differ from anyone who claims this is a viable alternative to virtual caches. If it was, the Waymarking site would (and should) work better.

 

No disagreement. The site has not had any new development or enhancements work in several years. The only development that has been done is to fix some of the problems that have been caused by changes to geocaching site which also were also underlying Waymarking site thus breaking functionality and not all those breaks have been fixed.

Link to post

Of course long distance hiking caches are attracting a smaller audience than say history caches with an educational focus (which are not offered on Waymarking).

Long distance hiking caches are common in the UK but I've never seen one set up as a single cache. It would probably never be logged. Normally they are a series of caches, perhaps following a standard Long Distance Footpath. I take "long distance" to mean more than a handful of km, by the way. Nowadays I'd expect a major hike to be set up as a Geotour perhaps, or at least as a team effort with several people allocated sections to maintain. Whether the final is a virtual or not isn't really much of a factor. I'd have thought that most people would want a physical log at the end of the walk - they certainly like them along the way.

 

As far as adding your virtual to Waymarking, of course if you don't see a suitable category you can always create one. If you're keen to add a virtual you'll not have too much trouble, but I suspect that you're looking for excuses here not trying to work out how to et one up.

 

I don't understand your point "history caches with an educational focus" not being offered on Waymarking. Add your own then! I've seen plenty on there, however, that I would associate with "history" and that explain the history in an educational way.

 

Anyway, nice to discuss this again but I think that we've all made our points well enough now!

Link to post

Of course long distance hiking caches are attracting a smaller audience than say history caches with an educational focus (which are not offered on Waymarking).

Long distance hiking caches are common in the UK but I've never seen one set up as a single cache.

 

If not set up as a single cache, I never would refer to them as long distance hiking cache.

That's a cache series or a powertrail for me.

 

I take "long distance" to mean more than a handful of km, by the way.

 

At least 30km, but typically more.

 

Nowadays I'd expect a major hike to be set up as a Geotour perhaps, or at least as a team effort with several people allocated sections to maintain. Whether the final is a virtual or not isn't really much of a factor. I'd have thought that most people would want a physical log at the end of the walk - they certainly like them along the way.

 

As far as I understand geotours are commercial and cost money. They do not come from the community for the community and it's more about visiting all caches to get a reward than about walking the whole distance but I do not know the UK example above. I would not refer to the geotour in the Hochkoenig area as long distance hiking cache.

 

 

As far as adding your virtual to Waymarking, of course if you don't see a suitable category you can always create one. If you're keen to add a virtual you'll not have too much trouble, but I suspect that

you're looking for excuses here not trying to work out how to et one up.

 

Of course one can create new categories, but they need to win the vote. It seems not very meaningful to me to propose categories where even the proposer feels that are more than a set of special cases.

When it comes to my own ideas, I already mentioned that they can hardly be classified. That's the sort of flexibility that I appreciate and it does not fit to the philosophy of Waymarking which is about classifying things.

 

 

I don't understand your point "history caches with an educational focus" not being offered on Waymarking. Add your own then! I've seen plenty on there, however, that I would associate with "history" and that explain the history in an educational way.

 

I guess we agree that there are differences between a well done EC with a lesson taught in the field and by means of feedback to the sent in answers and a cache or waymark that contains explanations

to a location in the description.

 

For example, consider this EC in Vienna (unfortunately no English version is available)

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4FGR8_der-ideale-friedhofsboden?guid=a4116ea9-ac0d-469a-b051-c6899c78bec1

It leads the visitors to the largest cemetery in Vienna but the idea of the EC is not to share the cemetery location.

It's the hands on experience and dealing with a topic most people have never dealt with before (what makes a soil type well suited for

cemeteries).

 

Well of course you could say that one could create a category for such waymarks, but it does not make much sense to me.

Providing several waymarks that provide the same lesson at different places does not make sense.

Having the waymark in a cemetery category does not make sense either. Nor does it to have it a geology category where

the requirement is not to answer questions and to perform some experiments.

 

Ideas like the one with the cemetery soil are nothing that lends itself easily to classification.

 

The EC is interesting also for people who have been at this cemetery hundreds of times in their lives before - a typical waymark is not

interesting for those people.

Edited by cezanne
Link to post

No offense, but waymarks.com is a pain. The web site is difficult to navigate and has too many categories. I am trying to only concentrate on 1 category, but it is still difficult to navigate and find them when you are in a specific location. What is wrong with virtual caches? I like them and agree that they should have a purpose (not just a general task to find something).

 

Bring them back and just ensure they have a purpose for having someone finding them. I like the history, art, etc. purpose for them.

 

And if someone does not maintain the virtual they set up, retire it. This is also a way for someone to set up a virtual and maintain it from a distance when they no longer can travel.

Edited by CGTeri
Link to post

Bring them back and just ensure they have a purpose for having someone finding them. I like the history, art, etc. purpose for them.

You cannot pay me enough money to return to the days where I could congratulate the proud parents of the occasional babies marked "history" and "art" while at the same time telling the vast majority of parents that their babies were ugly. People don't like hearing that their babies are ugly, and a good number of them took personal offense at the news. I don't miss those emails.

Link to post

<My apologies if my question had been answered in the thread above, I've read all of it, and didn't find an exact answer>

 

Is it OK to create a multi-cache with virtual stages only, even the final stage?

I'm not talking about very long hikes, just short ones.

 

I'm a nomad, perpetually traveling for almost seven years, so I was never able to hide my own caches. Just lately I found a fellow-geocacher who was willing to take care of my first hide (which was a multi with a physical final stage). I thought that maybe I can go on hide multi's, with virtual stages only. But I'm not sure if this is acceptable.

 

Thanks :)

Link to post

Geocaching has been upstaged by Pokemon Go. Bringing back virtually won't make geocaching as popular, but may help prevent defections.

 

I should note that when I do pocket queries for caches with many favorite points, virtual seem to have a disproportionate high representation and number of points.

Link to post

Geocaching has been upstaged by Pokemon Go. Bringing back virtually won't make geocaching as popular, but may help prevent defections.

 

I should note that when I do pocket queries for caches with many favorite points, virtual seem to have a disproportionate high representation and number of points.

You are missing a point here... the virtuals that you are seeing are the cream of the crop. The best ones are still in play. The others arent.

Link to post

Geocaching has been upstaged by Pokemon Go. Bringing back virtually won't make geocaching as popular, but may help prevent defections.

 

I should note that when I do pocket queries for caches with many favorite points, virtual seem to have a disproportionate high representation and number of points.

 

Upstaged? LOL. I give the game 6 months.

Link to post

If there's not a tangible, touchable something to be found, a container, then it's not a cache.

 

Virtuals, and especially geology-virtuals (don't get me started), weird-out things and make you try to believe you've actually "placed" something, and that other people later "find" it. Hilariously, you even need permission to "place" a geology-virtual in certain bureaucratic places. :lol:

 

Meh. No more virtuals, please.

 

PS, as you might guess, I'd also vote GSAxit if ever given a choice.

Edited by Viajero Perdido
Link to post

Geocaching has been upstaged by Pokemon Go. Bringing back virtually won't make geocaching as popular, but may help prevent defections.

 

I should note that when I do pocket queries for caches with many favorite points, virtual seem to have a disproportionate high representation and number of points.

You are missing a point here... the virtuals that you are seeing are the cream of the crop. The best ones are still in play. The others arent.

 

Some of the best that I have found have been archived. Some of the remaining ones are not necessarily the cream. Although I like the way that Virtuals have extended the game for me (and perhaps kept me in the game) - and think the decision not to allow even the adoption of Virtuals is one of the better mistakes Groundspeak has made, bringing them back because of Pokemon is the least compelling reason I can imagine.

Link to post

I offer to be a reviewer on new virtual caches!

 

Wrong approach! You have to be so low-key in your schmoozing and maneuvering that no one is even aware of it! Then, "someday when you least expect it," you'll be "hired"!

:laughing:

Link to post

I offer to be a reviewer on new virtual caches!

 

Wrong approach! You have to be so low-key in your schmoozing and maneuvering that no one is even aware of it! Then, "someday when you least expect it," you'll be "hired"!

:laughing:

Yes... I would turn it down. Too much trouble and I dont have the time to babysit drama.

Link to post

Geocaching has been upstaged by Pokemon Go. Bringing back virtually won't make geocaching as popular, but may help prevent defections.

 

I should note that when I do pocket queries for caches with many favorite points, virtual seem to have a disproportionate high representation and number of points.

 

Upstaged? LOL. I give the game 6 months.

Which game? :ph34r:

 

(Just kidding! Just a little lighthearted banter.)

Link to post

I was once a volunteer rewiewer for one of the listing services that still has virtuals, and it's crazy what people will list as a virtual geocache. :blink:

 

As for bringing back virtuals here, no thanks. Use the Waymarking site. B)

Thats why our reviewers got sick of it. So the "WOW" factor came up and it was still trouble.

Link to post

I was once a volunteer rewiewer for one of the listing services that still has virtuals, and it's crazy what people will list as a virtual geocache. :blink:

 

As for bringing back virtuals here, no thanks. Use the Waymarking site. B)

Thats why our reviewers got sick of it. So the "WOW" factor came up and it was still trouble.

 

I saw lots of POI's with the "take a picture to prove you were there". I have created several and used logging codes, but I archive them all but one.

Link to post

If there's not a tangible, touchable something to be found, a container, then it's not a cache.

 

 

I disagree.

 

In the context of Geocaching, if Groundspeak allows a listing (or did allow) as a cache, it's a cache. That can include virtual caches, earth caches, event caches, webcam caches, and experimentally, lab caches.

 

A geocache has diverged from the dictionary definition of a cache pretty much since the beginning of the game.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post

I disagree.

 

In the context of Geocaching, if Groundspeak allows a listing (or did allow) as a cache, it's a cache. That can include virtual caches, earth caches, event caches, webcam caches, and experimentally, lab caches.

 

A geocache has diverged from the dictionary definition of a cache pretty much since the beginning of the game.

I guess it depends on how literal and limited you're allowing a definition to be. There could be multiple definitions. A geocache listing on gc.com could include many variants of physical and virtual targets. A "geocache" itself may still also be a physical container... depending on context surrounding the word ;P With no context or reference to gc.com, saying "I'm looking for a geocache" would most likely be interpreted as locating a physical container. Talk to a geocacher, and if you say "I'm looking for a geocache" when you're working on an Earthcache, you might even get corrected to "Earthcache" :)

Link to post

I disagree.

 

In the context of Geocaching, if Groundspeak allows a listing (or did allow) as a cache, it's a cache. That can include virtual caches, earth caches, event caches, webcam caches, and experimentally, lab caches.

 

A geocache has diverged from the dictionary definition of a cache pretty much since the beginning of the game.

I guess it depends on how literal and limited you're allowing a definition to be. There could be multiple definitions. A geocache listing on gc.com could include many variants of physical and virtual targets. A "geocache" itself may still also be a physical container... depending on context surrounding the word ;P With no context or reference to gc.com, saying "I'm looking for a geocache" would most likely be interpreted as locating a physical container. Talk to a geocacher, and if you say "I'm looking for a geocache" when you're working on an Earthcache, you might even get corrected to "Earthcache" :)

I remember doing a earthcache and a muggle was asking what I was doing, I told them... looking for a cache and walk away and they went looking for it. :ph34r::blink: I know, I am evil sometime.

Link to post

I disagree.

 

In the context of Geocaching, if Groundspeak allows a listing (or did allow) as a cache, it's a cache. That can include virtual caches, earth caches, event caches, webcam caches, and experimentally, lab caches.

 

A geocache has diverged from the dictionary definition of a cache pretty much since the beginning of the game.

I guess it depends on how literal and limited you're allowing a definition to be. There could be multiple definitions. A geocache listing on gc.com could include many variants of physical and virtual targets. A "geocache" itself may still also be a physical container... depending on context surrounding the word ;P With no context or reference to gc.com, saying "I'm looking for a geocache" would most likely be interpreted as locating a physical container. Talk to a geocacher, and if you say "I'm looking for a geocache" when you're working on an Earthcache, you might even get corrected to "Earthcache" :)

I remember doing a earthcache and a muggle was asking what I was doing, I told them... looking for a cache and walk away and they went looking for it. :ph34r::blink: I know, I am evil sometime.

 

It's okay. They searched for a few minutes and tossed out a throwdown. :D

Link to post

This topic has been raised at various times since Virtuals were discontinued (as has been pointed out). But something has changed over the year.

 

There will always be persons who will prefer one type of cache over another. (No change there). So there will always be some who have no interest in virtuals. I am in the category of those who prefer to see something interesting at a geocache location, and the majority of film canisters (Traditionals, Multis, etc) are not at such a location; some virtuals are also not particularly interesting, but the majority are. So if we are going to ban a type for not being interesting (or "wow") then shouldn't we ban LPCs or anything in a big-box store parking lot?

 

But my preference would be not to ban anything that is not causing a problem for the clients. Diversity in geocaching is core to its survival and staying-power. So decreasing that is not good for geocaching; increasing diversity is. Virtuals were a problem for reviewers, not for the clients. It is a matter of lack of competence to create a set of criteria to follow. If it is still the feeling that one cannot create feasible guidelines, then we are stuck.

 

It is however important to note that the clients as a whole do like virtuals even if some here proclaim that they don't. And the numbers are very big in favor of virtuals.

 

One thing that has changed since Virtuals were discontinued is that we now have Favorite Points being registered by clients to indicate what they like. On my recent trip to GW14 in Denver nearly every virtual cache had more favorite points than any of the physical containers. Of all the virtual caches I have in my current database (includes the GW14 trip between California and Colorado) I have 207 virtuals with more than 10 favorite points out of 243 (85%). For Traditionals and multis, I have 1825 with more than 10 favorite points out of 31005 of those types of caches (6%).

 

The clients have spoken! It is about as loud and clear as can be. How can this not be compelling to the organization?

Link to post

This topic has been raised at various times since Virtuals were discontinued (as has been pointed out). But something has changed over the year.

 

There will always be persons who will prefer one type of cache over another. (No change there). So there will always be some who have no interest in virtuals. I am in the category of those who prefer to see something interesting at a geocache location, and the majority of film canisters (Traditionals, Multis, etc) are not at such a location; some virtuals are also not particularly interesting, but the majority are. So if we are going to ban a type for not being interesting (or "wow") then shouldn't we ban LPCs or anything in a big-box store parking lot?

 

But my preference would be not to ban anything that is not causing a problem for the clients. Diversity in geocaching is core to its survival and staying-power. So decreasing that is not good for geocaching; increasing diversity is. Virtuals were a problem for reviewers, not for the clients. It is a matter of lack of competence to create a set of criteria to follow. If it is still the feeling that one cannot create feasible guidelines, then we are stuck.

 

It is however important to note that the clients as a whole do like virtuals even if some here proclaim that they don't. And the numbers are very big in favor of virtuals.

 

One thing that has changed since Virtuals were discontinued is that we now have Favorite Points being registered by clients to indicate what they like. On my recent trip to GW14 in Denver nearly every virtual cache had more favorite points than any of the physical containers. Of all the virtual caches I have in my current database (includes the GW14 trip between California and Colorado) I have 207 virtuals with more than 10 favorite points out of 243 (85%). For Traditionals and multis, I have 1825 with more than 10 favorite points out of 31005 of those types of caches (6%).

 

The clients have spoken! It is about as loud and clear as can be. How can this not be compelling to the organization?

Good observation. I've also noticed that my Virtuals have more favorite points than my traditional caches. Perhaps cachers these days are looking for caches other than power trails and pill jar hides. Too bad it's too much work for reviewers. If Virtuals did come back we would probably start seeing caches that have you find a light pole in the Best Buy parking lot. :rolleyes:

Link to post

If Virtuals did come back we would probably start seeing caches that have you find a SPH-M840. :rolleyes:

 

I'm guilty of giving virtuals a FP because they are rare cache types in my area. I do enjoy most of them, but the ones closest to me are ownerless and I feel they should be archived because they are ownerless.

 

New virtual caches here would be like take your photo catching a Pokemon at that lamp post that you speak of.

Link to post

If Virtuals did come back we would probably start seeing caches that have you find a SPH-M840. :rolleyes:

 

I'm guilty of giving virtuals a FP because they are rare cache types in my area. I do enjoy most of them, but the ones closest to me are ownerless and I feel they should be archived because they are ownerless.

 

New virtual caches here would be like take your photo catching a Pokemon at that lamp post that you speak of.

I think a Pokemon cache would fall under the Locationless Cache category. :P Good luck bringing those back!

Link to post

If Virtuals did come back we would probably start seeing caches that have you find a SPH-M840. :rolleyes:

 

I'm guilty of giving virtuals a FP because they are rare cache types in my area. I do enjoy most of them, but the ones closest to me are ownerless and I feel they should be archived because they are ownerless.

 

New virtual caches here would be like take your photo catching a Pokemon at that lamp post that you speak of.

I think a Pokemon cache would fall under the Locationless Cache category. :P Good luck bringing those back!

 

No, please. let's leave them to the Waymarking site. I like geocaching just the way it is, no changes needed for me.

 

Have a nice night. :) :)

Link to post

New virtual caches here would be like take your photo catching a Pokemon at that lamp post that you speak of.

 

Those were Geocaching Challenges. Far too loose, subjective, and arbitrary as written. Excellent ideas, but they were unwilling to tighten up the concept and decided to drop them entirely instead. Perhaps unable to model a framework that would sufficiently reduce the known problems with it.

Link to post

There was at least one useful thing that came out of the failed Geocaching Challenges experiment. Challenges illustrated what happens when there is no review/screening process. It gave observers a "glimpse behind the curtain" to see what it was like back when people were submitting tennis shoes and decomposing animal carcasses as virtual caches. Those are extreme examples, but imagine a weekly stream of dozens of virtuals that did not meet the listing guidelines.

 

It's rather easy to write a system of rules, be they for virtual caches, challenge caches or geocaching challenges. Getting people to read and follow them is a different matter. To those people, someone needs to deliver the news that their baby is ugly, and that's no fun.

 

To stay on-topic to the thread bump, Pokemon Go also illustrates the merits of a prepublication review system and of an efficient community-based feedback system for poor placements. There's been geocaches in the vicinity of Arlington National Cemetery, Auschwitz, etc. for years -- but without the negative press. There are rules dealing with caches in someone's front yard or behind a police station so that, hopefully, people won't have a bad experience searching in such location like some have had when chasing down Pikachu.

Link to post

I totally opt for the returnal of virtuals.

 

first: most that I visited at least brought me to a very interesting place.

 

second: I've seen so many caches, that offered disgusting containers, that I really didn't want to touch

 

third: I'd rather want traditionals to be forbidden (according to my experience - as more and more newbies find it so easy with their smartphones to use GC, they find three caches and off they go "hej, I want to hide one too" - never reading the guidelines, thus never giving it a thought whether this is a spot, anybody would be interested being led to - and then they lose interest and never maintain it, leaving a disgusting, moulding piece of plastic out in the environment). honestly: where's the challenge to find traditionals? 99 % are so easy to find, that it's not fun at all. and 90 % are definitely NOT NICE, neither the container nor the hiding place. that's why I practically gave up looking for traditionals and I hate the idea, how many nice, challenging fun-mysteries can't find a place to be put, as the area is plastered with traditionals. wasn't geocaching once a game for intellegent people, looking for a challenge? look, what happened with this game. millions of brainless geocachers (sorry!) who have never heard the term "stealth" spoil the game (isn't acting like a spy a big part of gc? did I misinterpret something here?) and because of their unprofessional behaviour - looking for caches too obvious - so many caches are muggled and so many trackables are stolen. how can anybody be so thoughtless to put trackables in traditionals now? well, to make a long story short: virtuals mean no muggling, no damage on environment and still finding an interesting place with an interesting story.

 

by the way: there used to be a page on the gc-site where I could propose ideas and then it depended on how many liked the idea, whether it was accepted. can't find that page any more. can anybody help, please?

Link to post

I totally opt for the returnal of virtuals.

 

first: most that I visited at least brought me to a very interesting place.

 

second: I've seen so many caches, that offered disgusting containers, that I really didn't want to touch

 

third: I'd rather want traditionals to be forbidden (according to my experience - as more and more newbies find it so easy with their smartphones to use GC, they find three caches and off they go "hej, I want to hide one too" - never reading the guidelines, thus never giving it a thought whether this is a spot, anybody would be interested being led to - and then they lose interest and never maintain it, leaving a disgusting, moulding piece of plastic out in the environment). honestly: where's the challenge to find traditionals? 99 % are so easy to find, that it's not fun at all. and 90 % are definitely NOT NICE, neither the container nor the hiding place. that's why I practically gave up looking for traditionals and I hate the idea, how many nice, challenging fun-mysteries can't find a place to be put, as the area is plastered with traditionals. wasn't geocaching once a game for intellegent people, looking for a challenge? look, what happened with this game. millions of brainless geocachers (sorry!) who have never heard the term "stealth" spoil the game (isn't acting like a spy a big part of gc? did I misinterpret something here?) and because of their unprofessional behaviour - looking for caches too obvious - so many caches are muggled and so many trackables are stolen. how can anybody be so thoughtless to put trackables in traditionals now? well, to make a long story short: virtuals mean no muggling, no damage on environment and still finding an interesting place with an interesting story.

 

by the way: there used to be a page on the gc-site where I could propose ideas and then it depended on how many liked the idea, whether it was accepted. can't find that page any more. can anybody help, please?

First, the reason you've found some in interesting places is because most of the carppy ones were finally archived well before you started. :)

 

Second, I'd probably agree, but I only go after caches I'll do, reading cache pages, knowing that when I go there, it isn't a disgusting container I wouldn't touch.

You go after anything, you takes your chances.

 

Third, nah ... just go back to "second". :)

 

If you're referring to the website forums, it's still there (used to be under a different name), but I don't remember it ever "depended on how many liked the idea, whether it was accepted".

Those who've ever entered the forums barely make up around 20% of total cachers. :laughing:

- Probably less now with phones.

Link to post

by the way: there used to be a page on the gc-site where I could propose ideas and then it depended on how many liked the idea, whether it was accepted. can't find that page any more. can anybody help, please?

 

Uservoice? Gone for quite some time now.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/feedback/

 

All we're left with now is:

 

Groundspeak Forums > Bug Reports and Feature Discussions > Website

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=139

 

Occasionally something comes up here:

 

Groundspeak Forums > Geocaching HQ Communications > User Insights

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=191

 

 

B.

Link to post

Can you imagine the insanity if they still had virtual caches when "power trail" caches began to start????

 

You would have virtuals every 1/10th of a mile for hundreds of miles. Stuff like "what telephone pole number is here" or even answers where people wouldn't have step out of their air conditioned car to log.

 

The only way perhaps virtual caches would work is if Groundspeak corporate would publish them directly but that would be a resource drain for them.

 

The WOW factor just never worked.

 

But I do think the game needs a new type of geocache type.

Link to post
virtuals mean... an interesting place with an interesting story.

 

Sure. If they're reviewed to that standard. ;-)

Virts are submitted regularly. Now, all the time ("this is an 'email me' cache").

 

Most don't come close to meeting the "wow factor" guidelines that created the virts you enjoy, and that created such misery for hiders and reviewers: "your baby is ugly", "NO! NO! a thousand times NO!, my baby is beautiful". Back in the day, this forum was dominated by hiders complaining about not getting their virt published.

 

Most of them are a beach, a view, a sign, a historical marker, a grave marker, (in Disney, they're a Hidden Mickey). Some seem to simply be a location where someone stopped and took some coords.

Link to post

Some seem to simply be a location where someone stopped and took some coords.

 

Of which we have now thousands of physical caches.

 

I guess we'd have less boring virtuals if they did not count for the find count than we have boring physical caches.

And no, Waymarking by no means provides an alternative.

 

Just a few days ago I regretted once again that there are no virtual caches any longer. A new very nice multi cache got hidden with stages in a very nice area also attractive for tourists.

The final after 5 unsuccessful attempts to find a reasonable hideout for a physical container in this area has been hidden several km away in an area with not many caches (of course something closer would have existed but if not possible in the target area, it did not matter that much any longer where). I did not mind personally, but now it's a cache that only appeals to locals and

all the hard work the hider invested will not get rewarded. With the current system boring physical caches can easily block caches whose primary purpose is to show a nice route like it is done by multi caches and not concepts like Waymarking.

Link to post

I totally opt for the returnal of virtuals.

 

first: most that I visited at least brought me to a very interesting place.

 

second: I've seen so many caches, that offered disgusting containers, that I really didn't want to touch

 

third: I'd rather want traditionals to be forbidden (according to my experience - as more and more newbies find it so easy with their smartphones to use GC, they find three caches and off they go "hej, I want to hide one too" - never reading the guidelines, thus never giving it a thought whether this is a spot, anybody would be interested being led to - and then they lose interest and never maintain it, leaving a disgusting, moulding piece of plastic out in the environment). honestly: where's the challenge to find traditionals? 99 % are so easy to find, that it's not fun at all. and 90 % are definitely NOT NICE, neither the container nor the hiding place. that's why I practically gave up looking for traditionals and I hate the idea, how many nice, challenging fun-mysteries can't find a place to be put, as the area is plastered with traditionals. wasn't geocaching once a game for intellegent people, looking for a challenge? look, what happened with this game. millions of brainless geocachers (sorry!) who have never heard the term "stealth" spoil the game (isn't acting like a spy a big part of gc? did I misinterpret something here?) and because of their unprofessional behaviour - looking for caches too obvious - so many caches are muggled and so many trackables are stolen. how can anybody be so thoughtless to put trackables in traditionals now? well, to make a long story short: virtuals mean no muggling, no damage on environment and still finding an interesting place with an interesting story.

 

by the way: there used to be a page on the gc-site where I could propose ideas and then it depended on how many liked the idea, whether it was accepted. can't find that page any more. can anybody help, please?

 

Gee, why not try Waymarking? :tongue:

 

intellegent (it is spelled intelligent)

 

This must be some kind of record. Hold an event and no one “visits”

 

BREXIT OR NOT... NO VISITS

LET'S CELEBRATE LIFE – One visitor, a known person perhaps?

Link to post

This topic has been raised at various times since Virtuals were discontinued (as has been pointed out). But something has changed over the year.

 

There will always be persons who will prefer one type of cache over another. (No change there). So there will always be some who have no interest in virtuals. I am in the category of those who prefer to see something interesting at a geocache location, and the majority of film canisters (Traditionals, Multis, etc) are not at such a location; some virtuals are also not particularly interesting, but the majority are. So if we are going to ban a type for not being interesting (or "wow") then shouldn't we ban LPCs or anything in a big-box store parking lot?

 

But my preference would be not to ban anything that is not causing a problem for the clients. Diversity in geocaching is core to its survival and staying-power. So decreasing that is not good for geocaching; increasing diversity is. Virtuals were a problem for reviewers, not for the clients. It is a matter of lack of competence to create a set of criteria to follow. If it is still the feeling that one cannot create feasible guidelines, then we are stuck.

 

It is however important to note that the clients as a whole do like virtuals even if some here proclaim that they don't. And the numbers are very big in favor of virtuals.

 

One thing that has changed since Virtuals were discontinued is that we now have Favorite Points being registered by clients to indicate what they like. On my recent trip to GW14 in Denver nearly every virtual cache had more favorite points than any of the physical containers. Of all the virtual caches I have in my current database (includes the GW14 trip between California and Colorado) I have 207 virtuals with more than 10 favorite points out of 243 (85%). For Traditionals and multis, I have 1825 with more than 10 favorite points out of 31005 of those types of caches (6%).

 

The clients have spoken! It is about as loud and clear as can be. How can this not be compelling to the organization?

I really enjoy the virtual caches. We recently went to Washington D.C. and did mostly all virtual caches. It was very interesting and brought us to places we hadn't been, even on the typical city tours. It mixes things up. I'd love it, if it came back. And...isn't it the reviewers who get to determine whether they meet the criterea? I think it would add to the game. And no, I don't think Pokémon is any competition.

Link to post

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.

Link to post

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.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...