What happened to virtual caches

[BlueMustangs]

I've been out of the game for 5-6 years and now you can't have anymore virtual caches anyone know what happened and the reason why they are gone

[Keystone]

See this Help Center article.

 

1.28. Virtual geocaches

 

Some time ago Virtual geocaches as they once existed became problematic, both in the review and publication process and for geocache owners to maintain. We ceased publishing new Virtuals, but grandfathered in existing Virtual geocaches.

 

However, because we see value in the virtual geocache concept, we created Waymarking.com to accommodate and perpetuate a variation of this geocache type.

"Some time ago" was around 2003. The "ceased publication" date was in the fall of 2005. Right around ten years ago, more or less.

[+Manville Possum]

See this Help Center article.

 

1.28. Virtual geocaches

 

Some time ago Virtual geocaches as they once existed became problematic, both in the review and publication process and for geocache owners to maintain. We ceased publishing new Virtuals, but grandfathered in existing Virtual geocaches.

 

However, because we see value in the virtual geocache concept, we created Waymarking.com to accommodate and perpetuate a variation of this geocache type.

"Some time ago" was around 2003. The "ceased publication" date was in the fall of 2005. Right around ten years ago, more or less.

 

About the same time that the Waymarking site was launched.

[+briansnat]

1. Virtuals started getting out of hand with the most mundane items being submitted as virtuals. A sneaker in the woods, flag poles, fence posts, manhole covers, etc.

 

2. In response to the plethora of trashy virtuals, in 2003 Groundspeak introduced the "Wow factor" guideline. A virtual had to be something that would make you say "Wow" when you saw it and you also had to prove you couldn't hide a real cache there. This was the effective end of virtual caches. Only a handful were published after the "Wow factor" was introduced.

 

3. The "Wow factor" put reviewers in the uncomfortable position of judging cache quality. It also caused a lot of animosity in the community because nearly everyone who submitted a virtual thought their virtual was "Wow". Because the reviewer disagreed, arguments started. During that period these forums were frequently filled with rants about "jerk" reviewers who didn't agree that their submission was "Wow".

 

4. Probably the most important issue. In the early days of geocaching discussions between land managers often ended with something like "You can list virtuals here, but we don't want physical caches in our park". By taking virtuals off the table, we allowed the discussion to focus on allowing physical caches in parks. That has worked well because many park systems have embraced the idea of physical geocaches.

 

5. Virtuals were not all that popular at the time. Though virtuals had some fans, most geocachers felt they weren't "real" geocaching. In fact when the ban on virtuals was announced there were a few complaints, but the overwhelming number of geocachers were either indifferent about, or in favor of the ban.

 

6. Waymarking.com was introduced to allow people who want to find interesting places (i.e. virtuals), instead of physical caches. It is still out there with hundreds of thousands of listings. My personal view was that Waymarking never took off because it was completely separated from GC.Com and the find counts were not included in GC.com find counts. That tells me that it's not about the cool locations, it's about the numbers. Had there been a single profile with Waymark finds included with geocache numbers, I think it could have been a huge success.

 

Today you are seeing the best of the best virtuals remaining. The crappy ones fell by the wayside years ago. Newer cachers find them, like them and clamor for their return because they are a "forbidden fruit". They have no clue about the issues they caused.

 

If they are ever resurrected, I'd like to see them put in their own category like benchmarks with a separate find count. I'm sure we'll see soon just how popular virtuals really are if there is no smiley involved.

[+dprovan]

6. Waymarking.com was introduced to allow people who want to find interesting places (i.e. virtuals), instead of physical caches. It is still out there with hundreds of thousands of listings. My personal view was that Waymarking never took off because it was completely separated from GC.Com and the find counts were not included in GC.com find counts. That tells me that it's not about the cool locations, it's about the numbers. Had there been a single profile with Waymark finds included with geocache numbers, I think it could have been a huge success.

While I agree that being separate from GC.com was likely the main reason for waymarking's failure -- it's certainly why I have no interest in it -- whenever I complain about waymarking, I'm always reminded that except for a few exceptions, waymarking is not actually used anything like virtual caches. The point in waymarking is adding waymarks, not, in general, finding waymarks. (And, hence, your number of hundreds of thousands of listings should be compared to the number of found logs on GC.com, not, as one would otherwise expect, with the number of caches.)

[+Manville Possum]

 

The point in waymarking is adding waymarks, not, in general, finding waymarks.

 

No, not really. I know that most of us Waymarkers enjoy visiting Waymarks too, not just creating new ones.

 

The logging requirements are very different as most virtuals require answers and not photo uploads.

[+DanOCan]

While I agree that being separate from GC.com was likely the main reason for waymarking's failure -- it's certainly why I have no interest in it -- whenever I complain about waymarking, I'm always reminded that except for a few exceptions, waymarking is not actually used anything like virtual caches. The point in waymarking is adding waymarks, not, in general, finding waymarks. (And, hence, your number of hundreds of thousands of listings should be compared to the number of found logs on GC.com, not, as one would otherwise expect, with the number of caches.)

Agreed, Waymarking is a very different beast.

 

I make use of Waymarking when I travel and I want to find interesting places. On one trip to PA, I planned an entire day's road trip around covered bridges using Waymarks, something which would have been difficult to do on Geocaching. The key to Waymarking is the categories and ignoring the categories which you have no interest in. I wish the user interface would make this easier.

 

I will log my Waymark visits if I use the site to find the location of interest, but I almost never go there after the fact to see if the place I was at happens to be listed as a Waymark. I think Waymarking is a success, it's just that the success criteria are very different from Geocaching.

[+dprovan]

The point in waymarking is adding waymarks, not, in general, finding waymarks.

No, not really. I know that most of us Waymarkers enjoy visiting Waymarks too, not just creating new ones.

Yes, I've heard that, too, but of the waymarks in my area (San Francisco Bay area), perhaps one in a hundred had ever been visited, and the ones visited are typically visited exactly once, a few days after being posted. When I've pointed that out in previous waymarking threads, I'm always told I'm missing the point, not that the marks I'm looking at are anomalous.

 

I think Waymarking is a success, it's just that the success criteria are very different from Geocaching.

I'd be interesting in hearing what criteria for success you use. In my area, there must be thousands of cachers, but I think I can count the number of people posting waymarks on one hand. Nearly one finger. Are my numbers atypical?

[+dprovan]

Oh, I meant to mention: I went over to the waymarking.com to make sure things haven't changed dramatically since the last time I looked a year or two ago. I was very amused that the "featured waymark" presented on the front page proved my point: 2 visits so far this year, 6 visits total last year. OK, so perhaps that was an anomaly, so I reloaded and looked at a few others. And, in fact, it did turn out to be an anomaly: the next 4 "featured waymarks" all haven't been visited since 2012. When I scanned the list of featured waymarks, I found that maybe one in ten have been visited this year.

 

Don't get me wrong. I encourage you to continue enjoying waymarking, and I'm glad it's successful from where you're sitting. I just don't think there's any evidence for claiming it's successful in general or that visits are common.

 

And we all have to agree that it's has virtually nothing to do with virtual caches.

[+MartyBartfast]

The point in waymarking is adding waymarks, not, in general, finding waymarks.

No, not really. I know that most of us Waymarkers enjoy visiting Waymarks too, not just creating new ones.

Yes, I've heard that, too, but of the waymarks in my area (San Francisco Bay area), perhaps one in a hundred had ever been visited,

 

 

I feel that Waymarking is more akin to the old locationless (reverse) caches, rather than virtuals. With locationless caches the point was to add a new location for the relevant feature, not to revisit locations that have already been added; whereas with virtuals the point is to visit the specific spot, not to find a new similar spot.

[+Manville Possum]

If you are adding new listings they are more like locationless caches, but visiting Waymarks for me is more of a tour guide to specific locations.

[+Uncle Alaska]

It depends on the waymark, of course. For example, The statue of liberty waymark is much more likely to get many visits, versus a relatively non-descript statue in front of a high school in a small mid-west town. Of the waymarks I have initially published, probably the one I get the most visit logs on is Delicate Arch (Arches NP) in Utah. It is a popular hiking/visit destination in that park.

 

I think the many more mundane waymarks out there kind of show where virtuals were heading towards, before the halt.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Uncle Alaska

[+Harry Dolphin]

The point in waymarking is adding waymarks, not, in general, finding waymarks.

No, not really. I know that most of us Waymarkers enjoy visiting Waymarks too, not just creating new ones.

Yes, I've heard that, too, but of the waymarks in my area (San Francisco Bay area), perhaps one in a hundred had ever been visited,

 

 

I feel that Waymarking is more akin to the old locationless (reverse) caches, rather than virtuals. With locationless caches the point was to add a new location for the relevant feature, not to revisit locations that have already been added; whereas with virtuals the point is to visit the specific spot, not to find a new similar spot.

Locationless Caches were to find a specific thing. A vertical lift bridge. A statue of a lion, &c. No two cachers could log the same vertical lift bridge, nor the same lion statue.

Virtuals are to find a specific thing at a given location. Lucy, the Margate Elephant, or the Astoria Column.

Since finding the listed item is what counts, Waymarking would best be described as a Virtual, not as a Locationless.

The fact that there are hundreds or thousands of listings in Waymarking for the same thing does not change the fact that finding the particular waymark is what counts. Similar to "Found Geocaches" as opposed to "Geocaches Hidden."

I have one published Waymark. Benchmarkers were interested in the 2000 Center of Population benchmarks, which are not in the Geocaching Benchmark listings (Since those have not been updated since the year 2000, or so.) Mine is for the New York State Center of Population Benchmark. It was published in 2008, and logged once in 2009. How boring is that?!?

Our local Viquesney Doughboy is in three separate categories (by the same waymarker.) It has been found seven times since 2009. One waymarker logged it twice in the same category. One logged it three times, once in each category. It was a very interesting Locationless Cache. Since our local one had already been logged, we had to travel some distance to find two that had not been logged.

I guess I don't understand the porpoise of Waymarking. Let's go log the same thing three or four times?!?!? But Waymarks are closer to Virtual than Locationless. Find this thing at these coordinates.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Harry Dolphin

[+DanOCan]

I think Waymarking is a success, it's just that the success criteria are very different from Geocaching.

I'd be interesting in hearing what criteria for success you use. In my area, there must be thousands of cachers, but I think I can count the number of people posting waymarks on one hand. Nearly one finger. Are my numbers atypical?

To me, the success is in the number of Waymarks more than number of Waymarkers. For example, some of the Waymarking categories I have listed as Favorites are: Ghost Signs, U.S. National Register of Historic Places, Covered Bridges, One-Room Schoolhouses, Classic BBQ and Sandwich Joints, and Abandoned Cemeteries. When I visit a new area, I can be pretty confident the local items that fit into those categories will be well covered and listed. Whether those listings were created by one person or 1000 people, the fact that their documented and searchable is the success.

[+Manville Possum]

To me Waymarking could only be considered a success if it made money for Groundspeak, and it does not. It is funded by geocachers and their paid memberships.

 

Virtual geocaches failed as a cache type, and Waymarking failed as an alternative listing site for them. Just my opinion.

[+briansnat]

Waymarking is a replacement for both the "locationless caches" and "virtuals" First someone starts a category (say lighthouses) and participants go out and find lighthouses and post them. Instead of posting a log on the page, they create a new listing (the locationless aspect). That location is now available for others to find (the virtual aspect). Because few people search for the waymarks doesn't mean that its solely meant to be an adding exercise. Waymarks can bring you to the same cool places that virtuals did. Unfortunately most cachers want that smiley and waymarks don't provide one. That's why few people bother with them. If cachers received a smiley for finding a waymark it would be considered to be the best thing since bacon.

 

Another issue is that Groundspeak had put little effort into Waymarking. It has become the forgotten step-child. It would be nice if they could be included in pocket queries. Waymarking is still where geocaching was in 2002.

 

But if you are into looking for locations instead of containers it is a good option.

Edited October 5, 2015 by briansnat

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It would be nice if they could be included in pocket queries. Waymarking is still where geocaching was in 2002.

 

This. If one could create a PQ of Waymarking waypoints, specificying the categories one wants (especially if on could do it "on a route" I might use the site to add some interesting places to see in addition to geocaches I might want to find.

 

On the other hand, the new search engine does not allow us to create pocket queries from the results either.

 

 

[+Zepp914]

 

Today you are seeing the best of the best virtuals remaining. The crappy ones fell by the wayside years ago. Newer cachers find them, like them and clamor for their return because they are a "forbidden fruit". They have no clue about the issues they caused.

 

I don't know about that. I can tell you the coolest two victuals I have found (GCK12J and GCKGHV) have been archived whereas the lamest ones are still thriving. I think it is all about the cool ghost icon. I sometimes wonder if Earthcaches had cooler icons if they would be more popular.

[+uxorious]

Unfortunately most cachers want that smiley and waymarks don't provide one. That's why few people bother with them. If cachers received a smiley for finding a waymark it would be considered to be the best thing since bacon.

 

I do like to see my numbers climb, but I don't care about anyone else's numbers. I have returned to find caches I do not get a smiley for. I.E. someone moves a cache to a different spot but doesn't change the GC number, or just returning to a cache I haven't been to in years, but liked.

 

As someone who does not cache for a smiley, I will say you are wrong on this. I'm sure if waymarks gave a smiley, there would be more who did them. However, I will bet they still would not be very popular.

 

I've tried Waymarking, and it does nothing for me. The few Virtuals I've found did not impress me, nor did they feel like Geocaching to me. But then I really haven't found Earthcaches that great. If there is not a physical container of some kind to find, with a log to sign, it is not caching.(for me).

 

I is my humble opinion that Waymarking is just a different game, some will like it, some will not. Whether you get a smiley for it or not, IMHO, is not the main reason it is unpopular.

[+kunarion]

I sometimes wonder if Earthcaches had cooler icons if they would be more popular.

Hmmm. I also wonder...

 

 

[+AustinMN]

 

Today you are seeing the best of the best virtuals remaining. The crappy ones fell by the wayside years ago. Newer cachers find them, like them and clamor for their return because they are a "forbidden fruit". They have no clue about the issues they caused.

 

I don't know about that. I can tell you the coolest two victuals I have found (GCK12J and GCKGHV) have been archived whereas the lamest ones are still thriving. I think it is all about the cool ghost icon. I sometimes wonder if Earthcaches had cooler icons if they would be more popular.

 

It appears that GCK12J was archived in June of this year, not as a result of the ban on new caches (there are dozens of logs a month up to June 22, 2015, then they end abruptly).

GCKGHV was archived by the CO, not as a result of the ban on new caches.

Edited October 5, 2015 by AustinMN

[+J Grouchy]

Sorry...but Waymarks are basically a complete joke in my area. The site is terrible, the logging criteria are either non-existent or very difficult to discern...and I don't think I've seen a single log posted on any of the ones I've looked at any time in the last five years. Perhaps the popularity varies by region, but it seems such an enormous difference in popularity from city to city doesn't bode well for Waymarks as they currently exist.

 

Honestly, too...it seems like there are plenty of "junk" Waymarks in there. Kind of reinforces the notion that it was probably best to ditch them altogether. I think I'd rather lift a light pole skirt for an Altoids tin cache than post a photo telling everyone I was privileged to visit my neighborhood Walmart Waymark.

[BlueMustangs]

Well, I always thought virtual caches were neat in the fact the some of them took you to places where you could place a physical cache. I can understand that it could be overused. I would like to see a kind of cache like the earth cache but for other items. Like murals, statues, memorials or other items of such. Like things that you wouldn't normally go to. I enjoy the exploing aspect of geocaching and getting got see places you would have never thought of going. In the past and now I have been taken some really neat places cause of virtual caches, they could have his a physical cache there.

 

It would be nice to see maybe a landmark cache? Something where you go and there is a statue, plaque, mural, memorial... Something Along those lines where you can learn. I get that the other website may have those but, I don't want to keep track on two site and have different numbers... I don't know just a thought...

[+Zepp914]

I sometimes wonder if Earthcaches had cooler icons if they would be more popular.

Hmmm. I also wonder...

 

 

 

That is awesome.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Virtual caches can be somewhat recreated with an offset multi. Answer some questions at the mural or marker then plug the answers into a formula to get the physical cache location somewhere nearby.

[+Outback Caching]

Hello everyone.

we started caching in 2004, and own 1 virtual cache.

 

One of our requirements is to post a picture of yourself w/ a GPS (or phone) at the posted coordinates.

 

We have been told by a cacher who just visited the location and logged their find, that pictures can no longer be required for virtual caches.

 

We have not been very active around the caching forums or up to date with the new rules in the last couple of years due to life getting in the way.

 

Please help us with this one simple question.

Can a picture be required as a logging requirement on a virtual cache?

 

We know a picture can no longer be required for logging an Earthcache, but what about Virtual Caches?

 

We would very much appreciate some insight on this.

Thanks

OutBack Caching

[+Outback Caching]

Hello everyone.

we started caching in 2004, and own 1 virtual cache.

 

One of our requirements is to post a picture of yourself w/ a GPS (or phone) at the posted coordinates.

 

We have been told by a cacher who just visited the location and logged their find, that pictures can no longer be required for virtual caches.

 

We have not been very active around the caching forums or up to date with the new rules in the last couple of years due to life getting in the way.

 

Please help us with this one simple question.

Can a picture be required as a logging requirement on a virtual cache?

 

Thanks

OutBack Caching

[+Walts Hunting]

Here is the listing guideline for virtuals. I believe the no picture fike was for Earth Caches. Looks like you can for virtuals.

 

 

Virtual Cache

A Virtual Cache is about discovering a location rather than a container. The requirements for logging a Virtual Cache vary—you may be required to answer a question about the location, take a picture, complete a task, etc... In any case, you must visit the coordinates before you can post your log. Although many locations are interesting, a Virtual Cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant logging a visit.

[+JL_HSTRE]

"Logging a virtual cache requires compliance with the requirements detailed on the cache listing. These logging requirements could include emailing the cache owner to provide the required answers or posting photographs."

 

Virtual Cache Logging Requirements (III.2.2)

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

[+Dame Deco]

I believe that you can still require a picture for a virtual cache. You can't for an EarthCache, and though we had a thread not long ago about an Additional Logging Requirement for a Webcam, the issue there was time of day not using the webcam, so the issue wasn't central to the actual integrity of the cache: using a webcam. I think you can still require a photo--but it's a questions for GS.

 

ETA: in the log the cacher said you couldn't require a photo for an EarthCache--that seemed strange, since yours is a virtual cache.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Dame Deco

[+DanOCan]

Honestly, too...it seems like there are plenty of "junk" Waymarks in there. Kind of reinforces the notion that it was probably best to ditch them altogether. I think I'd rather lift a light pole skirt for an Altoids tin cache than post a photo telling everyone I was privileged to visit my neighborhood Walmart Waymark.

That's where the site's user interface falls down. It is quite possible to ignore the entire category that features your local Wal-Mart so you never need to see them, but it takes a long long time to do so, especially with more than 1000 categories to consider. The site requires a lot of tuning to make it tailored to your interests.

 

I think the key to Waymarking is to not treat it like many treat Geocaching. When a Geocache is posted, many people feel the urge to find it whether it is specifically interesting to them or not. Waymarking isn't really designed to be the sort of game where you find every single one posted. I think you can apply a Waymarking mindest (find only categories that interest you) to Geocaching but it is much harder to go the other way (find every Waymark around me).

[+vw_k]

I think it is all about the cool ghost icon. I sometimes wonder if Earthcaches had cooler icons if they would be more popular.

 

Or perhaps it's the amount of work involved, I like virtuals but most of the ones I've found only require one piece of information to be collected, "Find the building, e-mail me the date above the door" for example.

 

Earthcaches are more like a mini geology lesson which I think is great but I can see how it might put some cachers off, not all of them are an "easy" find.

[+colleda]

Hello everyone.

we started caching in 2004, and own 1 virtual cache.

 

One of our requirements is to post a picture of yourself w/ a GPS (or phone) at the posted coordinates.

 

We have been told by a cacher who just visited the location and logged their find, that pictures can no longer be required for virtual caches.

 

We have not been very active around the caching forums or up to date with the new rules in the last couple of years due to life getting in the way.

 

Please help us with this one simple question.

Can a picture be required as a logging requirement on a virtual cache?

 

Thanks

OutBack Caching

Was that a threat from the affected cacher in the Write Note?

Initially I thought the WN should be deleted but on second thought I would leave it as it would show how ill informed they are.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Hello everyone.

we started caching in 2004, and own 1 virtual cache.

 

One of our requirements is to post a picture of yourself w/ a GPS (or phone) at the posted coordinates.

 

We have been told by a cacher who just visited the location and logged their find, that pictures can no longer be required for virtual caches.

 

We have not been very active around the caching forums or up to date with the new rules in the last couple of years due to life getting in the way.

 

Please help us with this one simple question.

Can a picture be required as a logging requirement on a virtual cache?

 

Thanks

OutBack Caching

 

Although the guidelines for a virtual cache state that posting a photograph may be a requirement, I would hope that you'd be somewhat flexible regarding the content of the photo. Some people might prefer not to have the picture posted on the internet for personal or religious reasons. Some people will use a proxy of some kind (e.g. a stuffed animal or a sign with their geocaching handle) instead. For a lot (if not most) geocachers these days, their camera is also their GPS. As I see it, requiring a photo for a virtual cache is simply a method of proving one was actually at the cache location. Unless you have a pretty compelling reason to suspect that a photo might not be legitimate (e.g. photoshopping) or that the person logging used someone elses picture, being strict about the content just comes across to me as controlling.

[+DanOCan]

Or perhaps it's the amount of work involved, I like virtuals but most of the ones I've found only require one piece of information to be collected, "Find the building, e-mail me the date above the door" for example.

Earthcaches are more like a mini geology lesson which I think is great but I can see how it might put some cachers off, not all of them are an "easy" find.

Yeah, I know that's why I don't do many Earthcaches. Some of them have pages and pages of information to scroll through, just to find out what it is you're supposed to do and then some of the questions almost require an essay answer. I think it's great people are trying to share their knowledge and passion for geology, but if I'm standing at a great waterfall or canyon or some other geological feature, I want to enjoy the location and not spend all my time scrolling around on my GPSr reading.

 

Of course, in our local area we went to the opposite extreme for a period of time where every glacial erratic around was being posted as an Earthcache and often required nothing more than "estimate the size". We used to joke erratic caches had become the lame urban micro of the Earthcache world -- cheap smiley but didn't really teach you much.

[+bflentje]

Sorry...but Waymarks are basically a complete joke in my area. The site is terrible, the logging criteria are either non-existent or very difficult to discern...and I don't think I've seen a single log posted on any of the ones I've looked at any time in the last five years. Perhaps the popularity varies by region, but it seems such an enormous difference in popularity from city to city doesn't bode well for Waymarks as they currently exist.

 

For me, Waymarking is the best way to find the closest McDonalds restaurant. Just saying..

[+CanadianRockies]

I think it's great people are trying to share their knowledge and passion for geology, but if I'm standing at a great waterfall or canyon or some other geological feature, I want to enjoy the location and not spend all my time scrolling around on my GPSr reading.

I often find that the EarthCache lesson enhances my appreciation of the location. But I usually read that lesson before I arrive.

[+Dame Deco]

 

if I'm standing at a great waterfall or canyon or some other geological feature, I want to enjoy the location and not spend all my time scrolling around on my GPSr reading.

 

Of course, you could read the cache page before your trip and plan ahead so that you can really enjoy the site when you get there.

 

That said--I don't disagree. I tend to write up 2-3 paragraphs of info and ask 2 or 3 questions per EC. My first two are actually my longest--I shortened them a bit thereafter. I'm a teacher by profession, and I like to create a short interesting lesson that makes you think about what you see.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Of course, in our local area we went to the opposite extreme for a period of time where every glacial erratic around was being posted as an Earthcache and often required nothing more than "estimate the size". We used to joke erratic caches had become the lame urban micro of the Earthcache world -- cheap smiley but didn't really teach you much.

 

I've only found one earth cache that was a glacial erratic. It was in the parking lot for a restaurant/bar and painted bright yellow.

 

 

[TahoeJoe]

I enjoyed location-less caches but remembered they started getting out of hand and some really didn't feel much like geocaching. Virtual caches on the other hand always felt like geocaching to me minus a container and log book. I really enjoyed virtual caches that I had found as they took me to interesting locations and some involved a wonderful hike in breathtaking areas. Most if not all I found had a wow factor. Very few caches in my area today have much of a wow factor as most seem to be randomly placed in bushes every few hundred feet to boost your find count. These seem less like geocaches to me than the virtuals I use to find.

Edited October 12, 2015 by TahoeJoe

[+hzoi]

Please help us with this one simple question.

Can a picture be required as a logging requirement on a virtual cache?

 

Thanks

OutBack Caching

Absolutely, you can require it. They must have gotten mixed up as to what they were logging.

[Pup Patrol]

Hello everyone.

we started caching in 2004, and own 1 virtual cache.

 

One of our requirements is to post a picture of yourself w/ a GPS (or phone) at the posted coordinates.

 

We have been told by a cacher who just visited the location and logged their find, that pictures can no longer be required for virtual caches.

 

We have not been very active around the caching forums or up to date with the new rules in the last couple of years due to life getting in the way.

 

Please help us with this one simple question.

Can a picture be required as a logging requirement on a virtual cache?

 

We know a picture can no longer be required for logging an Earthcache, but what about Virtual Caches?

 

We would very much appreciate some insight on this.

Thanks

OutBack Caching

 

Guidelines:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

III. LOGGING Guidelines: Logging Guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

 

2. Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines

 

A cacher must visit the location of the virtual cache site to log the cache online.

 

Logging a virtual cache requires compliance with the requirements detailed on the cache listing.

 

These logging requirements could include emailing the cache owner to provide the required answers or posting photographs.

 

Neither answers to questions nor hints should be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

B.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+BAMBOOZLE]

 

if I'm standing at a great waterfall or canyon or some other geological feature, I want to enjoy the location and not spend all my time scrolling around on my GPSr reading.

 

Of course, you could read the cache page before your trip and plan ahead so that you can really enjoy the site when you get there.

 

That said--I don't disagree. I tend to write up 2-3 paragraphs of info and ask 2 or 3 questions per EC. My first two are actually my longest--I shortened them a bit thereafter. I'm a teacher by profession, and I like to create a short interesting lesson that makes you think about what you see.

 

Earthcaches are our favorites but like regular caches many are not rated correctly....I've had some lately that asked several involved questions and also required homework but had a low Diff rating.

Wording in instructions can seem overly aggressive, Ex I will extract a pound of flesh and take your first born if answers are not sent pronto !

[+baloo&bd]

Although the guidelines for a virtual cache state that posting a photograph may be a requirement, I would hope that you'd be somewhat flexible regarding the content of the photo. Some people might prefer not to have the picture posted on the internet for personal or religious reasons. Some people will use a proxy of some kind (e.g. a stuffed animal or a sign with their geocaching handle) instead. For a lot (if not most) geocachers these days, their camera is also their GPS. As I see it, requiring a photo for a virtual cache is simply a method of proving one was actually at the cache location. Unless you have a pretty compelling reason to suspect that a photo might not be legitimate (e.g. photoshopping) or that the person logging used someone elses picture, being strict about the content just comes across to me as controlling.

 

I'm sorry, but if any of these things prevent you from a virtual posting requirement, then moved along. Every cache is not for everyone and it is not being controlling. It is no different then a cache 20 feet up a tree and you can't climb.