Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
TeamCatalpa

Still sad.

Recommended Posts

Actually I think I'm more really disappointed and a bit upset, beyond just sad.  I found a virtual today, a wonderful, historic spot in a town where I used to live, and I realized I remembered the site as it used to be.  Made me nostalgic, and it also reminded me how much I enjoy virtuals, and what a shame it is that they're not an option anymore.  There's tons of film cans in corners, and they have their purpose, but the virtuals are special.  I've seen old train engines, a Coast Guard light ship, a breath-taking avenue of flags, and several caves, among other wonderful experiences that I would never have had without geocaching virtuals.  And there's never a worry about getting snark from muggles, or finding something nasty in the container.  So many times there's a beautiful view, a historic building, or fascinating museum that doesn't have good place for a physical cache, but is still worthy of attention, and that speaks to the best part of geocaching, that seeing something new in your own back yard.  It's just a dirty rotten shame that they can't be done anymore.  There's been so many changes to the website, the app, and geocaching itself in the last few years that just don't make any sense and that take some of the fun out of the hobby. :(

Ok, guess I'm done with my rant now.  :-P

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Why did they remove the Virtual Cache? There's a few around my area. 

I think they are just talking about new ones not being allowed.  Not about one particular virtual.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, WarNinjas said:

I think they are just talking about new ones not being allowed.  Not about one particular virtual.

I meant why did they stop allowing new Virtual Caches? 

Share this post


Link to post

 I found a virtual today, a wonderful, historic spot ...

Yeah, from back n the day...

"A wonderful spot" is often the first thing said in a virtual thread, with "I agree, there are some good ones out there" following soon after, but those were all back n the day.

 

I'm kinda happy that they finally had to have "wow" to be published (before our time), with the remaining grandfathered when that didn't work either.

We believe that if they had kept going, every roadside history sign and fast food joint would have a virtual.   

I remember reading of hanging sneakers and road kill possibly being the clincher.

Luckily didn't get a chance to hit the "every 528' because I can" route.   

I personally believe many were created  simply because there's no maintenance.   :)

 

Just like most things, our fellow cachers ended those.

You're around long enough to remember the issues with challenge cache COs,  Challenges,   moving caches  and cachers not abiding by the original requirements,   double logging (and the total fix on that now...) and so on, and so on...

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Just like most things, our fellow cachers ended those.

You're around long enough to remember the issues with challenge cache COs,  Challenges,   moving caches  and cachers not abiding by the original requirements,   double logging (and the total fix on that now...) and so on, and so on...

Yes - a few rotten apples can spoil the entire bushel.  :(

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

tozainamboku

  • Geocacher
  • tozainamboku

 

Posted May 12, 2008   

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/193243-bring-virtual-caches-back/&do=findComment&comment=3469751

 

Why were virtuals created in the first place?

 

In the early days, Geocaching.com was far more open to new variation in the game. Everyone was still exploring what geocaching was about. Some people wanted to have caches at location where they couldn’t hide a physical cache. Perhaps there were too many muggles, or perhaps you couldn’t get permission for leaving a physical container. Many people wanted to leave caches while on vacation somewhere but knew they wouldn’t be able to maintain it. The idea of a virtual was born. The virtual was supposed to be specific target that you could find using the GPS coordinates, just like you found a physical cache. You would provide proof of your find by answering a question base on what you found or posting a picture of the object.

 

What were the issues with virtuals?

 

Most people hid virtuals because they found a place that they felt really needed a cache (i.e. they wanted to share the location with other geocachers). But sometimes a virtual had nothing special to see, it was just an easy way to hide a cache. Sometimes if a cache went missing, instead of replacing it, the owner would change it to a virtual. In order to limit the number of unimpressive virtuals and to encourage the hiding of more physical caches, the guidelines were changed to require virtuals to “be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.” This guideline was referred to as the “Wow!” requirement. It required the volunteer cache reviewers to make judgments about whether a location deserved a virtual cache or not.

 

The existence of virtual caches also provided an easy way out for park managers who didn’t want to allow physical caches. They were able to say that virtual caches could be placed in the park and not physical caches and still say they were allowing geocaching.

 

Aside from the “Wow!” requirement, many virtual caches lost sight of the original intent of being an object to find using the GPSr. Virtual caches were place to show off a building, a park, a mountain top, or a view. Many did not even require proof of a visit to claim a find. The requirements were tightened, but not before many geocachers began to think of virtuals as a way to share interesting places to visit. Despite the change to the guidelines, the reviewers found that people kept submitting these kinds of locations. Most people were using virtuals not a substitute for where you couldn’t hide a physical container, but as a substitute for the yet to be invented waymark.

 

Some virtuals used a confirmation question that could be answered by research on the Internet. Some people allowed a find on these if you could answer the question even without visiting the site. Again the guidelines were changed to emphasize that the intent was to actually visit the cache site, but by the time this happened some people had discovered the joy of armchair logging of virtuals.

 

Once virtual caches were allowed, the next step was the locationless or reverse cache. The first locationless caches were listed as virtuals that you could find anywhere. A locationless cache asked you to find a location that fit the cache description and post the coordinates to claim a find. Once someone had found a particular location, most locationless caches would not allow another find using that site. Locationless caches didn’t really fit the model of the Geocaching.com database. For one, you had to look through all the locationless caches to find ones you could do and once you found a locationless to do you needed to check if anyone had already used your location. By the time I started geocaching, in 2003, there was a moratorium on new locationless caches while TPTB were coming up with a solution for locationless.

 

The vision of Waymarking

 

The solution that TPTB came up with for locationless caches was to have a separate website where users could suggest categories of places whose coordinates could be listed. The categories would be organized in a hierarchy so you could find the categories which were interesting to you. When you entered a new location it would check to see if there was already one close by. If this was the same site you couldn’t create a new waymark, but you could log your visit to existing one.

 

TPTB came to realize that most virtuals were really just locations that people wanted to share. There wasn’t anything to find (or if there was it was just in order to have a verification question). How much better to have a site dedicate to sharing interesting locations with other people. The overwhelming majority of what got submitted as virtual caches could be submitted to one or more Waymarking categories. A method to ask for verification of visits was provided for those who still wanted proof when someone visited their waymark. With that, TPTB decided that all the existing locationless caches could be migrated to Waymarking and no new locationless or virtual caches would be accepted on Geocaching.com. Not all locationless got migrated, as Waymarking requires a group of users to manage each category (instead of volunteer geocache reviewers) and some locationless owners were not interested in doing this.

 

Waymarking has it detractors. In addition to challenging or fun categories of some locationless, Waymarking has categories that are pretty mundane – like McDonald’s Restaurants and Starbucks Coffee. But because of the hierarchical organization of categories it is easy to ignore categories you think are too mundane and concentrate on the categories you are interested in.

 

What about the element of surprise that some virtual caches provided? Waymarking has a Waymarking games category. This is a pretty wide open area. Some of the more creative locationless cache wound up here. It is also home the Best Kept Secrets category. This category allows (but does not require) the waymark owner to provide a description that doesn’t reveal everything about the location so you can still be surprised when you visit. Other categories can still be proposed to emphasize what ever aspects of virtuals you enjoyed and are not being met by other Waymarking categories.

 

Waymarking is also lacking in ways to download waymarks and load them into your GPSr. You can get a LOC file with the coordinates of waymarks you have selected but there are still no pocket queries or GPX format that contains the waymark descriptions. Many people also enjoy visting waymarks/virtuals while out looking for physical geocaches. Perhaps a future version of both sites will allow PQs that can return geocaches along with the waymarks in your favorite categories.

 
0

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

Also, now that no new virtuals are listed, the ones that remain are the best of the best.  So I love visiting the virtuals that still exist, they almost always bring me to something interesting.  But if they had been allowed to continue, I'm sure we would now have a lot more of them, but overall most of them would be boring and less of a draw.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Also, now that no new virtuals are listed, the ones that remain are the best of the best.  So I love visiting the virtuals that still exist, they almost always bring me to something interesting.  But if they had been allowed to continue, I'm sure we would now have a lot more of them, but overall most of them would be boring and less of a draw.

You bring up a good point that sometimes gets lost for cachers that are unfamiliar with the history of Virtual caches.

 

Some cachers see existing Virtuals and think "they're great, there's nothing wrong with them, so we should have new ones allowed again".  They don't realize that there were some uninteresting, unoriginal, etc Virtuals in the past that have since been archived.  For the most part, the Virtuals that exist today are the better of the bunch.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I also really enjoy the virtuals that are left.

When I'm traveling I try to hit the virtuals along the way (along with the earthcaches). It's really great way to find the highlights of the area and see places I would have otherwise missed.

 

I do remember, however, a really lame virtual that was probably part of the reason why they were no longer allowed. I got there and wondered what I was there for. It was so unremarkable, I don't remember what it was, but I do remember thinking, "So this is why they don't allow them anymore." It was the virtual version of a lamp-post cache at a Walmart.

One of my all-time favorite virtuals. This is the stuff virtuals could have been made of:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5A56_get-back-into-the-air-conditioned-suv?guid=5d2604f8-b90a-49b0-8f93-b5c6f6813b38

 

It's a virtual at a rest-stop that points out a sign. Doesn't sound exciting until you read it. It talks about the history of the settlers going over that road on their way to California, and how long it took them vs how long it took you. (something like 3 months vs a few hours). It also talks about a survey done in the 1800's of all the gravestones and dead livestock along the trail. That was the true cost of their passage, when now it costs a tank of gas.

It's an amazing, clear look at the past in that area, vs today. It's a very exceptional cache that I hope lives on. 

I would not have noticed that sign if it hadn't been pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Sol seaker said:

 

One of my all-time favorite virtuals. This is the stuff virtuals could have been made of:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5A56_get-back-into-the-air-conditioned-suv?guid=5d2604f8-b90a-49b0-8f93-b5c6f6813b38

 

It's a virtual at a rest-stop that points out a sign. Doesn't sound exciting until you read it. It talks about the history of the settlers going over that road on their way to California, and how long it took them vs how long it took you. (something like 3 months vs a few hours). It also talks about a survey done in the 1800's of all the gravestones and dead livestock along the trail. That was the true cost of their passage, when now it costs a tank of gas.

It's an amazing, clear look at the past in that area, vs today. It's a very exceptional cache that I hope lives on. 

I would not have noticed that sign if it hadn't been pointed out.

It's also listed as a waymark with all the answers to the Virtual, which most are.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

It's also listed as a waymark with all the answers to the Virtual, which most are.

 

I know very little about the Waymarking site is there the notion of archiving waymarks, in this case, because the waymark listing spoils the virtual cache and invites armchair logging.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I know very little about the Waymarking site is there the notion of archiving waymarks, in this case, because the waymark listing spoils the virtual cache and invites armchair logging.

Ha, ha, that is very funny! :D Seriously, a VERY high percentage of all Virtuals are Waymarked and the information is there for the Virtual.

Don't believe me, just find any Virtual and click on the nearest Waymark link. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Ha, ha, that is very funny! :D Seriously, a VERY high percentage of all Virtuals are Waymarked and the information is there for the Virtual.

Don't believe me, just find any Virtual and click on the nearest Waymark link. ;)

 

If I were the owner of a virtual cache I wouldn't consider my cache spoiled by a waymark to be funny at all.   This is the first time I've heard of this and am surprised that owners (the few that are still active) of virtual caches haven't complained.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

If I were the owner of a virtual cache I wouldn't consider my cache spoiled by a waymark to be funny at all.   This is the first time I've heard of this and am surprised that owners (the few that are still active) of virtual caches haven't complained.

 

Most virtuals left are ownerless now anyway, but I'm sure there were complaints, but remember who started the Waymarking site, the founders of Groundspeak.

I have Waymarked several EarthCaches that require answers from a board, there are spoilers everywhere on the internet.

 

Edit to add: What I thought to be funny was archiving a WM because it spoiled a Virtual listing. Won't never happen.

Edited by Manville Possum

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Most virtuals left are ownerless now anyway, but I'm sure there were complaints, but remember who started the Waymarking site, the founders of Groundspeak.

I have Waymarked several EarthCaches that require answers from a board, there are spoilers everywhere on the internet.

 

Edit to add: What I thought to be funny was archiving a WM because it spoiled a Virtual listing. Won't never happen.

I wasn't aware of this either.  I still find them the old fashioned way, of going to the site.

Rather than archive the waymarked version, I'd rather see them just remove the spoiler information.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Also, now that no new virtuals are listed, the ones that remain are the best of the best.  So I love visiting the virtuals that still exist, they almost always bring me to something interesting.  But if they had been allowed to continue, I'm sure we would now have a lot more of them, but overall most of them would be boring and less of a draw.

 

That is not necessarily true.  Some of the best I have found were since archived and not all of the remaining ones are noteworthy.   I particularly enjoy those virtuals that have expanded my experience by taking the game into areas where physical containers would not be appropriate.  My favorite virtual that is now archived brought me to Incan salt ponds:

 

IMG_6604.JPG.11c7c22e4937cc00c09011bac2a66697.JPG

 

But other archived virtuals have taken me to the hoodoos of Bryce national park, ancient ruins and petroglyphs near Sedona, or other stunning locations.   It is sad when these get archived because Groundspeak does not permit virtuals to be adopted so that they can be better maintained.  

Without getting into whether some form of new virtuals (other than earthcaches) could be incorporated into this game, allowing the remaining ones to be part of this game through adoption would be a good step.

 

Edited by geodarts
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Sol seaker said:

I wasn't aware of this either.  I still find them the old fashioned way, of going to the site.

Rather than archive the waymarked version, I'd rather see them just remove the spoiler information.

 

Waymarking and Geocaching are two different games. If either were to be archived it would be the Virtual because Waymarking is still the active game and Virtuals are no more.

 

Sorry, but I don't find a Nevada historical marker interesting enough to be a Virtual geocache but do enjoy Waymarking them.:)

Nevada Historical Marker #26

Edited by Manville Possum
Edit to add link.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Waymarking and Geocaching are two different games. If either were to be archived it would be the Virtual because Waymarking is still the active game and Virtuals are no more.

 

Specific virtual caches that are currently active and enabled (such as the one Sol Seeker mentions) are still active even though no new virtual caches can be creeated.   GC5A56 has 1063 visits.  The waymark for the same location has 6 visit since 2012.  That's half as many as the virtual had just last month.  Which game did you say was active?  The virtual cache doesn't spoil the waymark, because there is nothing that needs to be answered on the waymark site.  However, the waymark does spoil the virtual  as it has all the answers on the photo.   Waymarking and Geocaching may be different games but they're owned by the same company.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

The virtual cache doesn't spoil the waymark, because there is nothing that needs to be answered on the waymark site.  However, the waymark does spoil the virtual  as it has all the answers on the photo.   Waymarking and Geocaching may be different games but they're owned by the same company.  

 

Nevada historical marker #26  is listed as two WM's and will likely fit in other categories as well, but I don't think it would be fair to not allow Waymarks or request them archived because they sometimes "spoil" virtuals.

So what again is the issue, the virtual could be armchair logged? That is the cache owners responsibility, and looking at other virtuals in the area where the owner has not signed on since 2011, I see where that could be a problem and that is how virtuals get archived because of armchair loggers.:)

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Nevada historical marker #26  is listed as two WM's and will likely fit in other categories as well, but I don't think it would be fair to not allow Waymarks or request them archived because they sometimes "spoil" virtuals.

So what again is the issue, the virtual could be armchair logged? That is the cache owners responsibility, and looking at other virtuals in the area where the owner has not signed on since 2011, I see where that could be a problem and that is how virtuals get archived because of armchair loggers.:)

I'm not suggesting that waymarks should not be allowed.  I am suggesting that waymarks should not spoil an existing virtual cache, just because they can.  There are only so many good virtual caches left, yet new waymarks can be created everyday.  Why jeopardize an existing part of the game that many seem to enjoy.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'm not suggesting that waymarks should not be allowed.  I am suggesting that waymarks should not spoil an existing virtual cache, just because they can.  There are only so many good virtual caches left, yet new waymarks can be created everyday.  Why jeopardize an existing part of the game that many seem to enjoy.  

 

The point you are making is against armchair logging obsolete cache types with internet research. Those "spoiler" Waymarks are not there just to spoil an existing virtual, as Waymarkers we don't do that kind of thing, we don't have a problem with Armchair Waymarkers and if we get visits that don't meet the logging requirements they get deleted, we Police our WM's just as Virtual cache owners do. Remember that the Waymarking site was created just for locationless and virtual geocaching and it was HQ that felt we needed Waymarking to dump Virtuals and EarthCaches, and it's not the intent of Waymarkers to "spoil" Virtual geocaches. 

Share this post


Link to post

By the logic I've seen here, there's no more reason to forbid new virtuals than there is new traditionals. I've seen many regular caches that were dumb, boring, uninspired, located in a lousy parking lot, absentee owners and so on.   I'd rather take my chances on finding either a cool new virtual or a stinker, than to not have the chance at all.  I can certainly use my log to say whether or not it was worth it. 

And I'll have to check into whatever Waymarking is, I've never heard of it before.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TeamCatalpa said:

By the logic I've seen here, there's no more reason to forbid new virtuals than there is new traditionals. I've seen many regular caches that were dumb, boring, uninspired, located in a lousy parking lot, absentee owners and so on.   I'd rather take my chances on finding either a cool new virtual or a stinker, than to not have the chance at all.  I can certainly use my log to say whether or not it was worth it. ...

Probably why they won't be bringing them back.  ;)

Right now, they're something special (you said so yourself) only because the better ones are simply what's  left.

 

But allowing them to be reinstated  (as you say) would most likely end up being boring, uninspiring, and dumb.

 - Like all the nondescript pieces of carp strewn about already.

 

I'd definitely like them to stay as something special, thanks.   :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/21/2017 at 3:51 PM, Manville Possum said:

 

Nevada historical marker #26  is listed as two WM's and will likely fit in other categories as well, but I don't think it would be fair to not allow Waymarks or request them archived because they sometimes "spoil" virtuals.

So what again is the issue, the virtual could be armchair logged? That is the cache owners responsibility, and looking at other virtuals in the area where the owner has not signed on since 2011, I see where that could be a problem and that is how virtuals get archived because of armchair loggers.:)

 

Yeah,

 

I chose to make some changes to my remaining virtual cache. I added a question not found on the plaque, something not likely to be picked up on a Waymarking photo. And I will likely rotate certain questions, just to keep the arm-chairing in check. Note, I remember founding the Waymarking Nevada Historic Marker category (while Waymarking was in early beta). Even met up with the NV State employee responsible for their upkeep, let them know about the website so they could track the condition of the plaques ( I added a specific variable to show if the marker was damaged or not). I know some don't think a historic plaque may be worthy of a virtual. However, I have logged many virtuals that are far less worthy and far less interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Uncle Alaska said:

 

I know some don't think a historic plaque may be worthy of a virtual. However, I have logged many virtuals that are far less worthy and far less interesting.

 

I don't see a WOW factor in a historical marker itself, but the location may be Virtual worthy. I have set up quite a few Virtuals on another site before losing interest, but as a Waymarker that created a few EarthCaches I make sure that my logging code can't be googled. I believe all the Virtuals that I have visited I always have photo proof of visit.

 

I see a few Virtuals get some special treatment, two were temp disabled after a historic fire and the cache pages turned into people leaving notes until a reviewer enabled them and one other vacation cache that has bad inventory and the community is keeping it up. That is really disappointing to seek a listing that shows 12 TB's and find a wet nasty cache with none.:(

Share this post


Link to post

In the early days of geocaching when the majority of geocaches tended to be ammo cans or similar size containers with large log books, a  writing implement and plenty of room for swag, virtuals really were a 180 from the norm. The caches I see today have very little in common with the caches I use to look for in the early days. I get tired of hearing that virtuals aren't true geocaches when I see what's being placed out there today.

Edited by TahoeJoe
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/22/2017 at 6:14 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'm not suggesting that waymarks should not be allowed.  I am suggesting that waymarks should not spoil an existing virtual cache, just because they can.  There are only so many good virtual caches left, yet new waymarks can be created everyday.  Why jeopardize an existing part of the game that many seem to enjoy.  

I make a point (I try to, at least) to NOT waymark anything that would ruin a virtual geocache. I'd like the remaining virtual caches to stay around forever.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/21/2017 at 1:48 PM, noncentric said:

For the most part, the Virtuals that exist today are the better of the bunch.

There are still some duds left.  We've come across a couple in our quest for the Virginia virtual challenge.  (Not going to single any out, but a simple FP tally seems to coincide with my experience.).  But yes, for the most part, those that have survived are those that withstood the test of time.

 

I still don't get why good virtuals get archived seemingly on a whim from time to time.  I completely get why those with property issues get yanked, or those with cache owners who have died or otherwise gone MIA.  But every once in a while I'll come across ones where the CO has just arbitrarily pulled the plug.  Tired of the emails, I guess?

Edited by hzoi
reasons

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/23/2017 at 2:05 PM, TahoeJoe said:

 I get tired of hearing that virtuals aren't true geocaches when I see what's being placed out there today.

 

I don't consider them true geocaches because there are no containers or log books, but I do enjoy visiting those that still have active owners and are taking care of them.

I did a little Virtual geocaching, Waymarking, and Benchmarking recently while on vacation and enjoyed them. I still seek a few geocaches, but I don't like the low quality stuff the game has became either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, hzoi said:

...I still don't get why good virtuals get archived seemingly on a whim from time to time.  I completely get why those with property issues get yanked, or those with cache owners who have died or otherwise gone MIA.  But every once in a while I'll come across ones where the CO has just arbitrarily pulled the plug.  Tired of the emails, I guess?

Maybe the idea that some "finders" don't bother (or don't realize they have)  to solve their requirements, those same folks not responding to the CO's emails, while maybe getting a nudge from HQ once in a while on logging to boot, was just too much hassle for some that didn't even play the hobby themselves anymore.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Maybe the idea that some "finders" don't bother (or don't realize they have)  to solve their requirements, those same folks not responding to the CO's emails, while maybe getting a nudge from HQ once in a while on logging to boot, was just too much hassle for some that didn't even play the hobby themselves anymore.  :)

All true.

 

As an earthcache owner, I've had to work with the occasional cacher from time to time to get them to something resembling an answer to our logging questions, or delete the logs of those horses I just couldn't bring to water.  That's just over the last seven years, and of course, typically earthcaches don't get near the traffic that virtuals do.  I can see where it'd get old having to do it for, in some cases, the last sixteen or seventeen years.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, hzoi said:

I still don't get why good virtuals get archived seemingly on a whim from time to time.  I completely get why those with property issues get yanked, or those with cache owners who have died or otherwise gone MIA.  But every once in a while I'll come across ones where the CO has just arbitrarily pulled the plug.  Tired of the emails, I guess?

Yeah, I did several virtuals in Utah last summer, all from the same CO, and was surprised to see that they were all archived. Nothing in the logs indicated a problem with them. Maybe the CO just got tired of dealing with them. It's too bad, because they were interesting and obviously can't be replaced in the same manner.

Share this post


Link to post

It is possible to find the cache page for an archived cache.  It is also, usually, possible to log finds on an archived cache.  If someone finds the cache page for an archived virtual, is there anything wrong with them visiting the site and logging the find?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

It is possible to find the cache page for an archived cache.  It is also, usually, possible to log finds on an archived cache.  If someone finds the cache page for an archived virtual, is there anything wrong with them visiting the site and logging the find?

Many consider it unethical.  There is a local who has done that.  One was archived before any finds because there was another using the same object a short distance off.  But it got his find after twelve years!  Another was archived after the object was torn down.  Didn't stop that cacher from logging it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Many consider it unethical.  There is a local who has done that.  One was archived before any finds because there was another using the same object a short distance off.  But it got his find after twelve years!  Another was archived after the object was torn down.  Didn't stop that cacher from logging it.

Silly? Yes. Unethical? I don't think so.

BTW, visited your Mt Washington webcam last week. I plan to post my second visit as a Note.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

I don't consider them true geocaches because there are no containers or log books, but I do enjoy visiting those that still have active owners and are taking care of them.

I did a little Virtual geocaching, Waymarking, and Benchmarking recently while on vacation and enjoyed them. I still seek a few geocaches, but I don't like the low quality stuff the game has became either.

 

Groundspeak lets us log virtual caches, webcams, earthcaches, and events as a geocache.  I'm going to go by their definition and consider them geocaches as well. 

Share this post


Link to post

"The requirements were tightened, but not before many geocachers began to think of virtuals as a way to share interesting places to visit."

That's what caching is about for me: finding and sharing interesting places.

Waymarking is a good idea that has never been properly implemented. The Reviewer system needs improvement, it needs an app and PQs, and most importantly there should be one listing for a location regardless of how many categories an item/location falls under. Waymarking currently has a high noise to signal ratio.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Groundspeak lets us log virtual caches, webcams, earthcaches, and events as a geocache.  I'm going to go by their definition and consider them geocaches as well. 

 

Well, I'm about like most small children. If I don't find a container with goodies and a log book, you better be ready to buy me an ice cream. Those cache types are just POI's in my opinion and I don't care to be wrong. I enjoy logging those same type listings on the Waymarking site, but they are not geocaches there, they are Waymarks according to Groundspeak. It only depends where they are listed as what you call them, but to me a geocache is a physical container with a log book. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 0:35 AM, Uncle Alaska said:

 

Yeah,

 

I chose to make some changes to my remaining virtual cache. I added a question not found on the plaque, something not likely to be picked up on a Waymarking photo. And I will likely rotate certain questions, just to keep the arm-chairing in check. Note, I remember founding the Waymarking Nevada Historic Marker category (while Waymarking was in early beta). Even met up with the NV State employee responsible for their upkeep, let them know about the website so they could track the condition of the plaques ( I added a specific variable to show if the marker was damaged or not). I know some don't think a historic plaque may be worthy of a virtual. However, I have logged many virtuals that are far less worthy and far less interesting.

I absolutely agree. I try to stay on top of my virtuals and change the requirements as needed to respond to armchair type logs and other questionable activities. It is up to the cache owner to take care of these just like if they were a physical cache somewhere. I check on, and visit, my virtuals just like I check on and visit my two remaining ammo cans down on the beaches of Texas. Still love it.

Mac

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just yesterday I found only my 2nd virt on a caching run to Charlottesville. I was excited because it marked my 400th find and I wanted it to be something special. All the other caches we'd found were uninspired micros or smalls. So I was afraid my 400th find wouldn't be anything to remember. I was saved by coming across a 2003 virtual! (Waiting for confirmation from CO to log.) A nice old virt is a treat to find!

[Oh...I just remembered it's my 3rd virt but I only have one listed in my stats. :-/ ? ]

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, PlantAKiss said:

Just yesterday I found only my 2nd virt on a caching run to Charlottesville. I was excited because it marked my 400th find and I wanted it to be something special. All the other caches we'd found were uninspired micros or smalls. So I was afraid my 400th find wouldn't be anything to remember. I was saved by coming across a 2003 virtual! (Waiting for confirmation from CO to log.) A nice old virt is a treat to find!

[Oh...I just remembered it's my 3rd virt but I only have one listed in my stats. :-/ ? ]

You don't need to "wait for confirmation", even if it's posted on the cache page, as explained in  the  Help Center   with, "Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner".   :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, PlantAKiss said:

[Oh...I just remembered it's my 3rd virt but I only have one listed in my stats. :-/ ? ]

Guess you need to figure out which other one you visited but didn't yet log, then.  I've found all but three -- oops, make that six -- of the virtuals in Virginia -- feel free to drop me an email or message if you need help remembering.

 

Also, I hear there's a cool earthcache on the new pedestrian footbridge across the James if you want to branch out into earthcaches...just sayin'.  :anibad:

Edited by hzoi
math is hard

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

You don't need to "wait for confirmation", even if it's posted on the cache page, as explained in  the  Help Center   with, "Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner".   :)

Didn't know this. Thank you, Cerberus. Not like I ever waited anyway. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

As to Virtual caches and Waymarking, I can only speak for ourselves, we have posted waymarks that most likely were/are a virtual cache. 

We do not for the most part Geocache any longer since we found Waymarking. If there are any spoilers on our Waymarks it was unintentional.  Most waymarks we post are researched and that information is posted on the waymark with photographs of the location which could include signs or what maybe considered spoilers. 

When we research for future trips I do use Waymarking to see what is posted and Geocaching only to see if I can find locations to visit as potential waymarks. I will say that I only look at traditional caches and no others. I will even go as far as to say looking at virtual caches never beeped on my radar.

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BK-Hunters said:

... If there are any spoilers on our Waymarks it was unintentional.  Most waymarks we post are researched and that information is posted on the waymark with photographs of the location which could include signs or what maybe considered spoilers. 

When we research for future trips I do use Waymarking to see what is posted and Geocaching only to see if I can find locations to visit as potential waymarks. I will say that I only look at traditional caches and no others. I will even go as far as to say looking at virtual caches never beeped on my radar.

 Similar though opposite, we don't know of anyone who is a waymarker, so I'd guess the only "spoilers" (in relation to geocaching) would probably benefit too few to present any issue really.

Those who'd look for spoilers often find them on something as simple as google, so if Waymarking happens to come up there  too,  cool I guess.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Similar though opposite, we don't know of anyone who is a waymarker,

You do now. Glad I found this posting. If you have any questions about Waymarking do not hesitate to contact us via our profile at Waymarking.com

We are BK-Hunters and if interested there is also a link to our Waymarking blog also on our profile page. It is all about our adventures in Waymarking. 

We started Waymarking in July 2012.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×