Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Team Omam

Number of world wide active webcam caches

40 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I am preparing a couple of challenge caches, related to the number of webcam caches with "Webcam photo taken" a cacher has found. I did do a little search on webcam caches. One result, to my surprise,  only in the last 4 weeks I saw the number of worldwide active webcams decreasing from 298 to 287 today. Of the 125 webcams that I have found in the last 5 years, 11 have already been archived. They are disappearing fast!

 

Does anyone have, or know how to get, any statistics on the number of world wide active webcams? For instance since the moratorium in 2005?

 

Team Omam

Edited by Team Omam
textual
0

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like you've already figured out how to get the number of worldwide active webcams (287).  What other statistics or numbers are you trying to get?

 

By the way, it looks like there are 287 'enabled' and 7 'disabled' webcams.  It's possible some, or all, of those 7 may be enabled again - depending on whether issue that led them to be disabled is resolved or not.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

Yes indeed, some may be temporarily disabled and might be online again later. Thanks.

In general, I am interested to how fast webcam caches (and later maybe virtual caches) are disappearing.

So for instance, how many webcams were available end 2005, end 2006 end 2007, ...etc. .... end 2016?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

Using ProjectGC's Map Compare tool lists all 294 webcam caches (including disabled) - so far I've got 5 of them.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Stupidly (I'm talking to you Groundspeak!), webcam and virtual caches are not eligible for adoption, which doesn't help keeping them alive when the (necessarily longtime) owner doesn't (want to) maintain the cache anymore.

 

Also, the webcams themselves just stop working, which after some time means the end of the companion cache as well. I've seen one webcam cache getting lots of finds WAY after the webcam was dead. And yes, the attached pictures were of course just selfies. Just living proof these are the type of caches people love most. For sure, I do!

1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Team Omam said:

In general, I am interested to how fast webcam caches (and later maybe virtual caches) are disappearing.

So for instance, how many webcams were available end 2005, end 2006 end 2007, ...etc. .... end 2016?

Ahh, now I understand what you're looking for.  Interesting question.  Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to get to those numbers without access to the Groundspeak databases OR without finding someone that happened to download all webcam caches themselves over the years.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I've used PGC to get a list of all webcams, archived or otherwise - there are a total of 1007 of them. Extracting the data into a spreadsheet, and doing a bit of analysis gives the following statistics, on a monthly basis:

Sep 2001: 0; Oct 2001: 10; Nov 2001: 19; Dec 2001: 19;

Jan 2002: 24; Feb 2002: 27; Mar 2002: 36; Apr 2002: 54; May 2002: 63; Jun 2002: 76;

Jul 2002: 86; Aug 2002: 91; Sep 2002: 103; Oct 2002: 110; Nov 2002: 113; Dec 2002: 127;

Jan 2003: 148; Feb 2003: 155; Mar 2003: 161; Apr 2003: 169; May 2003: 180; Jun 2003: 193;

Jul 2003: 201; Aug 2003: 223; Sep 2003: 242; Oct 2003: 258; Nov 2003: 273; Dec 2003: 283;

Jan 2004: 311; Feb 2004: 320; Mar 2004: 336; Apr 2004: 354; May 2004: 378; Jun 2004: 405;

Jul 2004: 420; Aug 2004: 433; Sep 2004: 445; Oct 2004: 458; Nov 2004: 473; Dec 2004: 493;

Jan 2005: 528; Feb 2005: 566; Mar 2005: 601; Apr 2005: 636; May 2005: 668; Jun 2005: 706;

Jul 2005: 757; Aug 2005: 785; Sep 2005: 814; Oct 2005: 834; Nov 2005: 824; Dec 2005: 816;

Jan 2006: 806; Feb 2006: 793; Mar 2006: 786; Apr 2006: 771; May 2006: 763; Jun 2006: 760;

Jul 2006: 754; Aug 2006: 746; Sep 2006: 742; Oct 2006: 735; Nov 2006: 732; Dec 2006: 726;

Jan 2007: 718; Feb 2007: 711; Mar 2007: 697; Apr 2007: 692; May 2007: 689; Jun 2007: 684;

Jul 2007: 681; Aug 2007: 674; Sep 2007: 668; Oct 2007: 663; Nov 2007: 654; Dec 2007: 652;

Jan 2008: 646; Feb 2008: 639; Mar 2008: 628; Apr 2008: 625; May 2008: 623; Jun 2008: 620;

Jul 2008: 619; Aug 2008: 616; Sep 2008: 612; Oct 2008: 604; Nov 2008: 600; Dec 2008: 594;

Jan 2009: 586; Feb 2009: 583; Mar 2009: 578; Apr 2009: 575; May 2009: 571; Jun 2009: 566;

Jul 2009: 563; Aug 2009: 559; Sep 2009: 553; Oct 2009: 549; Nov 2009: 546; Dec 2009: 542;

Jan 2010: 538; Feb 2010: 536; Mar 2010: 531; Apr 2010: 530; May 2010: 527; Jun 2010: 521;

Jul 2010: 516; Aug 2010: 510; Sep 2010: 504; Oct 2010: 502; Nov 2010: 499; Dec 2010: 496;

Jan 2011: 489; Feb 2011: 486; Mar 2011: 485; Apr 2011: 481; May 2011: 476; Jun 2011: 476;

Jul 2011: 470; Aug 2011: 467; Sep 2011: 465; Oct 2011: 463; Nov 2011: 461; Dec 2011: 460;

Jan 2012: 453; Feb 2012: 453; Mar 2012: 450; Apr 2012: 449; May 2012: 445; Jun 2012: 441;

Jul 2012: 438; Aug 2012: 436; Sep 2012: 435; Oct 2012: 434; Nov 2012: 432; Dec 2012: 426;

Jan 2013: 422; Feb 2013: 421; Mar 2013: 421; Apr 2013: 421; May 2013: 414; Jun 2013: 414;

Jul 2013: 410; Aug 2013: 408; Sep 2013: 401; Oct 2013: 398; Nov 2013: 398; Dec 2013: 397;

Jan 2014: 397; Feb 2014: 397; Mar 2014: 393; Apr 2014: 389; May 2014: 387; Jun 2014: 383;

Jul 2014: 379; Aug 2014: 377; Sep 2014: 373; Oct 2014: 371; Nov 2014: 371; Dec 2014: 368;

Jan 2015: 368; Feb 2015: 364; Mar 2015: 362; Apr 2015: 361; May 2015: 358; Jun 2015: 357;

Jul 2015: 350; Aug 2015: 347; Sep 2015: 344; Oct 2015: 343; Nov 2015: 343; Dec 2015: 343;

Jan 2016: 341; Feb 2016: 340; Mar 2016: 335; Apr 2016: 332; May 2016: 328; Jun 2016: 326;

Jul 2016: 322; Aug 2016: 321; Sep 2016: 320; Oct 2016: 316; Nov 2016: 313; Dec 2016: 312;

Jan 2017: 312; Feb 2017: 311; Mar 2017: 309; Apr 2017: 304; May 2017: 301; Jun 2017: 300;

Jul 2017: 294;

Figures correct for the end of each month. In some cases, archived dates are not available, so I've used the last logged date instead. I've attached a graph of the figures - it shows a steady decline since a peak in November 2005 (when presumably the type was grandfathered), but no obvious sign that the decay is increasing.

Webcam graph.png

7

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Optimist on the run said:

I've used PGC to get a list of all webcams, archived or otherwise - there are a total of 1007 of them. Extracting the data into a spreadsheet, and doing a bit of analysis gives the following statistics, on a monthly basis:

Very impressive. Nice work!

 

Edited by noncentric
0

Share this post


Link to post

The peak was actually some time in the beginning of November 2005 - the figures are for the end of each month (with the exception of this month). If anyone wants the exact figures, I'll be happy to email them the spreadsheet if they contact me.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Nice graph which tells an interesting, though sad, story :( . Clearly they were becoming very popular and were on steep upward trend when they were pulled.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm planning on doing similar analysis for Virtual Caches, though it'll be a couple of days before I get time. Watch this space...

1

Share this post


Link to post

Nicely done.  Very interesting.   I had my state's data but was not aware of the data worldwide.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't check the forum  for a while. I'm impressed with the data provided by Optimist on the run. It is exactly what I was looking for.

I interested to know how you can use Project GC to generate such data. Could you share that?

Thanks,

Team Omam

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Hi - the technique I used is as follows:

1) In PGC, create a virtual GPS page called Webcams (you will need to be a paying member of PGC to have this functionality)

2) In PGC, use the map compare tool, set with the following filters:

  • Profile name (can be anybody - I used myself)
  • Compare with: left blank
  • Cache location: left blank
  • Show: tick None found and one found
  • Add filter - Cache type/size: Webcam Cache (leave size unselected)
  • Add filter - Show disabled/archived: tick both

3) Click the "filter" button - this will produce a map of all webcams. This is the set of results for myself.

4) In the "none found" tab below the map, tick the box next GC Code to select all the webcams that the selected username hasn't found, and then click the VGPS Add icon to add them to the Webcams VGPS.

5) Do the same in the "[username] found" tab. The VGPS icon at the top of the screen should now read Webcams 1007 caches. Click on that icon to open the VGPS page.

6) Wait for the page to open (it can be slow at times), click "Export", and select "Download CSV". Open the result in Excel. You can then use Excel to extract the information required.

 

Edited by Optimist on the run
removed a couple of unnecessary steps
0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

5 years after joining this site and placing my first cache hardly anything has changed. They are testing out a new user interface to the site, finally. This company could make more money if they adopted a proactive approach to the way it's ran, taking feedback, and making changes rather then just doing nothing and running off of their existing userbase. I'm not saying a corporation has to change constantly, but change is important for growth.  These forums have proven there is demand for webcam caches, so I personally believe they should allow new ones to be created.  I don't believe they should allow "virtual" caches but that's just my opinion. It's fun to look at webcam cache logs and see pictures of people logging them. 

There's other changes I would make to the site, such as being able to unarchive one's own caches if the needed maintenance is done to them if one has a certain "reputation rating" that is earned by placing caches and having people favorite them, and your ratio of favorites to number of caches placed, rework the trackables page to make it easier to find and track my own and other trackables I've come across, add a cache size called "nano" for all future caches that are small ones the size of a pill, among other things. 

Edited by sholomar
0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, sholomar said:

5 years after joining this site and placing my first cache hardly anything has changed. They are testing out a new user interface to the site, finally. This company could make more money if they adopted a proactive approach to the way it's ran rather then just doing nothing and running off of their existing userbase. I'm not saying a corporation has to change constantly, but change is important for growth.  These forums have proven there is demand for webcam caches, so I personally believe they should allow new ones to be created.  I don't believe they should allow "virtual" caches but that's just my opinion. It's fun to look at webcam cache logs and see pictures of people logging them. 

 

Web Cameras are now listed on their Waymarking site, so I don't think they will ever bring them back as a geocache type. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Web Cameras are now listed on their Waymarking site, so I don't think they will ever bring them back as a geocache type. :)

They should integrate the two sites or give the option to search for waymarks using the geocaching interface, then. :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, sholomar said:

They should integrate the two sites or give the option to search for waymarks using the geocaching interface, then. :)

 

Well, it already works that way. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, sholomar said:

5 years after joining this site and placing my first cache hardly anything has changed. They are testing out a new user interface to the site, finally. This company could make more money if they adopted a proactive approach to the way it's ran, taking feedback, and making changes rather then just doing nothing and running off of their existing userbase. I'm not saying a corporation has to change constantly, but change is important for growth.  These forums have proven there is demand for webcam caches, so I personally believe they should allow new ones to be created.  I don't believe they should allow "virtual" caches but that's just my opinion. It's fun to look at webcam cache logs and see pictures of people logging them. 

There's other changes I would make to the site, such as being able to unarchive one's own caches if the needed maintenance is done to them if one has a certain "reputation rating" that is earned by placing caches and having people favorite them, and your ratio of favorites to number of caches placed, rework the trackables page to make it easier to find and track my own and other trackables I've come across, add a cache size called "nano" for all future caches that are small ones the size of a pill, among other things. 

By the many threads on the subject, I'd bet few think that "the company" is even considering their existing user base when changes are made.   :)

Curious, since there's no chance that the site would ever think of "rating" cachers, how would anyone know that maintenance on an archived cache was even done?   Some Cos had them archived because of fake OMs.

"Ratio of favorite points to caches placed" wouldn't work either, since it wouldn't account for the fact that Favorites Points weren't even around until the end of  2010. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

I never really thought about this before, but was there a specific problem with webcam caches, or they just prohibited because they look too much like virtual caches? I understand that there's a very real problem with virtual caches because they can literally be put anywhere, but webcams are much more limited. Was there any specific reason they were axed along with virtuals? (Actually, I'm assuming they were chopped off with the same ax swing that stopped virtuals. Were they, or was it a independent decision?)

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I never really thought about this before, but was there a specific problem with webcam caches, or they just prohibited because they look too much like virtual caches? I understand that there's a very real problem with virtual caches because they can literally be put anywhere, but webcams are much more limited. Was there any specific reason they were axed along with virtuals? (Actually, I'm assuming they were chopped off with the same ax swing that stopped virtuals. Were they, or was it a independent decision?)

Geocaching Wiki says on webcams, "As Groundspeak changed their viewpoint on what defines a geocache, they became unavailable for creation, as did  locationless caches and virtual caches.  Like virtual caches, existing ones were  grandfathered and as long as the owner has kept them active, are still available to be found".

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

I think webcams ended on Geocaching.com largely because Waymarking started. They were and are a good fit there. 

Waymarking was Groundspeak's attempt to move boxless caches off Geocaching.com and onto their own site. Earthcaches were moved to Waymarking as wel (at some point, they were brought back, obviously). Had the two sites ever been better integrated, it might have worked out fine. 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Manville Possum said:
19 hours ago, sholomar said:

They should integrate the two sites or give the option to search for waymarks using the geocaching interface, then. :)

 

Well, it already works that way. 

If we could create pocket queries on the Waymarking site I might use it.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I think webcams ended on Geocaching.com largely because Waymarking started. They were and are a good fit there. 

Waymarking was Groundspeak's attempt to move boxless caches off Geocaching.com and onto their own site. Earthcaches were moved to Waymarking as wel (at some point, they were brought back, obviously). Had the two sites ever been better integrated, it might have worked out fine. 

Your first sentence reads as if webcams were only moved to Waymarking after they were introduced as categories there and then started to flourish.  I was under the impression that Waymarking was created specifically to shunt off new virtual and webcam type listings after Groundspeak decided to grandfather them as geocaches. 

 

In other words, I thought it was the other way around -- that Waymarking started because webcams and virtual caches were ended on geocaching.com.   I didn't think it really existed prior to that decision; I thought it was a product of that decision and an attempt to compromise -- here, you can't make new webcam caches here, but you can make them waymarks.  However, you were a member during that debate and I was not, so you'd be in a better position to recall.

 

According to a WHOIS inquiry, Groundspeak registered the domain Waymarking.com on 28 September 2004, and webcam caches were still being created until around October 2005.  I just don't know how active Waymarking was between those two events because I wasn't a cacher back then.

0

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of taking this thread sideways, the  end of publication of new virts and webcams on Geocaching.com and the public opening of Waymarking were more or less simultaneous, Nov 2005. 

Owners of Locationless were offered the option to move their caches over before the public opening. I don't know if owners of webcams were made the same offer. I don't think they were, as according to the group page, the webcam category was created 6/13/2006, by iryshe.  A beta group of Lackeys, reviewers, moderators (?) and  others were fiddling with Waymarking before it was announced/opened up  generally.

  Oldest active Waymark,  WM1, dates from Aug 2005. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If we could create pocket queries on the Waymarking site I might use it.  

 

I do often use the Waymarking app to find WM's, and I believe that GSAK could be used on loc files to run a PQ. 

The feature I use most is checking nearest Waymarks and Benchmarks from the cache page of the geocache I'm planning on visiting. I have no interest in most Waymarking categories, but  do enjoy the Web Cameras listed there and on other listing services. I have never called a friend to take my picture from their PC screen for a Web Cam picture, but access the Web Camera from my phone and take a screen saver photo. I see Web Cams archived for allowing "selfies", and I have logged Web Cams on the Geocaching site where the link was broken (owner neglect) and I had to use the link on the Waymarking site. Just like any other hobby of mine, I try and learn as much as I can about it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If we could create pocket queries on the Waymarking site I might use it.  

When I first heard that I should look at waymarks because they had replaced for virtuals, I thought the fact the fact that they can't be in PQs was the main reason they wouldn't replace virtuals in my geocaching exploits. But after I looked at them, I realized that waymarks really did their job too well: waymarks have all the nonsense that caused GS to stop publishing virtuals. As much as I love virtuals, when I look at waymarks, I have to admit forbidding virtuals was the correct decision. Thank goodness they were shunted off to waymarking where I don't have to see them all.

(LOL! I just noticed that the new forum software still insists that we all capitalize "waymarking". Some features are too important to eliminate!)

0

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, dprovan said:

When I first heard that I should look at waymarks because they had replaced for virtuals, I thought the fact the fact that they can't be in PQs was the main reason they wouldn't replace virtuals in my geocaching exploits. But after I looked at them, I realized that waymarks really did their job too well: waymarks have all the nonsense that caused GS to stop publishing virtuals. As much as I love virtuals, when I look at waymarks, I have to admit forbidding virtuals was the correct decision. Thank goodness they were shunted off to waymarking where I don't have to see them all.

Yeah, I kinda agree...   

Was asked to reconsider once when I said similar in another thread.

One even claimed my views were misconceptions (fast food joints), and  that those ceased around '05, yet one of the first things I found in '14, listed as a "featured waymark"  right on the main Waymarking page were fish n chips joints.     Go figure...

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Yeah, I kinda agree...   

Was asked to reconsider once when I said similar in another thread.

One even claimed my views were misconceptions (fast food joints), and  that those ceased around '05, yet one of the first things I found in '14, listed as a "featured waymark"  right on the main Waymarking page were fish n chips joints.     Go figure...

 

Likely because it's the same home page from 2005. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post

One of the many reasons that they disappearing is many I've seen no longer have a webcam and cachers are just using selfies instead. How are these real Webcams anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/24/2017 at 10:37 AM, Vooruit! said:

I've seen one webcam cache getting lots of finds WAY after the webcam was dead. And yes, the attached pictures were of course just selfies. Just living proof these are the type of caches people love most. For sure, I do!

It also demonstrates exactly why they won't come back: failure of COs to police the armchair logs.

Posting a find with a selfie demonstrates not love for Webcam caches, but ignorance of or indifference to the Guidelines and frequently a sense of entitlement to the rare icon.

2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Likely because it's the same home page from 2005. ;)

No.

For example, today's (or right now...) featured waymark is " Grave of a famous person".  :) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Joshism said:

It also demonstrates exactly why they won't come back: failure of COs to police the armchair logs.

Posting a find with a selfie demonstrates not love for Webcam caches, but ignorance of or indifference to the Guidelines and frequently a sense of entitlement to the rare icon.

+1  Yep.  :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

No.

For example, today's (or right now...) featured waymark is " Grave of a famous person".  :) 

 

Okay, what I attempted to convey is that Waymarking has had no changes in those featured WM's. It's the same ones, and they cycle. No new ones have been added since they were implemented years ago. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Okay, what I attempted to convey is that Waymarking has had no changes in those featured WM's. It's the same ones, and they cycle. No new ones have been added since they were implemented years ago. 

Yup.  I believe the same few featured Wherigo caches keep popping up on that site as well. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/14/2017 at 11:45 AM, Manville Possum said:
On 8/14/2017 at 7:20 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

If we could create pocket queries on the Waymarking site I might use it.  

 

I do often use the Waymarking app to find WM's, and I believe that GSAK could be used on loc files to run a PQ. 

The feature I use most is checking nearest Waymarks and Benchmarks from the cache page of the geocache I'm planning on visiting. I have no interest in most Waymarking categories, but  do enjoy the Web Cameras listed there and on other listing services. I have never called a friend to take my picture from their PC screen for a Web Cam picture, but access the Web Camera from my phone and take a screen saver photo. I see Web Cams archived for allowing "selfies", and I have logged Web Cams on the Geocaching site where the link was broken (owner neglect) and I had to use the link on the Waymarking site. Just like any other hobby of mine, I try and learn as much as I can about it.

As I've said I really haven't spent much time on the Waymarking site.  For kicks I went and was able to look at the Webcams category.  If I filtered the search to New York I got a list of 25 waymarks and could generate a .log or .gpx (lite) file.   However, if I wanted to get a list of all webcams in the U.S. that gave me 35 pages of results and I could only select 25 at a time for a download.  As I said, a pocket query feature would be a huge improvement, but in general the search/download functionality leaves so much to be desired that I haven't bothered to use it.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

As I've said I really haven't spent much time on the Waymarking site.  For kicks I went and was able to look at the Webcams category.  If I filtered the search to New York I got a list of 25 waymarks and could generate a .log or .gpx (lite) file.   However, if I wanted to get a list of all webcams in the U.S. that gave me 35 pages of results and I could only select 25 at a time for a download.  As I said, a pocket query feature would be a huge improvement, but in general the search/download functionality leaves so much to be desired that I haven't bothered to use it.  

 

It's likey there are more active Web Cam's still listed as Geocaches than there are active Waymarkers world wide.

0

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 2