Virtual Geocaches

[+Meredith66]

I REALLY REALLY want the virtual caches to come back into play...I did my first one today and LOVED IT! I read that they are no longer doing virtual caches and that"s depressing.  Cant you bring them back? Why did they stop to begin with....Virtual and Webcam are my absolute favorites HANDS DOWN.

[RuideAlmeida]

Apart from those still available in Geocaching.com they are in Waymarking.com.

You can log with your current profile.

Edited May 25, 2018 by RuideAlmeida

[+Meredith66]

it doesnt seem like anyone does it on Waymarking...I cant upload pics..its confusing.

[+The A-Team]

18 minutes ago, Meredith66 said:

Cant you bring them back?

 

They did bring the back in a limited way last year. Read more about that here.

 

Quote

 Why did they stop to begin with....Virtual and Webcam are my absolute favorites HANDS DOWN.

 

It's a long story. In short, Virtuals were being created for increasingly mundane things. In an effort to battle this, a new rule was instituted for a short time that required that new Virtuals have a so-called "WOW factor" as determined by the reviewers, but this led to many more problems and the reviewers got sick of being the ones to decide whose baby was cuter than others and being attacked as a result. Publication of new Virtuals ceased in 2005, until last year's awarding of the new batch of Virtuals, which will allow for up to 4000 new Virtuals to be published.

[+The A-Team]

22 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Apart from those still available in Geocaching.com they are in Waymarking.com.

You can log with your current profile.

Locationless were migrated to Waymarking.com, not Virtuals. While Waymarks are a type of virtual item, they're completely unrelated to the Virtual cache type.

[+The A-Team]

If you have 8 minutes, here's a video created by a former forum-regular where Einstein explains the end of Virtuals to the Queen. It's been a while since I watched it, but I seem to remember it covers most of the relevant points.

[+Max and 99]

29 minutes ago, Meredith66 said:

it doesnt seem like anyone does it on Waymarking...I cant upload pics..its confusing.

 

It works just fine, but might take a little getting used to.

 

Here's a link to the most recently added:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=d23f8e0b-2e43-4530-8f46-2e4fdae93ddd

[+Touchstone]

Given your admitted maintenance issues in your other thread, your proposal comes across as not so much how much you love Virtuals, but more of an effort to get out of maintenance obligations related to taking care of a physical cache. 

 

 

[+Meredith66]

8 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Given your admitted maintenance issues in your other thread, your proposal comes across as not so much how much you love Virtuals, but more of an effort to get out of maintenance obligations related to taking care of a physical cache. 

 

Ummmm.....I always go around checking my caches...especially after it rains...so dont assume..I'm simply saying MY CACHES ARE DISAPPEARING as it states....If I didnt wanna take care of them why would I be on here complaining that they are missing?  I have to go check on the to find that out...dont I??  

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Meredith66

[+Meredith66]

14 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

 

It works just fine, but might take a little getting used to.

 

Here's a link to the most recently added:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=d23f8e0b-2e43-4530-8f46-2e4fdae93ddd

these are in different countries...I'm in Florida

[+cerberus1]

16 minutes ago, Meredith66 said:

I really want them to come...ppl need to grow up.

 

Besides the good info by The A-Team,   IIRC Groundspeak was kinda busy with appeals over a "wow" factor,  taking time away from other projects as well.  

There's a couple examples of cache types that ended  because of people pushing the limits of the guidelines...

 

Ask virtual or webcam owners, and most are honest enough to tell you some are a real pain-in-the-can to maintain.

Just look at  many webcams and you can see by selfies and pics not even in that part of town,  that cachers create the issues.  

 

[+cerberus1]

43 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Locationless were migrated to Waymarking.com, not Virtuals. While Waymarks are a type of virtual item, they're completely unrelated to the Virtual cache type.

 

Yep. 

It says, right in  the  Help Center  ...  "Many Locationless Caches were converted into Waymarking categories".  

[+Harry Dolphin]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Ask virtual or webcam owners, and most are honest enough to tell you some are a real pain-in-the-can to maintain.

Just look at  many webcams and you can see by selfies and pics not even in that part of town,  that cachers create the issues.  

 

 

Tell me about it!  I delete about 30% of the logs on mine!

[+Harry Dolphin]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep. 

It says, right in  the  Help Center  ...  "Many Locationless Caches were converted into Waymarking categories".  

 

But, they are NOT Locationless Caches.  Just similar categories.  On Locationless Caches, only one cacher could log a particular location.  On Waymarking, everyone can log the same location.  Completely different concept.

[+Max and 99]

5 hours ago, Meredith66 said:

these are in different countries...I'm in Florida

Three on the first page are in the U.S.  That's just the first page. You can narrow the search to FL or whatever region you choose.

 

My search showed 32 Web cam waymarks in Florida.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Max and 99

[+Harry Dolphin]

And then there are Virtual Caches with: 

You CAN'T miss it, believe me. A good cache to take the family to, especially if it's your first one. No need to send a message to log this one, but feel free to post a selfie if you want.

[+Korichnovui]

I've only done a couple of virtuals but so far I've been underwhelmed.

I could see people making virtuals of "the tree in their front yard" if unrestricted publishing of virtuals were allowed.

 

Can you imagine a virtual cache power trail??  "No need to send a message to log this one... or the next one... or the next 2000 ones......."

 

Earthcaches have been much more interesting for me.

[+STNolan]

I have to concur as both a hider and a finder that Earth-caches seem to be an excellent substitute. The one gripe I will say (and its a small one) is that I wish they could expand the definition to include things outside of the earth-sciences. While I understand that the Earth-caches exist and started with a partnership with an earth sciences based website, I would love to be able to treat someone to a hydrology lesson, a biology lesson, atmospheric lesson or some other phenomena that doesn't necessarily fall within the confines of the Earth-Cache limitations. 

 

That being said, I love ECs, 11 hidden so far and counting!

[+baer2006]

8 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

Can you imagine a virtual cache power trail??  "No need to send a message to log this one... or the next one... or the next 2000 ones......."

You nailed it! This is, in my view, the single most important reason, why GS should never ever bring back virtuals "for everyone". Especially not with the current rule, that the minimum distance guideline doesn't apply to virtuals .

[+The A-Team]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 4:22 PM, baer2006 said:

You nailed it! This is, in my view, the single most important reason, why GS should never ever bring back virtuals "for everyone". Especially not with the current rule, that the minimum distance guideline doesn't apply to virtuals .

I can see it now. A 1000000-cache Virtual powertrail with caches spaced .001 minutes apart and a requirement to post a photo. "Finders" simply need to drive along the route with a dashcam recording images. Someone creates a GSAK macro to extract the relevant dashcam image for each cache and uploads everything for you. Presto, you now have over a million finds!

 

No, let's not bring back unfettered Virtuals. It would only take a few cachers with no restraint to spoil it for everyone else.

[+geodarts]

I don't think anyone would want unfettered virtuals.   But a single virtual as a premium member perk (even one given after reaching a five year status) would not be unfettered - especially if they were subject to distance or location restrictions.   Use them to celebrate national parks, world heritage sites, and the like.

 

A 1,000,000 virtual cache power trail is a more of a worst-case dream than anything that might be contemplated.  

Edited May 29, 2018 by geodarts

[+L0ne.R]

19 hours ago, The A-Team said:

A 1000000-cache Virtual powertrail with caches spaced .001 minutes apart 

 

That's what it's like in the M-game with respect to virtuals, so it would definitely happen here too if allowed. 

[+cerberus1]

21 hours ago, geodarts said:

I don't think anyone would want unfettered virtuals.   But a single virtual as a premium member perk (even one given after reaching a five year status) would not be unfettered - especially if they were subject to distance or location restrictions

 

 Wouldn't that cover most anybody?

I believe most have already seen that simply being a premium member doesn't mean they're gonna be okay unchecked. 

 

 

[+The A-Team]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

That's what it's like in the M-game with respect to virtuals, so it would definitely happen here too if allowed. 

Yep, the last time I checked in on that competing game a few years ago, I could see that there was a clear trend toward virtual-proliferation and away from the traditional style of play. I have no doubt that similar behaviour would occur here too if it were possible.

 

As for limiting Virtuals to one-per-PM, that's still not restrictive enough. How many PMs are there? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Can you imagine what would happen if 100000 new Virtuals popped up all over the world? Do you seriously believe that all of them will be at locations that are clearly deserving of it? Even with the recent limited release of up to 4000 new Virtuals, I've seen some pretty weak ones in my browsing. I wouldn't want to see the dregs that would result from a one- or two-order of magnitude increase over that.

[+briansnat]

On 5/25/2018 at 5:48 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

 

But, they are NOT Locationless Caches.  Just similar categories.  On Locationless Caches, only one cacher could log a particular location.  On Waymarking, everyone can log the same location.  Completely different concept.

Waymarking replaces both virtuals and locationless. 

Waymarking categories are similar to locationless caches.  With both locationless and Waymarking the cache/category owner says "Here is a category  (lighthouses for instance),   go out and find an example of one, take a photo and post the coordinates".   So the waymarker/geocacher goes out and finds a lighthouse, takes a pic and posts the coordinates.  The only difference is that the geocacher posts those coordinates in the log while the waymarker creates a waymark listing with them. Only one cacher can log a particular locationless location and only one waymarker can list that Waymarking location. 

The Waymarking listing created now becomes a form of a virtual cache.  "There is something cool/interesting at these coordinates. Use your GPS to get there, then log your visit on the page." 

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 5/31/2018 at 7:47 AM, The A-Team said:

Yep, the last time I checked in on that competing game a few years ago, I could see that there was a clear trend toward virtual-proliferation and away from the traditional style of play. I have no doubt that similar behaviour would occur here too if it were possible.

 

As for limiting Virtuals to one-per-PM, that's still not restrictive enough. How many PMs are there? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Can you imagine what would happen if 100000 new Virtuals popped up all over the world? Do you seriously believe that all of them will be at locations that are clearly deserving of it? Even with the recent limited release of up to 4000 new Virtuals, I've seen some pretty weak ones in my browsing. I wouldn't want to see the dregs that would result from a one- or two-order of magnitude increase over that.

 

So?  All those PMs and basic members can create traditional caches in crappy locations... so why can't they place 1 virtual?  Obviously the good ones will get lots of visits and the crappy ones not so much.  Or maybe just like the crappy trads, they will get visits too.  Who cares?  Who thinks they have the high and mighty moral position to determine who is better than who?

 

We only have to look at the giant balls up that was the 4000 virtuals release to see how badly it can go.  If all premium members pay their money, they should all get the same benefits.

[niraD]

5 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

If all premium members pay their money, they should all get the same benefits.

The recent Virtual Reward program was not a benefit of premium membership.

 

Or are you saying that Groundspeak can't give anything to anyone unless they first give it to all premium members? Because, y'know, "all premium members pay their money".

Edited June 6, 2018 by niraD
grammar

[+Isonzo Karst]

Quote

If all premium members pay their money, they should all get the same benefits.

 

In the Aug 2017 release of 4000 Virtual caches, Premium membership was clearly NOT part of the algorithm. 

[+funkymunkyzone]

13 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

In the Aug 2017 release of 4000 Virtual caches, Premium membership was clearly NOT part of the algorithm. 

 

17 hours ago, niraD said:

The recent Virtual Reward program was not a benefit of premium membership.

 

Never said it was.  Response was regarding the suggestion that each PM should get 1 virtual, and the subsequent counter suggesting that PMs can't be trusted to create quality virtual caches. 

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Response was regarding the suggestion that each PM should get 1 virtual

 

An interesting idea. I bet it would generate some good revenue for Groundspeak.

I think the numbers-style cache owners might consider $30 per Virtual, well worth the price and purchase multiple PM accounts.

Edited June 7, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 6/7/2018 at 1:43 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

An interesting idea. I bet it would generate some good revenue for Groundspeak.

I think the numbers-style cache owners might consider $30 per Virtual, well worth the price and purchase multiple PM accounts.

 

Hey, if someone wants to pump Groundspeak with $30 x the number of virtuals they want to own, spread over a bunch of accounts, I say go for it.  All the better for the game (for Groundspeak to have that additional income).  But I doubt there would be many who would do that.