Jump to content

Some data on the Virtual Rewards


PnavE_81
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

4000 Virtual rewards were given out last year and a whole year has passed for the lucky ones to actual do something with it. I noticed today there are still some being published although the year has passed, but I assume they were already in the review process at the cut off time. So these stats aren't final as a few more might still pop up...

 

4000 rewards where given and at the moment 2574 are claimed and one special one that was changed to an event.

Of the 1425 that weren't used, I have of course no data at all.

 

More than 25% of all of them are placed in the United States. Germany is second with almost 18%.  UK, Canada, France and Czechia are the only other countries with over a hundred Virtual Reward caches. Of the 86 countries in total, 27 of them have only 1.

 

The included graph also shows that in the first weeks after the anouncment a lot of them were published. Probably a lot of those where owned by a reviewer who had some previous knowledge and might have been planning for a while. The biggest peak however is in these last few days. Last week more than 300 new VR caches were published!

 

Of the 2575 VR caches, 12 are already archived. 1 of them is the previously mentioned event. Germany (4) and the United States (3) are the big two here again, but my own home country, The Netherlands also already has 2 archived ones. The 3 others are in Australia, Japan, and United Kingdom.

 

 

So what's the point of this topic? Well I just wanted to share some numbers I was having fun with myself for those who might be interested...

 

 

VR_per_land.PNG

VR_published.PNG

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, PnavE_81 said:

The included graph also shows that in the first weeks after the anouncment a lot of them were published. Probably a lot of those where owned by a reviewer who had some previous knowledge and might have been planning for a while. The biggest peak however is in these last few days. Last week more than 300 new VR caches were published!

I wonder if part of the reason there were a lot published in the early weeks after the announcement was because cachers hadn't yet realized how much "scrutiny" they would receive from other cachers once it was revealed who received an award or not.  I can imagine that some cachers received the award and thought of possible locations in the first month or so afterward, but then hesitated when they read/heard about how other cachers would wonder "How did CacherXYZ get a Virtual Award? They don't deserve one as much as me or as much as CacherABC."  It's not just this Forum, but also social media where such sentiments were shared.

 

 

52 minutes ago, PnavE_81 said:

Of the 2575 VR caches, 12 are already archived. 1 of them is the previously mentioned event. Germany (4) and the United States (3) are the big two here again, but my own home country, The Netherlands also already has 2 archived ones. The 3 others are in Australia, Japan, and United Kingdom.

The archival proportion outside the US is high.  Germany had 18% of the publications, but 33% of the archivals.  The other countries with archivals have an even higher proportion. The US is steady, with 25% of the publications and 25% of the archivals.  But really, the archival numbers are so small that the proportions don't mean much.  Just seems interesting.

 

 

1 hour ago, PnavE_81 said:

More than 25% of all of them are placed in the United States. Germany is second with almost 18%.  UK, Canada, France and Czechia are the only other countries with over a hundred Virtual Reward caches. Of the 86 countries in total, 27 of them have only 1.

Some countries had only a few Virtual Awards published, but those are also the only Virtuals in those countries.  For example, South Korea had 4 Virtual Awards published and those are the only Virtual caches in that entire country.  There were no pre-award Virtual caches.  Or maybe there were but they were archived.  I think this is a great aspect of the Virtual Award event.

Not sure how easy it would be, but I think it would be interesting to see a count of Total Virtual Caches for each country.  For example, South Korea would be 4  4. 

 

 

1 hour ago, PnavE_81 said:

So what's the point of this topic? Well I just wanted to share some numbers I was having fun with myself for those who might be interested...

Very interesting indeed.  Thanks for assembling the data.  Much appreciated!  :D

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, PnavE_81 said:

Of the 2575 VR caches, 12 are already archived. 1 of them is the previously mentioned event.

 

I think this is the most interesting statistic to me; I know of at least one that claimed a possible safety issue and another where the CO got fed up with people not following the virtual instructions. I'm curious about the virtual that was turned into an event. Do you have the GC Code for that cache? I'd be interested to hear the story of that one.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, STNolan said:

I think this is the most interesting statistic to me; I know of at least one that claimed a possible safety issue and another where the CO got fed up with people not following the virtual instructions.

Yeah, I saw one where there was a pair of seemingly 'fake' loggers that submitted an internet-accessed photo to prove their "visit".  The photo they posted was cropped oddly and did not look like the same sign that the other loggers posted. Anyway, the CO archived the Virtual 5 days later. I wonder if there was a deletion/appeals situation that happened in those 5 days that got the CO fed up.  The other "Found It" logs looked legitimate.

 

Another one was the CO complaining that cachers were getting the 'wrong' answers, but it's not clear that they were not actually there. That seems a bit harsh to me. And the CO even says that cachers need to send him answer before logging their finds, which doesn't seem right.

 

 

8 hours ago, PnavE_81 said:

4000 rewards where given and at the moment 2574 are claimed and one special one that was changed to an event.

When you say the one that was changed to an event, are you saying the cache icon was actually changed to an Event icon - or are you referring to a 'Christmas lights' Virtual that is only available for a short time each year?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, noncentric said:

 

When you say the one that was changed to an event, are you saying the cache icon was actually changed to an Event icon - or are you referring to a 'Christmas lights' Virtual that is only available for a short time each year?

An actual event...with eventicon and all

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, PnavE_81 said:

I have the gc code of course, but the CO might not want the attention. You can figure it out yourself if you really want to (like I did)

 

Looking through more and more archived virtuals and it's really sad how many of them ended because people couldn't follow instructions. 

 

36 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Another one was the CO complaining that cachers were getting the 'wrong' answers, but it's not clear that they were not actually there. That seems a bit harsh to me. And the CO even says that cachers need to send him answer before logging their finds, which doesn't seem right.


I found an archived one like this too; doesn't this go against the new policies? I'm not overly familiar with virtual cache policy, but on the EC side, you can no longer require a finder to hold off on logging until you can verify answers. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, STNolan said:
4 hours ago, noncentric said:

And the CO even says that cachers need to send him answer before logging their finds, which doesn't seem right.


I found an archived one like this too; doesn't this go against the new policies? I'm not overly familiar with virtual cache policy, but on the EC side, you can no longer require a finder to hold off on logging until you can verify answers. 

 

There's a difference between  send answers first, and "hold off on logging until"... verified.

The logging guidelines for Earthcaches and Virtuals  state, " Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner".

These logging guidelines apply to Earthcaches and Virtuals of all eras - ie, older boxless that might have published with, "wait for verification", cannot continue to enforce it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, noncentric said:

I wonder if part of the reason there were a lot published in the early weeks after the announcement was because cachers hadn't yet realized how much "scrutiny" they would receive from other cachers once it was revealed who received an award or not.  I can imagine that some cachers received the award and thought of possible locations in the first month or so afterward, but then hesitated when they read/heard about how other cachers would wonder "How did CacherXYZ get a Virtual Award? They don't deserve one as much as me or as much as CacherABC."  It's not just this Forum, but also social media where such sentiments were shared.

 

 

 

Nah...I think it's much simpler than that.  I'd say a lot of folks who got it were eager to get out there and post it quickly.  Then when the deadline approached, anyone left who hadn't submitted decided to hurry up and get it done.  The middle section, between November/December and maybe this May/June, was probably a more accurate representation of how frequently virtuals would normally be published if they were open for anyone.  I highly doubt many - if any at all - actually worried what others would think about them.  Personally, I wouldn't care less.

 

As for those that didn't use the reward...I imagine many, if not most, of them are like me.  They maybe log virtuals when they have the opportunity, but really don't care enough about them to bother creating one.  I imagine I would have been one of that group of 1400+ that didn't publish one.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, PnavE_81 said:

An actual event...with eventicon and all

 

I can assure you that no virtual rewards were converted to an event or anything else. There were a couple of regular cache submissions that snuck into the queue while the virtual rewards were being generated and that appear to have errantly received the "congratulations on your virtual reward" boiler log, but they were not seen or treated as virtual rewards in any other way.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

I can assure you that no virtual rewards were converted to an event or anything else. There were a couple of regular cache submissions that snuck into the queue while the virtual rewards were being generated and that appear to have errantly received the "congratulations on your virtual reward" boiler log, but they were not seen or treated as virtual rewards in any other way.

 

The case of the event indeed has to be a super coincidence. The event date was months after the first virtuals popped up.

 

Looking at the order how the virtuals were distributed I also would have bet this one had to be a former virtual. Funny case.

 

Regarding the other statistics I would think it is a bit early to resume because a few percent may still sit in review-queues or being worked on.

 

Example: Today there were 5 new virtuals published for Austria, a total of 60 new virtuals instead of 55 yesterday.

 

I was surprised that the number of actually published virtuals compared to awarded (taking first rough estimation ofrom project-gc from last year which seemed to be derived from the number of owners for each country, probably the assignment of owners to countries was guessing the country by caching activity and is not 100% the same as using home coordinates of owners, but close) virtuals differs a lot between countries.

 

From less than 50% to 100%, overall it might end somewhere at 65-67%.

 

It seems that countries that had no or only a few virtuals were more 'hungry' than countries that already (or still) have plenty of them.

 

Some virtuals were 'moved' to other countries and more exotic places, but to me it seems that for the bigger countries the actual 'loss' is maybe less than 3%. For a country with only one virtual that is moved elsewhere it would be 100% 'loss'.

Edited by AnnaMoritz
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

I can assure you that no virtual rewards were converted to an event or anything else. There were a couple of regular cache submissions that snuck into the queue while the virtual rewards were being generated and that appear to have errantly received the "congratulations on your virtual reward" boiler log, but they were not seen or treated as virtual rewards in any other way.

The first virtual reward is yours. The cacheid before it is a normal cache like all others before it as well. Adding 3999 to it using the 31 gc code alphabet I get the last virtual reward. The cache after that is also a normal traditional. The one event cache I mean is in that range and that's the only not virtual cache in that range that is published. (So no couple of caches that snuck into it)...The CO of that event also has 3 caches online, 2 of which have a really high FP count. 

All that got me to the conclusion of a change of cachetype.

 

Are you saying there were in fact only 3999 VR awarded? Or are there 3999 in one range of 4000 codes and and 1 seperate one? (That, as far as I can see, has not been published yet?)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, PnavE_81 said:

Are you saying there were in fact only 3999 VR awarded? Or are there 3999 in one range of 4000 codes and and 1 seperate one? (That, as far as I can see, has not been published yet?)

 

My apologies, I (as usual!) bungled my assessment. There were 4000 awarded, but one was edited to an event *prior to submission* and thus treated as an ordinary event from that point on. There was also one that was converted to a traditional prior to submission, but didn't make it through review and thus never published.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

My apologies, I (as usual!) bungled my assessment. There were 4000 awarded, but one was edited to an event *prior to submission* and thus treated as an ordinary event from that point on. There was also one that was converted to a traditional prior to submission, but didn't make it through review and thus never published.

 

So there's still one out there that never had a chance...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said:

Looking at the order how the virtuals were distributed I also would have bet this one had to be a former virtual. Funny case.

Do you see any logic in the way they are distributed? I didn't really see it...

 

nevermind...it has something to do with registrationdate of the user

Edited by PnavE_81
Link to comment
On ‎27‎-‎8‎-‎2018 at 12:56 AM, noncentric said:

Some countries had only a few Virtual Awards published, but those are also the only Virtuals in those countries.  For example, South Korea had 4 Virtual Awards published and those are the only Virtual caches in that entire country.  There were no pre-award Virtual caches.  Or maybe there were but they were archived.  I think this is a great aspect of the Virtual Award event.

Not sure how easy it would be, but I think it would be interesting to see a count of Total Virtual Caches for each country.  For example, South Korea would be 4  4. 

Just collected all old virtual-id's (including archived ones) from project-gc (assuming they are all on there)... will see if I can have some fun with those as well..probably sometime later this week

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I know of a cacher who effectively quit the game and archived almost all of his caches, keeping only a very few that had tons of favorite points. He was angry at Groundspeak over several issues (mostly the usual stuff you hear grumbling about, so he decided to go play Pokemon Go instead).  This was just before the virtual rewards program started up and since he now looked pretty much perfect according to the scoring system (every single active cache has tons of favorites and no maintenance issues!), of course he got a virtual reward, which he will never publish.

 

Link to comment
On 8/28/2018 at 5:04 PM, not2b said:

I know of a cacher who effectively quit the game and archived almost all of his caches, keeping only a very few that had tons of favorite points. He was angry at Groundspeak over several issues (mostly the usual stuff you hear grumbling about, so he decided to go play Pokemon Go instead).  This was just before the virtual rewards program started up and since he now looked pretty much perfect according to the scoring system (every single active cache has tons of favorites and no maintenance issues!), of course he got a virtual reward, which he will never publish.

 


He actually published his Virtual Reward.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Some Virtuals are still trickling in. One got published near me yesterday.

 

As I understand it, as long as something was submitted before the deadline, the Virtual Reward is still alive.  For those that were archived by HQ, the COs didn't do anything.

Link to comment

There might be still up to 2% of new virtuals in queue or being worked on and there are still weeks left for them. So it is too early for a summary.

 

From what I see (may change every minute and I might have got something wrong):

 

81.4% of the still active 4513 old virtuals are in the US, UK 4.1%, Canada 2.9 % and Australia 1.2%. Only 10.4% of old virtuals are not within these four countries.

 

Now more than 60% of the new virtuals are outside these four countries.

 

The US still have the highest number and pecentage also of new virtuals (677 or 25.9 %), but this is far less than what project-gc expected (1358 or 34%), roughly half of the expected number. *)

 

*) I assume project-gc derived their numbers from their perceived number of active owners per country which might differ from Groundspeak's '1% of the owners' as project-gc seems to guess which country a cacher 'belongs to' from caching activity and the +-400 volunteers also included in the 4000 might not be evenly spread over countries.

 

I would think that about +-2% of the 'bigger' (more than 50 expected new virtuals) countries' new virtuals might have been transferred to other countries, partly neighbouring ones, but also worldwide to other continents. For small countries with only a handfull or less new possible virtuals a potential 'loss' could result in high(er) percentage.

 

The number of already archived new virtuals per country has no relevance to me compared to the suspected +-1300 of all new new virtuals that were never published before being archived. These archived before published obviously can't be the same percentage for all countries. Czechia and Portugal might end at 10 and 5 new virtuals that were archived before publish,  the US might end at far more than 600 new virtuals (awarded for geocachers in US) that were archived before published  - if project-gc didn't completely screw up their numbers.

 

The picture doesn't seem too unlikely given the various comments in forums and what I heard elsewhere. If there are plenty old ones left, maybe there is less pressure and less interest than in countries that had no virtuals at all or only a few ones. In some countries the craze is bigger regarding different and rare cachetypes and geocachers generally are more fanatic than elsewhere.

 

Sept5.jpg

Edited by AnnaMoritz
lang
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

A (to me) also interesting theme: elevation

 

Height data used by GSAK or project-gc (SRTM1 data has ONE measure point per 30x30 meters, SRTM3 data has ONE measure point per 90x90 meters) often show too low elevation for mountain tops, so this can be only approximately correct even if  without further mistakes:

 

elevation.thumb.jpg.a5ec8db1fe552b4950e9374c73e7cd66.jpg

 

Up to now there are 10 new virtuals above 10000 ft evelation (3048 m) and 48 remaining old ones (3 new ones and 42 old ones in US).

Between 6666 and 10000 ft elevation (2031 - 3048 m) there are 29 new ones and 204 old ones (15 new ones and 191 old ones in US).

 

What I personally see as chances 'lost' regarding to elevation::

 

A virtual at the Dead Sea (lowest point on land) or Sea of Galilee or Jericho. There are old virtuals significantly below sea level in the US in Death Valley and Salton sink. Other locations deep below sea level won't attact hundreds of visitors, but still a virtual seems the best cache type there (not every cacher is interested in complicated earth cache questions) in areas with geocaching tourists and no local geocachers like Siwa (Egypt), Caspian Depression etc.

 

As Austrian I certainly miss an Austrian virtual above 3000 m as Austria has far more than 900 mountains above 3000 m. One of the recipients of a virtual considering one at a higher mountain was hindered by an injury to visit a higher mountain during the given period and had to bring a virtual at 750 m that he could access. On the other hand, one traditional was published on the highest mountain in Austria (Großglockner, 3798 m) in National Park Hohentauern recently where local alpine guides don't agree to the placement at the summit cross (also due to security concerns and the circumstances at the summit) but would agree to a virtual that asks for a photo. The local alpine guides are not the land owner and not the National Park, so maybe it doesn't matter too much whether they want a physical geocache placed there only with permission of land owner and National Park.

 

Virtuals definitely are less intrusive than physical caches, be it at summit crosses, in caves, at protected sites, historic remains and more.

 

Generally I would like to see the virtuals spread more evenly around the world. The new ones made it at least better. More countries now have a virtual. A few percent where transferred to countries without too much local geocachers.

 

Still many virtuals are concentrated in and around cities with many geocachers leaving most of the remaining country without virtuals (there are some exeptions, but not too many).

 

Do I 'need' all of the 9 new virtuals within less than 1 mile radius around me? No, I personally would prefer some of them at other places 'deserving' them.

 

There are still many countries without a single virtual cache. And there are countries with almost no local cachers, but many tourists (and geocachers visiting) where physical caches don't survive long because locals don't understand or don't like geocaching and non-physical caches wouldn't disturb them.

 

Link to comment
On 9/5/2018 at 3:30 AM, AnnaMoritz said:

81.4% of the still active 4513 old virtuals are in the US, UK 4.1%, Canada 2.9 % and Australia 1.2%. Only 10.4% of old virtuals are not within these four countries.

 

Now more than 60% of the new virtuals are outside these four countries.

This metric, along with your data table, is most interesting to me because most countries now have more 'new' virtuals than 'old' virtuals. The exceptions are the US and UK.

For example, 85% of all virtuals in France are 'new' ones, 94% in Finland are 'new', 65% in Netherlands are 'new', etc.

Link to comment

Probably not a causal relationship, but not only the percentage of actual new virtuals out of possible new virtuals seems far higher for countries that had no or only a few old virtuals, but also the craze for visitng the new ones is far higher in these countries and by geocachers from this countries.

 

Data is from yesterday at project-gc, so there might be some/more than a few logs missing due to cachers logging later and project-gc's being 1-2 days 'behind', but that should affect all caches likewise and still give a general overview (even including mistakes I probably have made)

 

There are 14 countries with new virtuals that already had more than 1000 visitors, Germany 31, Czechia 19, Austria 5, France 4. Two new virtuals with more than 1000 visits in USA, UK, Belgium, Denmark, one in Spain, Poland, Slovakia, Ireland, Estonia and Liechtenstein.

 

One new virtual in Czechia already has more than 4000 visits. More than 2000 visits: Czechia 8 new virtuals, Germany 7 new virtuals, Austria 2 new virtuals.

 

There were 29 countries with new virtuals that already have more than 500 visitors, again Germany is leading (82), followed by Czechia (41).

 

While 1.3% of new US virtuals already had more than 500 visitors, compared to Czechia with 35.3% of all new virtuals and more than 15% in these 'bigger' (>=40 new virtuals) countries: Finland, Germany, Belgium, Austria and also high percentage in 'smaller' (<40 new virtuals) countries like Denmark, Slovakia, Latvia and Luxembourg and 'smallest' countries (<10 new virtuals) like Iceland, Estonia, Liechtenstein, Monaco, UAE and Vatican.

 

In addition I looked at the number of new virtuals with more than 100/50/20/10/5 visits since Aug 25, 2018 (and % new virtuals with more than 100/50/20/10/5 visits since Aug 25, 2018) to take into account also countries with larger portions of late submissions and publish dates (for example 15% of new virtuals in Austria were published during the last month, the last one five days ago, there are also other late submission countries around). And it is still 'better caching season' in large parts of northern hemisphere.

 

There are 17 countries with new virtuals that had more than 100 visitors since Aug 25, 2018, Germany 19, Czechia 9, Slovakia 6 (MEGA-Event), Austria 5, Norway 3. Two new virtuals France, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Poland, one UK, Netherlands, Latvia, Ireland, Estonia. Surprisingly USA 0.

 

In many 'bigger' and 'smaller' countries more than 15% of all new virtuals got at least 50 visits since Aug 25, 2018, from the 'bigger' ones Czechia 27.6%, Finland 17.7% Austria 17.5%, Norway 17.3%, Germany 15.9%, Belgium 15.2%, for 'smaller' ones the percentage is even higher. Lowest rate is for US, only 1%.

 

In many 'bigger' and 'smaller' countries more than 75% of all new virtuals got at least 5 visits since Aug 25, 2018, from the 'bigger' ones Finland 100%, Germany 92.7%, Netherlands 91.9%, Czechia 91.4%, Austria 90.5%, Norway 90.4%, from the smaller ones 100% for Poland, Latvia, Lituhania and Estonia. Even T5 diving caches like https://coord.info/GC7B7XG had 5 visits during the last weeks.

 

Less than 70% of all new virtuals with at least 5 visits since Aug 25, 2018: Australia (28.3% probably not the best season and always too much distance in every direction ;) ), Spain, USA (54.5%), Italy and UK . 

 

Only for Germany and Netherlands more than 10 old virtuals don't seem to correspond to lower visit rates on new virtuals. 

 

In Northern, Western and Central Europe (and bigger numbers of active cachers there) new virtuals seem extremely popular within various parts of the caching community. Here you can notice that geocachers from various countries are planning extended and large detours to cover as many regions in their own country as possible and as many countries as possible and to visit as many virtuals as possible, that looks like a real hype.

 

Virtuals lead them to all parts of the country if there is a virtual, and also to other countries in large numbers to an extend no traditional or other cache type could achieve (except perhaps GIGA and MEGA).

 

From this perspective (number of visits) the new virtuals are a big hit in many countries.

 

For 'smaller' and 'smallest' countries in other continents it isn't easy or seems almost impossible to evaluate what the numbers can tell. Looking at United Arab Emirates ' Burj al-Khalifa already having 792 visitors there seems plenty 'audience' also for more exotic places in the world.

 

Too bad the new virtuals weren't spread in larger numbers also into regions with fewer or almost no active owners where new virtuals probably would be appreciated more (by the small community and also by many geocachers from abroad) than obviousliy is the case in a few countries with many (but less used) opportunities.

 

virts-visits.thumb.png.8d562e46cfbe9e5a7d2b6456642d6b41.png

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Interesting stats!

I think taking active geocachers into the account, would give even more precise data of which virtuals are getting more traction.

Countries with bigger population and/or more tourists will always have higher numbers. Being from Lithuania I can guarantee that new virtuals got lots of attention even though the latest table doesn't really say so.

In Lithuania it's not common for ANY type of cache to get 500 visits (especially within a month) because last month there were only ~2k active cachers in the whole country (from Project GC).

Link to comment

Lituhania is one of the 'smaller' countries regarding virtuals, but all virtuals had at least 5 visits during the last weeks and almost 90% at least 20 visits during the last weeks.

 

One would think that the number of owners and as a result the number of potential new virtuals is more or less proportional to the number of active geocachers.

 

Maybe it is 1 virtual for 500+ active geocachers (at least one find this year), maybe 1:250 for what you call active geocachers and 1 virtual per 33 very active geocachers.

 

So if one country had 500 potential new virtuals and another 50 it isn't unlikely that it also has ten times more geocachers (between 8 to 12 times more) than the other.

 

If a country is small regarding area it is more likely most interested geocachers visit the virtuals that are possible regarding DT.

 

A lot of owners/virtuals/geocachers in a country that covers only a smaller area and additionals tourists - that allows for 4000+ visits in one year like in Prague, Czechia, of course only if the geocachers are interested in virtuals.

 

For virtuals that are mostly visited by tourists like Burj al Arab in UAE or Machu Picchu it depends on the number of tourists how many visits a virtual will get, some have surprisingly high numbers.

 

 

 

Edited by AnnaMoritz
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...