+hzoi Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 16 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said: https://coord.info/GC8907R That was quick. And it already has a vacation log that predates publication! 1 Quote Link to comment
+allrounder Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 31 minutes ago, hzoi said: That was quick. And it already has a vacation log that predates publication! and it doesn’t meet the requirements of the cache... Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, allrounder said: 1 hour ago, hzoi said: That was quick. And it already has a vacation log that predates publication! and it doesn’t meet the requirements of the cache... Hadn't even checked. Of course it doesn't. We visited a few virtuals in Riga last month, and I noticed that many of them allow for using certitude to do a keyword check. I may look into this whenever we figure out what we're going to do for ours. We knew in advance we'd be getting one as new volunteers, but I still haven't narrowed it down. It'll be a while for us. Edited June 5, 2019 by hzoi Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 47 minutes ago, allrounder said: and it doesn’t meet the requirements of the cache... It's this sort of thing that makes me half-glad I missed out, as I always felt some trepidation about firstly coming up with a logging task that'd be sufficiently fudge-proof without being overly cumbersome and complicated, and then having to deal with those who'd still either intentionally try to circumvent it or just mess it up. 6 Quote Link to comment
+K13 Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 My hopes weren't high for receiving one this time. Two cachers in my map-dot, tiny town were awarded in version 1.0, so I didn't expect our area would get another this time around. Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 I made my V1 Virtual Reward a T5. I did this in part because I've owned a webcam back when, and currently own some Challenges that gather fake finds (some novice finds that don't get the challenge part, which doesn't bother me much - it's the "I qualify" logs not accompanied by signature that I consider fake) . The high T rating cuts back on that. Also because I really like the location. I don't want to be paranoid about it, but false logging is just a fact. My T5 still gathered a fake find (deleted)(cacher clearly NOT there). I have sympathy for the CO of the cache I posted. Log is almost right, and who wants to delete find of someone clearly was there? 1 Quote Link to comment
+Pork King Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 On 6/5/2019 at 9:03 AM, Isonzo Karst said: ...I have sympathy for the CO of the cache I posted. Log is almost right, and who wants to delete find of someone clearly was there? I deal with this a lot on my webcam cache. So many fake loggers will comb through the logs looking for instances of logs I did not enforce the logging requirements on (I miss one here or there). I feel like some at GC would like to find a reason to archive any remaining webcams because they can cause a lot or reports or complaints. I feel that I have to stay consistent for the sake of the cache. 3 2 2 Quote Link to comment
Blue Square Thing Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 On 6/4/2019 at 9:14 PM, Blue Square Thing said: Some were given to volunteers weren't they? They might well have a had a heads up and able to work things out beforehand. On 6/4/2019 at 9:42 PM, Keystone said: Which would make sense, IF the linked cache were owned by a volunteer who joined "the club" since round one of Virtuals. It isn't. I had advance notice that I'd be getting a virtual reward in the first batch, and it *still* took me nearly the whole year to get it published. Agonized over details. Thanks for clarifying that by the way. I'll admit to finding the ability to quickly knock out a virtual cache slightly odd - I think I'm with you in that I would have needed to really take some time, at least in part to see what else people were putting out. Quote Link to comment
Blue Square Thing Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 On 6/5/2019 at 11:59 AM, Hynz said: According to a swiss reviewer the actual chances were much better: Thanks for posting those numbers by the way - interesting to see the number who clicked the link and the spread. The first ones look to be concentrated in Europe - and in particular Luxembourg which has eight new virtuals already by my reckoning. The virtual that stands out for me so far is this: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC891EY_aux-premiers-instants-du-jour-le-plus-long (not in Luxembourg fwiw). That is worth moving quickly to set. 1 Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Pork King said: I deal with this a lot on my webcam cache. So many fake loggers will comb through the logs looking for instances of logs I did not enforce the logging requirements on (I miss one here or there). I feel like some at GC would like to find a reason to archive any remaining webcams because they can cause a lot or reports or complaints. I feel that I have to stay consistent for the sake of the cache. OT but HQ is certainly in no hurry to archive the disabled webcam in Ireland. Been disabled and not working for well over a year. Several NA's logged and HQ was even contacted. The sender of that email was more or less told to mind their own business. 1 2 Quote Link to comment
+TheLimeCat Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 5 hours ago, bflentje said: OT but HQ is certainly in no hurry to archive the disabled webcam in Ireland. Been disabled and not working for well over a year. Several NA's logged and HQ was even contacted. The sender of that email was more or less told to mind their own business. The past logs on that cache were an interesting read, so thanks for that. It's a bit off topic, but I'd like to voice my opinion on this webcam. It being a virtual cache type, I fail to see what problem is created by it being disabled rather than archived. It has no involvement in the placing of other caches and is clearly being monitored by the CO, who posted a note less than a month ago regarding the situation. I find it somewhat laughable that so many logs have been posted about it being an issue. Why? The only change that would come as a result of archival is that the blip on the map would disappear. A task that could be accomplished by simply ignoring the listing. 3 Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, TheLimeCat said: 20 hours ago, bflentje said: OT but HQ is certainly in no hurry to archive the disabled webcam in Ireland. Been disabled and not working for well over a year. Several NA's logged and HQ was even contacted. The sender of that email was more or less told to mind their own business. The past logs on that cache were an interesting read, so thanks for that. It's a bit off topic, but I'd like to voice my opinion on this webcam. It being a virtual cache type, I fail to see what problem is created by it being disabled rather than archived. It has no involvement in the placing of other caches and is clearly being monitored by the CO, who posted a note less than a month ago regarding the situation. I find it somewhat laughable that so many logs have been posted about it being an issue. Why? The only change that would come as a result of archival is that the blip on the map would disappear. A task that could be accomplished by simply ignoring the listing. but we're in Dublin and there's a WEBCAM, we WANTS it, we NEEDS it, my preciousssssss edit to add slightly more helpful commentary: I've seen this plenty of times. Plainly, there are just folks who absolutely don't want to miss the opportunity to bag one of these. Some will fake their photos or grab selfies to try to get the find. Others will hound the CO, as if it's their fault the 15 year old software on which the webcam was originally based is not functioning. But unless there's a replacement webcam that's right there at or near the same location that the CO can switch over to, like the traffic camera that's now in use on the Dupont Circle cam in DC (vice the sidewalk cam that was in use when I logged that one), the CO's options are limited: accept fake photo logs/selfies and hope a reviewer/HQ doesn't archive it; archive it themselves; or wait and hope that the cam owner brings it back online. I understand the frustration. These are a dying breed, and this is the only one in Ireland. And personally, I wouldn't mind getting it when we visit Dublin next week. But if the cam is down, the cam is down. Edited June 7, 2019 by hzoi 1 Quote Link to comment
K!nder Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 Is there any place where we have a list of How many new virtuals per country? 1 Quote Link to comment
Blue Square Thing Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 (edited) You can do a map compare on Project GC and then do a bit of counting. Mainly Denmark and the Benelux countries just now fwiw. Maybe Czechia as well. Edited June 8, 2019 by Blue Square Thing Quote Link to comment
+Gill & Tony Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 I didn't get one, but my son did. I'll be interested to see what he does with it. 1 Quote Link to comment
+Ms Maddy Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) On 6/9/2019 at 2:49 AM, K!nder said: Is there any place where we have a list of How many new virtuals per country? The local crackhead got one in round 2, so crime does pay ? Edited June 10, 2019 by Ms Maddy Quote Link to comment
+AnnaMoritz Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 On 6/8/2019 at 6:49 PM, K!nder said: Is there any place where we have a list of How many new virtuals per country? Interesting question. But I think we will only see how many Virtual Rewards 2.0 get published per country, not how many were given to a certain country/region. And I don't think it gets known how many owners per country opted in for a Virtual Reward 2.0. Virtual Rewards 2017-2018 were 1% of hiders of countries with more than 100 hiders and 1% of the pool formed by all other countries. Virtual Rewards 2019-2010 some 40,000-50,000 (according to various sources) owners were eligible, 18,527 opted in and most countries received more virtuals compared to VR 2017-2018 After one week there are a few countries that seem outstanding: Small Luxembourg already has 19 Virtual Rewards 2.0 (VR 2017-2018 not archived: 10). One might wonder how a country with such a small number of hiders (according to project-gc which only guesses the country of an owner) is able to accumulate so many VR2.0. Finland not a single Virtual Reward 2.0 until now (VR 2017-2018 not archived: 62) Are submissions piling up? It seems unlikely that there is no interest in Finland. And it seems unlikely that Finland got lost when "regions" were formed. The 'biggest' countries from the 2017-2018 Virtual Rewards seem to have significantly less this time. Only 12 new VR2.0 in the US (VR 2017-2018 not archived: 690) Germany 15 new VR2.0 (VR 2017-2018 not archived: 468) What about UK, Canada, France and Czechia that were next on the VR 2017-2018 list? After one week these countries have less than 10% of the number of VR 2017-018. But who knows, after one year we'll see. Some other countries (besides Luxembourg) like Denmark and Slovakia definitely seem to be 'winners' compared to Virtual Rewards 1.0, after one week they already have reached more than 2/3 of the number of VR 2017-2018. Virtual Rewards 2.0 one week after start: Virtual Rewards 2.0 (2019-2020) Virtual Rewards (2017-2018) 'old' Virtuals V+VR+VR2 Denmark 29 39 8 76 Netherlands 26 63 33 122 Belgium 21 45 7 73 Slovakia 20 30 50 Luxembourg 19 10 4 33 Austria 17 62 2 81 Spain 16 60 11 87 Germany 15 468 48 531 United Kingdom 15 144 183 342 Portugal 14 47 12 73 Canada 13 140 132 285 United States 12 690 3652 4354 Czechia 11 117 2 130 Norway 11 52 6 69 France 10 125 22 157 New Zealand 10 26 22 58 Sweden 9 79 9 97 Italy 9 25 23 57 Switzerland 8 43 1 52 Poland 7 34 1 42 South Africa 7 22 7 36 Australia 6 60 55 121 Ireland 6 10 15 31 Japan 5 22 11 38 Hong Kong 4 1 5 10 Estonia 3 5 2 10 Latvia 2 13 1 16 Greece 2 4 9 15 Croatia 2 7 3 12 Lithuania 2 9 11 Bulgaria 2 6 8 Singapore 2 1 2 5 Slovenia 1 13 14 Cyprus 1 6 7 Romania 1 6 7 Israel 1 3 1 5 Guernsey 1 2 3 Malaysia 1 1 1 3 United Arab Emirates 1 2 3 Georgia 1 1 2 Guadeloupe 1 1 Norfolk Island 1 1 1 2 2 Quote Link to comment
+thetomi Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 6 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said: Finland not a single Virtual Reward 2.0 until now (VR 2017-2018 not archived: 62) Are submissions piling up? It seems unlikely that there is no interest in Finland. And it seems unlikely that Finland got lost when "regions" were formed. A lot of people informed of getting lucky in the local Facebook geocachers' group so there's a bunch a-coming. I know for a fact that some have been submitted for review. The reason none have been published is that our reviewers are thorough. And I mean THOROUGH. Apparently all virtuals must be approved by all reviewers here which of course takes some time as some reviewers are less active than others. Also the rules are enforced much stricter here than elsewhere. So probably not all ideas pass on the first try (been there done that). They'll come out eventually in one form or other, we'll just wait 1 Quote Link to comment
+EggsTheBest Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 5 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said: What about UK, Canada, France and Czechia that were next on the VR 2017-2018 list? After one week these countries have less than 10% of the number of VR 2017-018. But who knows, after one year we'll see. I wonder if there was any geographical distribution on a provincial level in Canada (or state level in US). In Saskatchewan there was only one VR 2017-18, and we haven't heard anyone getting VR this year. Pretty sad, knowing there are only 6 virtuals in the entire province. 5 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said: Some other countries (besides Luxembourg) like Denmark and Slovakia definitely seem to be 'winners' compared to Virtual Rewards 1.0, after one week they already have reached I've already seen over a dozen people saying they got a VR in Lithuania, which means more VRs were awarded there this year than 2017-18. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 On 6/7/2019 at 6:31 AM, hzoi said: but we're in Dublin and there's a WEBCAM, we WANTS it, we NEEDS it, my preciousssssss edit to add slightly more helpful commentary: I've seen this plenty of times. Plainly, there are just folks who absolutely don't want to miss the opportunity to bag one of these. Some will fake their photos or grab selfies to try to get the find. Others will hound the CO, as if it's their fault the 15 year old software on which the webcam was originally based is not functioning. But unless there's a replacement webcam that's right there at or near the same location that the CO can switch over to, like the traffic camera that's now in use on the Dupont Circle cam in DC (vice the sidewalk cam that was in use when I logged that one), the CO's options are limited: accept fake photo logs/selfies and hope a reviewer/HQ doesn't archive it; archive it themselves; or wait and hope that the cam owner brings it back online. I understand the frustration. These are a dying breed, and this is the only one in Ireland. And personally, I wouldn't mind getting it when we visit Dublin next week. But if the cam is down, the cam is down. Which is exactly why after a year it just needs to be archived. 1 Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, bflentje said: On 6/7/2019 at 1:31 PM, hzoi said: These are a dying breed, and this is the only one in Ireland. And personally, I wouldn't mind getting it when we visit Dublin next week. But if the cam is down, the cam is down. Which is exactly why after a year it just needs to be archived. I'm guessing you made that clear already, and got a response. On 6/6/2019 at 5:58 PM, bflentje said: HQ is certainly in no hurry to archive the disabled webcam in Ireland. Been disabled and not working for well over a year. Several NA's logged and HQ was even contacted. The sender of that email was more or less told to mind their own business. Meanwhile, I concur with TheLimeCat's assessment: leave it alone. Unlike a film can in need of intervention, it's not blocking any other caches from getting published. I'd like to log it, sure, but I'm capable of hunting for other caches in Dublin, including (back on topic!) new 2.0 virtual caches like this one, and that's my plan. Edited June 12, 2019 by hzoi Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 1 hour ago, hzoi said: I'm guessing you made that clear already, and got a response. Meanwhile, I concur with TheLimeCat's assessment: leave it alone. Unlike a film can in need of intervention, it's not blocking any other caches from getting published. I'd like to log it, sure, but I'm capable of hunting for other caches in Dublin, including (back on topic!) new 2.0 virtual caches like this one, and that's my plan. Thanks for pointing out this one. I'm looking at booking flights soon for a trip to the UK in July and a layover in Dublin is an option. Even though I've been there twice previously I'd welcome another shot at getting Europes First and a new virtual. When the last batch of new virtual caches 1.0 came out the only one I found was one in Malmo, Sweden. I also agree with LimeCat's assessment. Although it's been a year, there is still the possibility that the web cam might be replaced/repaired. If it's archived, unlike a traditional cache, there will never be another web cam cache put in it's place. 1 Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 Some of Florida's webcams were disabled for over a year after the super hurricane season of 2005-6. Those beach cams (mostly) were on structures gone with the wind. Cities were cash strapped, with basic structure priorities that put boardwalks and webcams deep down on the list. Eventually some of them came back. They rode the disabled list waiting. No harm, no foul. Quote Link to comment
+AnnaMoritz Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Here an overview of countries/territories (from Groundspeaks list) sorted by continents/geographical regions (hope I got the regions right) that don't have a Virtual (old Virtuals, Veirtual Rewards 1.0 + 2.0) at the moment and many of them may lack owners that were eligible this this time. Some of the countries like San Marino, Andorra, Réunion or Tunisia even are well known travel destinations (and well visited by geocachers). So, just in case someone doesn't want to place the 9th Virtual cache within one km² in a now Virtual-dense area ... ... the guidelines say: Vacation Virtuals: The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. Placements near the cache owner’s home coordinates are encouraged. Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 3 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said: Here an overview of countries/territories (from Groundspeaks list) sorted by continents/geographical regions (hope I got the regions right) that don't have a Virtual (old Virtuals, Veirtual Rewards 1.0 + 2.0) at the moment and many of them may lack owners that were eligible this this time. Some of the countries like San Marino, Andorra, Réunion or Tunisia even are well known travel destinations (and well visited by geocachers). So, just in case someone doesn't want to place the 9th Virtual cache within one km² in a now Virtual-dense area ... ... the guidelines say: Vacation Virtuals: The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. Placements near the cache owner’s home coordinates are encouraged. It would appear Afghanistan does not have a virtual, either, for the record. (Note to my bosses, this does NOT constitute a request to return to Afghanistan.) 4 Quote Link to comment
+AnnaMoritz Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, hzoi said: It would appear Afghanistan does not have a virtual, either, for the record. (Note to my bosses, this does NOT constitute a request to return to Afghanistan.) Indeed, Afghanstan got lost from my list when splitting it. Maybe something else too. I never had heard the names of some of the island territories/countries before. Decolonization on one side and Groundspeaks classification on the other side. Never would have guessed what/where/how large Sark might be. Quote Link to comment
+AnnaMoritz Posted July 8, 2019 Share Posted July 8, 2019 Now slightly more than 1000 of the potential 4000 Virtual Rewards 2.0 seem to be published in 61 different countries/territories: Country/Territory VR2.0 Germany 57 Norway 54 Belgium 51 Netherlands 49 Portugal 48 Spain 47 United Kingdom 47 United States 47 Austria 46 Denmark 46 Finland 42 Slovakia 42 Canada 38 Australia 37 New Zealand 37 Czechia 36 France 36 Sweden 33 Switzerland 30 Italy 27 Poland 26 Luxembourg 23 South Africa 14 Estonia 11 Ireland 11 Japan 9 Lithuania 9 Croatia 7 Malaysia 6 Greece 5 Hong Kong 5 Romania 5 Slovenia 5 Latvia 4 Singapore 3 Brazil 2 Bulgaria 2 Cyprus 2 Guernsey 2 Israel 2 Jordan 2 Russia 2 South Korea 2 Taiwan 2 Andorra 1 Angola 1 Bermuda 1 China 1 Costa Rica 1 Egypt 1 Georgia 1 Guadeloupe 1 Guam 1 Hungary 1 Iceland 1 Mexico 1 Monaco 1 Norfolk Island 1 Serbia 1 Turkey 1 United Arab Emirates 1 2 Quote Link to comment
+Peasinapod Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 I’m looking for someone that was awarded one of the virtual cache opportunities lately to place a cache in North Korea. There are currently no caches in that country and really only one place to put one. A traditional cache is obviously not an option and a virtual at the Neutal Zone at Panmunjeom is. The site was recently on the news as President Trump crossed over the line into North Korea for a few minutes. The location is accessible while on a prearranged tour. A virtual cache with the only requirement being a photo of the finder “across the line” would be a great opportunity for someone out there. If you folks know anyone that has one of these recently awarded virtual slots and they don’t know where to place it.... Thanks. Quote Link to comment
+Max and 99 Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Peasinapod said: I’m looking for someone that was awarded one of the virtual cache opportunities lately to place a cache in North Korea. There are currently no caches in that country and really only one place to put one. A traditional cache is obviously not an option and a virtual at the Neutal Zone at Panmunjeom is. The site was recently on the news as President Trump crossed over the line into North Korea for a few minutes. The location is accessible while on a prearranged tour. A virtual cache with the only requirement being a photo of the finder “across the line” would be a great opportunity for someone out there. If you folks know anyone that has one of these recently awarded virtual slots and they don’t know where to place it.... Thanks. Wouldn't they have had to visit the location in the past couple of months? https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=899 That really limits who would be able to place one there. Edited July 10, 2019 by Max and 99 1 Quote Link to comment
+VAVAPAM Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, Peasinapod said: I’m looking for someone that was awarded one of the virtual cache opportunities lately to place a cache in North Korea Panmunjeon has restricted civilian access and requires a mandatory military escort. When I visited I had to sign a disclaimer that I would hold no one responsible if I were killed while visiting. Admittedly, that could up the excitement factor .... 1 Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 12 hours ago, Peasinapod said: I’m looking for someone that was awarded one of the virtual cache opportunities lately to place a cache in North Korea. There are currently no caches in that country and really only one place to put one. A traditional cache is obviously not an option and a virtual at the Neutal Zone at Panmunjeom is. The site was recently on the news as President Trump crossed over the line into North Korea for a few minutes. The location is accessible while on a prearranged tour. A virtual cache with the only requirement being a photo of the finder “across the line” would be a great opportunity for someone out there. If you folks know anyone that has one of these recently awarded virtual slots and they don’t know where to place it.... Thanks. It's funny you should mention that - I have (facetiously) moved the default coordinates for my unpublished virtual to the big blue hut in the Joint Security Area (not actually Panmunjom, which is where the armistice talks originally took place, but folks often refer to it as such). Unfortunately, my last visit was in 2014. And access aside, I don't think that it would be a good idea to place a virtual cache in such a highly sensitive area - no one needs to be the geocacher whose virtual somehow started World War III. So my main reasoning in moving the coordinates there was to antagonize @GeoDesertTiger in case they checked for unpublished caches there. 4 Quote Link to comment
+FinleysCacheCrew Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 I am very new to geocaching. Could someone explain the difference between; 1. Virtual rewards 2. Virtual cache I am finding it hard to find a clear distinction between the two. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, FinleysCacheCrew said: I am very new to geocaching. Could someone explain the difference between; 1. Virtual rewards 2. Virtual cache I am finding it hard to find a clear distinction between the two. The official blog has some good information. https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2019/05/introducing-virtual-rewards-2-0/ and the 2017 blog introducing the first Virtual Rewards https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/08/virtual-rewards/ The big difference was in how they were distributed. Edited July 13, 2019 by L0ne.R 1 Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 Virtual Rewards are Virtual Caches that some owners were allowed to hide in the last couple years. Virtual Caches include both the recent ones hidden as Virtual Rewards, and the old ones that were hidden in the first few years of geocaching. 1 1 Quote Link to comment
+AnnaMoritz Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 After 3 months there seem to be 1680 VR 2.0 published in 78 countries/territories. Germany 90 Norway 87 United States 86 Spain 78 Canada 74 United Kingdom 74 Belgium 73 Finland 73 France 73 Netherlands 73 Portugal 68 Sweden 68 Slovakia 67 Denmark 66 Czechia 65 Switzerland 65 Austria 63 Australia 56 New Zealand 56 Italy 43 Poland 43 Luxembourg 28 South Africa 24 Estonia 18 Ireland 15 Japan 12 Lithuania 11 Slovenia 10 Croatia 9 Latvia 9 Hong Kong 8 Romania 8 Brazil 7 Taiwan 7 Greece 6 Malaysia 6 Singapore 4 Russia 3 Andorra 2 Argentina 2 Bulgaria 2 China 2 Cyprus 2 Guernsey 2 Hungary 2 Iceland 2 Isle of Man 2 Israel 2 Jordan 2 Liechtenstein 2 South Korea 2 Turkey 2 Albania 1 Angola 1 Bermuda 1 Costa Rica 1 Dominican Republic 1 Ecuador 1 Egypt 1 Falkland Islands 1 Georgia 1 Guadeloupe 1 Guam 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 Macedonia 1 Mexico 1 Monaco 1 Norfolk Island 1 Palestine 1 Peru 1 San Marino 1 Serbia 1 Tajikistan 1 Tanzania 1 Thailand 1 Ukraine 1 United Arab Emirates 1 Vatican City State 1 Most countries are 'winners' as was advertised. I would expect all but two (considering countries with already more than 2 VR 2.0) Of the countries with more than 2 VR 2.0: VR 2.0 in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Estonia, Brazil, Taiwan, Luxembourg, Slovakia, New Zealand: already more than twice the number of VR 1.0 - 'big winners' VR 2.0 in Italy, Denmark, France, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, Finland, Netherlands, South Africa, Austria: already more VR 2.0 than VR 1.0 - 'winners' Japan, Latvia, Slovenia, Sweden, Australia, Russia: maybe late starters, less (2-11 less) VR 2.0 than VR 1.0, should reach/exceed the number of VR 1.0 in the end. Smaller 'winners' too. For some 'small' countries (less than 3 VR 2.0) like Bulgaria (2 VR 2.0 vs. 6 VR 1.0): I have no idea what will happen. Now to the 'biggest' countries in terms of (VR+) VR1.0: US, Germany as the two biggest, then UK, Canada, Czechia and France. UK, Canada, Czechia and France: VR 2.0 : VR 1:0 ~ 51-58%. Now 1680 of 4000 VR 2.0 are published = ~ 42% of VR 2.0 are published, therefore I think also these countries should/could end with more VR 2.0 than VR 1.0 That leaves two countries that seem to have significantly less VR 2.0 assigned than VR 1.0 (even wnehn only considering published VR 1.0, not considering the large number of unused VR 1.0 in these countries). US VR 2.0 86, VR 1.0 690, Germany VR 2.0 90, VR 1.0 468, that is 12% and 19% compared to VR 1.0 Assuming the proportions between the countries remain stable, then in the US the number of VR 2.0 might end at less than a third of VR 1.0, in Germany at less than 50%. These countries still will have the biggest number of virtual caches. Right now there are 4418 virtual caches ('old virtuals', VR 1.0, VR 2.0) in the US and 604 in Germany. I don't think that any other country than US, Germany, UK, Canada and maybe France will have more than 300 virtual caches at the end of VR 2.0. One of the 'big winners' seems to be also the 'export leader' to other countries without (many) own VR 2.0: It seems that slovak geocachers might have virtual caches also in Andorra, Georgia, Macedonia and San Marino. I hope that there will be many additional interesting VR 2.0 published during the next months. P.S. If someone in/visiting Austria doesn't know what to do with their VR 2.0, why not visit the ICUN Category Ib – Wilderness Area Dürrenstein in Lower Austria where you can look down at the ICUN Category Ia – Strict Nature Reserve Urwald (=primeval forest) Rothwald) and place your VR 2.0 there on mount Dürrenstein (on a demanding hike)? Geocaching policy sais 'no geocaching off the marked path(s)' (on the few marked paths in the wilderness area you are allowed to hike on your own without guide) , the summit cross should be an allowed place for a 'real' virtual cache as several marked paths lead there. Don't expect too many visitors, currently maybe 3-20 geocachers per year. 1 1 Quote Link to comment
+peter-tvm Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 What en excellent summary of the virtuals so far. Do you happen to have an update of the countries that have no virtual at all so far? It would be good to bring with me to the event about what to do with an virtual 2.0. Quote Link to comment
+AnnaMoritz Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 Countries/territories without Virtual Cache Pacific Ocean Africa/Atlantic Ocean Asia/Indian Ocean American Samoa Cabo Verde British Indian Ocean Territory Cook Islands Sao Tome and Principe Christmas Island Fiji Cocos (Keeling) Islands Nauru Africa Heard Island and McDonald Islands New Caledonia Niue Algeria Asia Northern Mariana Islands Angola Palau Benin Afghanistan Papua New Guinea Burkina Faso Armenia Pitcairn Burundi Azerbaijan Solomon Islands Central African Republic Bangladesh Tokelau Chad Bhutan Tuvalu Congo Brunei US Minor Outlying Islands Côte d'voire Cambodia Vanuatu Democratic Republic of the Congo Iran Wallis and Futuna Islands Djibouti Kuwait Equatorial Guinea Lebanon Central America Eritrea North Korea Ethiopia Pakistan El Salvador Gabon Syria Belize Gambia Timor-Leste Honduras Ghana Turkmenistan Guinea Uzbekistan Caribbean Guinea-Bissau Yemen Lesotho Anguilla Liberia Asia/Europe Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Libya Curaçao Madagascar Armenia Dominica Malawi Azerbaijan Haiti Mali Jamaica Mauritania Europe Montserrat Mozambique Netherlands Antilles Niger Moldova Saint Barthélemy Nigeria Sark Saint Lucia Rwanda Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Senegal North America/Atlantic Ocean Sint Maarten Somalia Trinidad and Tobago South Sudan Greenland Turks and Caicos Islands Sudan Saint Pierre and Miquelon Swaziland South America Togo Southern Atlantic Ocean Tunisia Colombia Western Sahara Bouvet Island French Guiana Zimbabwe Saint Helena Guyana South Georgia and the South Paraguay Africa/Indian Ocean Sandwich Islands Suriname Uruguay Comoros Venezuela French Southern and Antarctic Terr. Mayotte Réunion In my last list Afghanistan and Bangladesh were missing. There are many countries with only one or a few Virtual Caches. Otherwise put only a few countries have a lot (absolute numbers or in proportion to area) of Virtual Caches in Northern, Western, Southern and Central Europe and the US. Canada and Austraila have plenty of empty space with presumably interesting spots, but that also ist true of most other countries. To me it seems that a lot of VR2.0 (as also was the cas with V1.0) are concentrated at the big cities where a lot of geocachers live or visit and other parts remain almost empty. Does my hometown need 25 Virtual Caches - maybe not, but owners here prefer having more than 2000 logs per year over putting a Virtual Cache at a interesting/worthy location where a physical cache isn't allowed or practial or in a country/area where physical caches don't survive, but only would bring 20 or 200 visitors per year. 1 Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, AnnaMoritz said: To me it seems that a lot of VR2.0 (as also was the cas with V1.0) are concentrated at the big cities where a lot of geocachers live or visit and other parts remain almost empty. Seems to be a bit different here. There've been 15 VR2.0 caches published so far in New South Wales (Australia) and only 4 are in Sydney. There are 4 in the Blue Mountains, a couple around Wollongong, one in my region (the Central Coast) and the rest spread far afield. Curiously none have been published around Newcastle yet even though I know of quite a few people in that region who received them. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 Tracking users who receive them won't necessarily relate to where the Virtuals get published. Users could have an excellent spot in another country, or users could live somewhere with nothing they find of interest or worth placing a Virtual. I don't think we can know where virtuals have been given out except by HQ directly (since user home locations are not public), we can only see where Virtuals have been published. So even if a country (users who reside in it) gets say 2 virtuals, that country may still end up with no virtuals published within it, and that can throw off some stats. Additionally, a country where no users received a Virtual could still end up with a handful published within. Just something to keep in mind. Quote Link to comment
+elrojo14 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 On 6/5/2019 at 5:37 AM, barefootjeff said: It's this sort of thing that makes me half-glad I missed out, as I always felt some trepidation about firstly coming up with a logging task that'd be sufficiently fudge-proof without being overly cumbersome and complicated, and then having to deal with those who'd still either intentionally try to circumvent it or just mess it up. Here is what I did for my virtual 2.0 that seems to be working. https://coord.info/GC88Z3A Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 28 minutes ago, elrojo14 said: On 6/5/2019 at 10:37 PM, barefootjeff said: It's this sort of thing that makes me half-glad I missed out, as I always felt some trepidation about firstly coming up with a logging task that'd be sufficiently fudge-proof without being overly cumbersome and complicated, and then having to deal with those who'd still either intentionally try to circumvent it or just mess it up. Here is what I did for my virtual 2.0 that seems to be working. https://coord.info/GC88Z3A I see in one of the photos though that the person isn't making a C with their hand, so technically they didn't fulfil the logging requirement. So yeah, from this respect I'm still glad I missed out. Quote Link to comment
+CAVinoGal Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 3 hours ago, elrojo14 said: Here is what I did for my virtual 2.0 that seems to be working. https://coord.info/GC88Z3A Oooohhhhh, this is a Virtual I want to do! We live 10 miles from Benicia and the Camel Barns, and never knew they were there until geocaching! While traveling we came across GC7B935 in Arizona, and within a week happened across GCD530 back home in Benicia. Now there's another connected Virtual about the Camel Corps that is in a place we pass through a few times a year on our trips to southern CA and Arizona to visit family! Next time we are headed that way, this one is going to be on my list to do!! Quote Link to comment
+elrojo14 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, barefootjeff said: I see in one of the photos though that the person isn't making a C with their hand, so technically they didn't fulfil the logging requirement. So yeah, from this respect I'm still glad I missed out. LOL. You must be a lot of fun at parties. LOL. His buddy bricks was there on the same day and made a C and I can see their white truck in the same photos, so I am not sweating it. The bigger question is why do you care that one person took a selfie that day and didn't make the C? How does it change your experience? Or is it you think it will be too much work having to tell the guy to delete his log until he posts a photo of a C? Even though he had other photos of other nearby virtuals with his same face and same buddy on the same day? Again, you must be fun at parties. LOL. Edited September 21, 2019 by elrojo14 wanted to add more Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, elrojo14 said: The bigger question is why do you care that one person took a selfie that day and didn't make the C? How does it change your experience? I don't especially care as it's not my virtual, just making the point that one of the finders technically didn't satisfy the stated logging requirements so the CO then has to make a judgement call as to whether to let it pass. Perhaps in this one it's a minor thing, but the problem I see is if you let one pass you potentially open the floodgates for anyone to post any photo they like or even no photo at all. Some of the new virtuals I've seen seem to be plagued with cachers not following even the simplest of requirements, with their COs having to repeatedly threaten log purges. Not my idea of fun, so yeah, I'm kind of glad I didn't get one. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 4 hours ago, elrojo14 said: The bigger question is why do you care that one person took a selfie that day and didn't make the C? How does it change your experience? Or is it you think it will be too much work having to tell the guy to delete his log until he posts a photo of a C? Even though he had other photos of other nearby virtuals with his same face and same buddy on the same day? It doesn't make any different to him. He just assumed it made a difference to you. Since you require the C, I assume barefootjeff was just pointing out the missing C because he assumed if it was important enough for you to make it a requirement, you must have missed that he'd failed to fulfill it. If you're not really requiring the C, why don't you say the C is optional? Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 ALRs are a tricky thing (and by alr I just mean cache types that don't merely require signing a physical logsheet). Earthcache owners can't require exact, perfect answers, only that cachers show an effort to answer questions and perform tasks. But how does the spirit of that fine print translate to things like... webcam caches, where someone posts a selfie? Or virtuals, where someone doesn't perform the exact task as "required"? Well for Webcams there's no wiggle room, because they're not Earthcaches; they are a simple single task. Do it, or you can' log it, and COs who don't police their webcam caches for proper logging qualifications now risk having them archived. For Virtuals, it's quite similar; a task is to take a photo with specific instructions. You can't just allow any photo to be posted from the area, or it's just like posting a selfie at a webcam. Owners who show an ongoing habit of allowing logs from people who don't actually do the necessary tasks I'm guessing will also risk repercussive action from HQ. Question tasks? Likely the same as Earthcaches. A CO can't require precise accurate answers, but answers (and photos) need to show an intentional attempt to complete the required tasks. You can't answer questions with irrelevant random answers. You can't post selfies at webcams. You can't simply post a photo at gz without even attempting to do the required task. But you are welcome to allow it and see how far HQ will let it go before your cache can face repercussions. 2 Quote Link to comment
+frostengel Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) [Sorry, I do not get the quotation right. I make a closing quote-tag but it still won't work. :-(] 18 hours ago, thebruce0 said: For Virtuals, it's quite similar; a task is to take a photo with specific instructions. You can't just allow any photo to be posted from the area, or it's just like posting a selfie at a webcam. I wish you were right but you aren't. The logging requirement with the C and many others are optional. From the guidelines (https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=899) [I highlighted some parts]: Quote The purpose of the required logging task is to show that the geocacher was at the location. Anything other than that should be optional. Acceptable logging tasks: Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location. Tasks for the finder to fulfill at the location (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log). Photos of the geocacher at the location; a face cannot be required in the photo. Photos of a personal item at the location. Examples include a trackable or a piece of paper with the geocacher’s username. I can't remember the exact reason why I talked about this with a reviewer but he confirmed that a photo may be required but you can't force cachers to do anything special here. The photo's reason is only to prove that the cacher is at the right place nothing more. This takes away several creative ideas (and that's why it should be allowed) but it takes away some over creative ideas about people making fools of them (and that's why it may be good that this isn't allowed). But my experience tells me that most cachers try to fulfill the optional wishes by the owners and that's great! :-) (In my humble opinion forming a C is not that creative but I would do it, of course.) Edited September 22, 2019 by frostengel I had to correct wrong quotation. 1 Quote Link to comment
tom1996 Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 hour ago, frostengel said: I wish you were right but you aren't. The logging requirement with the C and many others are optional. From the guidelines (https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=899) [I highlighted some parts]: Could you explain the term should to me, please? Quote Link to comment
+frostengel Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 16 minutes ago, tom1996 said: Could you explain the term should to me, please? No, I can't. These words are really difficult as I have learned in the past. (Before I thought like you did.) But if I deleted a log of a cacher not fulfilling the task and he complained to Groundspeak I would not want to discuss this word with them. Quote Link to comment
Blue Square Thing Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 35 minutes ago, tom1996 said: Could you explain the term should to me, please? I don't understand why you've asked this question in response to that (and I'm a native English speaker unlike, I think, the person you were responding to). In this context, the meaning of should is perfectly clear. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.