Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
Geocaching HQ

Introducing Virtual Rewards 2.0!

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

That was quick.  And it already has a vacation log that predates publication!  :rolleyes:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

That was quick.  And it already has a vacation log that predates publication!  :rolleyes:

 

and it doesn’t meet the requirements of the cache...

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, allrounder said:
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

That was quick.  And it already has a vacation log that predates publication!  :rolleyes:

 

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 by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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? 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (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 by hzoi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is there any place where we have a list of How many new virtuals per country?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't  get one, but my son did.  I'll be interested to see what he does with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (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 by Ms Maddy

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 ;)

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (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 by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

novirtuals.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
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.

novirtuals.jpg

 

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.)

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (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 by Max and 99
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 ....

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  :laughing:

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (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 by L0ne.R
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

image.png.0ffa8a990252e333a3d8a5699be1ca2d.png

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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!!

Share this post


Link to post
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 by elrojo14
wanted to add more

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post

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. :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

[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 by frostengel
I had to correct wrong quotation.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, tom1996 said:

 

Could you explain the term should to me, please? B)

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, tom1996 said:

 

Could you explain the term should to me, please? B)

 

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.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

×
×
  • Create New...