Virtual Caches

[+Glenn]

<continued from post above>

 

The problem is not everyone can agree on what WOW is. Just take a look at WM. There are categories that make me roll my eyes but other find just fascinating and vice versa. WOW is just too subjective for a website as flat as GC.

Good point. So Waymarking is doomed as well.

Not so. Remeber I said that WM places waymarks in catagories. So if your WOW is waterfalls then you can easily find just waterfalls. If your WOW is McDonalds restraunts then you can easily find just McDonalds restraunts. GC can't do this. I can't help thinking how usefull a Walmart parking lot micro catagory on GC would be.

 

One of the things that makes Waymarking different is that I can ignore catagories that don't intrest me. With GC I usually had to visit the location of the virtual before I even know what type of thing I was being brought to see.

No difference. I can do the same with GC, ignore caches that do not interest me. As to categories, it would have been simpler to add them to the existing model rather than create one from scratch and go through the pin of trying to force the issue.

It is interesting that you say that because geocaches would fit very well as a catagory on WM.

 

GC became popular because it was not contrived. It just started out as something simple and the participants were responsible for it's growth. GC.COM grew because it simply responded rather than try to mold things.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, was created for reasons unknown (I suspect a minority of vocal whiners) and now there is misplaced energy being spent on "selling" it.

 

When all is said and done, it is there until it is not. The it is not part will come dependant on how many it attracts. Since sites like Waymarking are already common on the web, those which collect waypoints of interesting places, it places Jeremy and company in a position of having competition on the level they have not experienced to this point.

 

I wish them well, however to attract me and apparently some others in this thread, it still has a long way to go and no, it is not my responsibility to swim upstream trying to improve it.

 

The answer to the original post is clear. IMO virtuals should have remained on gc.com.

I am glad that GC has "gone back to its roots". In hindsight virtuals did not belong on GC. Virtuals are simply not caches. I am glad that TPTB at GC desided to come up with a new alternative website instead just dropping virtuals. Because WM is being created by the same people that brough us GC I know that they will listen and be responsive to their users.

 

If anyone is interest WM Beta v2.0 is about to be released.

[+bigcall]

I'm reaching back a little on this thread but it struck me that there is seemingly very little historical geocaching significance wrt to virtuals. Many of us know the the oldest caches in our area or in the country, but my quick reseach shows that many of what are now "old" virtuals were once a traditional cache that was converted at some point.

 

I'm curious now as to the history of virtuals. When was the decision made to list them? What was the first "true" virtual? (This cache in WA looks like it may have been the first?)

 

I bring this up because if there is little interest then I'm not surprised that they have been shuffled off to another location. Anyone else have any thoughts?

[+swizzle]

I tried setting up a waymark and it got denied because I didn't post a pic and I didn't "post it to the Waymarking site". I still don't have an answer as to where, why or how to "post it to the site" and why a pic is required. I sent a reply to the denial e-mail that I recieved 3 or 4 days ago and still have no reply to my questions. To me it seems like a lack of commitment on the part of the reviewer(s). It may be that they are really busy or on vacation or whatnot, but 3 or 4 days seems like more then enough time to answer 2 questions. Swizzle

[+cache_test_dummies]

I sent a reply to the denial e-mail that I recieved 3 or 4 days ago and still have no reply to my questions. To me it seems like a lack of commitment on the part of the reviewer(s). It may be that they are really busy or on vacation or whatnot, but 3 or 4 days seems like more then enough time to answer 2 questions.

When a waymark is declined, the email you receive is sent from "noreply@Waymarking.com". If you simply replied to that email, rather than to the email address of someone in the category group, nobody would have seen your reply.

 

I still don't have an answer as to where, why or how to "post it to the site" and why a pic is required.

Posting a picture to a waymark is pretty straightforward, but if you are having trouble doing so, post a topic in the Waymarking forums and someone will help you with the process. Or PM me and I'll help you.

 

In response to your question of "why a pic is required", it's up to the category owners whether or not a picture is required. Category owners like pictures to be included in waymarks for a variety of reasons, but I like them because it greatly enhances the individual waymark page, and shows proof that you actually went to the site (and therefore presumably are able to included fairly accurate coordinates).

[+swizzle]

Category owners like pictures to be included in waymarks for a variety of reasons, but I like them because it greatly enhances the individual waymark page, and shows proof that you actually went to the site.

 

I figured that it would be up to the individuals that visit the waymark to post a pic, not me. I am able to add a pic just not at this point in time. I still need to go back to the area and take a pic and then go to walmarts put it on a disk and then back to the computer that I'm borrowing to try to add the pic. I've done it before but its a big pain. That's why when I tried to enable the waymark I asked 2 questions to prove that someone had been there. Not everyone has a digital camera. I just think Waymarking could be more fun if it didn't require the pics. Geocaching doesn't require a photo with its caches and still pics get posted. I think it should be optional. I can agree that certain areas would be much better to use the pics as proof but when you have plaques or something man made that you can ask a question about then why isn't that acceptable? I feel that if a place is popular enough then the pics will come on there own. People always see something exciting on the trail on the way in and out and seeing a 100 pics of the same rusty car or resturant seems kinda like a waste of resources. Swizzle

[+cache_test_dummies]

Not everyone has a digital camera. I just think Waymarking could be more fun if it didn't require the pics. Geocaching doesn't require a photo with its caches and still pics get posted. I think it should be optional.

You aren't alone in this regard. There has actually been a fair amount of discussion about this very topic in the Waymarking forums. You might be interested in taking a look at this one: Comrades! Join The Camera-less Revolution!

[+swizzle]

I went back to the waymark that I created and e-mailed the reviewer directly to see if I can't get this resolved. Swizzle

[+mtn-man]

I'm reaching back a little on this thread but it struck me that there is seemingly very little historical geocaching significance wrt to virtuals. Many of us know the the oldest caches in our area or in the country, but my quick reseach shows that many of what are now "old" virtuals were once a traditional cache that was converted at some point.

 

I'm curious now as to the history of virtuals. When was the decision made to list them? What was the first "true" virtual? (This cache in WA looks like it may have been the first?)

 

I bring this up because if there is little interest then I'm not surprised that they have been shuffled off to another location. Anyone else have any thoughts?

I actually think this all goes back to Washington DC. Without checking every state and country, the first true Virtual cache that I can find is Capital View, GCDE1, placed June 27, 2001. I remember visiting it back in 2001 right after 9-11. Looking back to the very first cache in DC, I found Rock Creek Park, GC97, placed back on October 27, 2000. Looking at the logs, you see a post on March 31, 2001 by jandkl:

I visited my cache today, and as Seamus already found out, it is gone. My theory is that the NPS removed it, because that has also happened to a cache about 50 miles south of mine. If that is true, they could have at least had the courtesy to email me or post it on the website, and state their reasons for doing so.

His cache was the first cache removed by the NPS maybe? My guess is that in response to the NPS removal of these caches, the virtual cache was born. I know that when I started reviewing (and I think that was winter/spring of 2002), I know we were not allowed to post caches on NPS property. My first hide was on NPS property, February 2001, but I had permission. It stayed there for three years or so.

[+Prime Suspect]

[+Glenn]

This thread had no new posts in almost 24 hours. It was just about to drop off the first page. Then you post an image of someone beating a dead horse. Bringing it to the top of the forum and back in to the spotlight. How ironic.