Virtual Caches

[+Team Gryarvold]

I know this has been discussed before but I just wanted to add my two cents.

 

I thoroughly enjoy virtual caches and the ability to have them load right along with regular caches.

 

Has there been any thoughts or discussions to bringing them back into the fold?

[+Nalarangka]

Too bad the Original Poster does not have the right to delete logs...cause you could probably use it when all the dead horse people get to this thread.

 

Now to answer your question...no they will not be brought back. There is now a whole website devoted to virtuals...Waymarking.com

[+Kit Fox]

I know this has been discussed before but I just wanted to add my two cents.

 

I thoroughly enjoy virtual caches and the ability to have them load right along with regular caches.

 

Has there been any thoughts or discussions to bringing them back into the fold?

 

New threads pertaining to bringing back Virtual caches are scheduled to run every couple of weeks.

 

Why no new virtual caches

 

Virtual Caches no longer accepted.

 

Virtual Caches, Fixed location sites

 

Virtual Caches

 

Vote to bring back virtual/earth/cam caches?

 

Bring Back Virtual Caches

 

Virtual Caches what a shame

 

Virtual Caches: Let's pretend a minute.

 

Virtual Caches

 

Feel Free to look at all 11 pages referencing virtuals.

[+Team Gryarvold]

I guess this is what happens when you haven't visited the forums for many moons. You get way behind and then you don't have eons to catch up on the postings. So then when you ask a simple question about something that you really like about caching snide comments come back at you.

 

Yes I know about the Waymarking.com but to me that's not the same thing.

 

Nuff said...as previously mentioned this is a DEAD HORSE OR LET'S BURY IT.

 

I APOLOGIZE FOR LETTING IT REAR IT'S UGLY HEAD AGAIN.

 

 

I GUESS I'LL GO AWAY FOR ANOTHER SEVERAL MONTHS AND SEE WHAT TRANSPIRES THEN...

[+Walts Hunting]

Darn pulled the dead horse away before i located my stick.

[+wimseyguy]

Nothing really snide about any of the replies so far. But leave this thread active for a bit longer and you are bound to collect some real gems.

[+Castle Mischief]

Nothing really snide about any of the replies so far. But leave this thread active for a bit longer and you are bound to collect some real gems.

 

Not to be snide, but of all the equine corpses in the field, this one might be the most putrefied. The events that lead up to the death of the virtual are years old and there is no indication from anybody that TPTB would consider bringing them back.

 

Discussion has its merits, but it's kind of a moot point.

[+mpconnick]

Even though it's apparently a dead horse (I haven't been in the caching community long), here are my two cents.

 

I get the impression from looking at the Waymarking site that Waymarking is, well, a failed spinoff. I've looked at many waymark listings and a great number of them have never been logged. Some that you might expect to easily have lots of logs just because they are touristy don't have many visits (e.g., Graceland).

 

It's a shame, because there are some interesting things ignored because they are Waymarks rather than Virtual Caches. Virtual Caches in my area have many more recent visits than the Graceland waymark example cited above.

 

Also, to me, it's odd that Virtual Caches are out but Earth Caches are in. They are conceptually the same thing. Yes, I know about the Earth Cache rules and process, but that doesn't change the conceptual match with Virtuals.

 

I realize some people aren't into Virtuals. As a general rule, I personally prefer Traditional Caches over Virtuals. But, there are some interesting Virtuals (and Waymarks). If I see an interesting Virtual, I'll go visit it. But, I'm not likely to bother with waymarks. Point being, if you don't like Virtuals, it's easy enough to filter them out to ignore them. If you like waymarks, it's a pain to incorporate them into geocaching.

 

It's a simple case of artificial separation that confuses the market. Marketing 101 stuff.

 

Note that I'm not advocating that some of the absurd things that are considered waymarks on Waymarking.com become Virtual Caches. In reality, I think there should be something similar to Earth Caches in terms of being of a high quality that can still be created as a Virtual Cache. A wifi hotspot would not qualify. A historical location of recognized significance could.

Edited July 16, 2009 by mpconnick

[+Kit Fox]

Also, to me, it's odd that Virtual Caches are out but Earth Caches are in. They are conceptually the same thing. Yes, I know about the Earth Cache rules and process, but that doesn't change the conceptual match with Virtuals.

 

The owners of the site decided that virtual caches aren't caches. At one time all Earthcaches were archived and transferred to Waymarking also. One of the biggest arguments against keeping Virtuals when they were still being published (late 04- 05 I believe), was that land managers preferred the placement of Virtuals instead of physical caches. Groundspeak wanted more physical caches.

 

I believe it was the famed "dead animal Virtual" that nailed the coffin shot.

[Keystone]

And now there is at least one land manager which, at the state level, is considering banning all physical caches out in the woods and allowing only earthcaches. The decision is expected this month.

[+mpconnick]

Also, to me, it's odd that Virtual Caches are out but Earth Caches are in. They are conceptually the same thing. Yes, I know about the Earth Cache rules and process, but that doesn't change the conceptual match with Virtuals.

 

The owners of the site decided that virtual caches aren't caches. At one time all Earthcaches were archived and transferred to Waymarking also. One of the biggest arguments against keeping Virtuals when they were still being published (late 04- 05 I believe), was that land managers preferred the placement of Virtuals instead of physical caches. Groundspeak wanted more physical caches.

 

I believe it was the famed "dead animal Virtual" that nailed the coffin shot.

 

Thanks for the info ...

 

Virtual Caches are as much caches as Earth Caches are caches. Neither of which fit the definition of cache (i.e., dictionary definition of the word). So, it's a bit arbitrary.

 

Not knowing the history and therefore hypothesizing, it seems that maybe Virtual Caches would still be allowed to be published if Groundspeak had made them accountable to rules/guidelines like those required of Earth Caches by the Geological Site of America. Instead, the inmates ruled the asylum and eventually the warden took back control by casting off much that is good into the wasteland (my opinion after seeing some of the stuff listed) of Waymarking.

 

Don't get me started on how Benchmarks don't fit any better than a Virtual Cache that is a physical object/location ...

[+mpconnick]

And now there is at least one land manager which, at the state level, is considering banning all physical caches out in the woods and allowing only earthcaches. The decision is expected this month.

 

Wow, which state is that? That's awfully shortsighted.

[+bittsen]

And now there is at least one land manager which, at the state level, is considering banning all physical caches out in the woods and allowing only earthcaches. The decision is expected this month.

 

I suppose it would have a lot to do with the definition of "woods".

 

Honestly, I can't see logic behind banning caches on public lands. Public is allowed to use them, aren't they?

 

In all honesty, if a public official did ban geocaching on public lands, I would hope that Groundspeak would file a lawsuit to counter the decision.

[Keystone]

And now there is at least one land manager which, at the state level, is considering banning all physical caches out in the woods and allowing only earthcaches. The decision is expected this month.

 

Wow, which state is that? That's awfully shortsighted.

That would be the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, just south of you. Hopefully there are many fascinating geology lessons to be found in the State Forests.

In all honesty, if a public official did ban geocaching on public lands, I would hope that Groundspeak would file a lawsuit to counter the decision.

That's funny. Everyone knows that Groundspeak's legal team is tied up in the lawsuit against the National Park Service.

[knowschad]

And now there is at least one land manager which, at the state level, is considering banning all physical caches out in the woods and allowing only earthcaches. The decision is expected this month.

 

Wow, which state is that? That's awfully shortsighted.

That would be the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, just south of you. Hopefully there are many fascinating geology lessons to be found in the State Forests.

 

Wow! I would have expected that the Midwest forum would be abuzz with that news, but there is no mention of it there. I also have been unable to find anything online about it. I also can't find anything on the various Ohio geocacher's associations (not that any of them seem to be very active)

 

Can you point us to any online resources regarding this proposal?

 

I did, however, find this interesting little bit about "virtual" caching in Ohio:

Geocaching trend is catching on in area counties

[Keystone]

My source is a Forestry Divison official, quoted in a regional geocaching forum. I think further discussion of the Ohio policy is best left for a separate thread that's on topic to that.

 

The point I was trying to make was that earthcaches, just like virtual caches, are now being seized upon as a basis for banning traditional caches in favor of the more "eco-friendly" alternative. I do not hear the "virtual caches only" line from land managers like I did from 2003 to 2005. That is a good thing.

[+Markwell]

Please note - I am not a moderator in this forum (only the Getting Started forum) and these opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Groundspeak and are not an official statement.

Virtual Caches are as much caches as Earth Caches are caches. Neither of which fit the definition of cache (i.e., dictionary definition of the word). So, it's a bit arbitrary.

I agree, and personally disagree with the decision to re-allow the Earth Caches on Geoaching.com.

Not knowing the history and therefore hypothesizing, it seems that maybe Virtual Caches would still be allowed to be published if Groundspeak had made them accountable to rules/guidelines like those required of Earth Caches by the Geological Site of America.

So here's the history. After the rampant silliness of "I dropped a shoe in the woods, e-mail me the brand" or "E-mail me the type of dead animal carcass at these coordinates", reviewers were under the guidelines to only allow caches that gave the individual some type of "Wow" experience. This guideline was fairly arbitrary and unevenly implemented by reviewers. Some published just about anything while others hardly published any virtual caches between 2003 and their eventual ban on new virtuals in 2005. The forums were also riddled with cachers who thought that their really cool rock in the woods and really cool Confederate Soldier Cemetery were worthy for virtuals even if the reviewer did not.

 

So Groundspeak endeavored to lump locationless caches (caches that had criteria that cachers then found the spot that matched the criteria, but no containers) and virtuals (locations with no containers) into the site "Waymarking". I remember thinking at the point that Geocaches themselves could conceivably become waymarks, just waymarks with containers and log books.

 

I personally believe the reason the Waymarking site never took off as much as Groundspeak hoped was because visiting a waymark doesn't increase an individual's find count. If it were truly just about visiting a location (as many people state) then Waymarking would be a great solution. But since it doesn't boost people's numbers on the Geocaching.com site, people would rather go out and find something that causes "findcount=findcount+1". (slight tangent: I also believe that's why multi-caches and difficult puzzle caches get very rare finds and why easy 1/1 lamp post finds get so many visits).

 

Don't get me started on how Benchmarks don't fit any better than a Virtual Cache that is a physical object/location ...

Finding Benchmarks does not increase your total find count. However, these were added long before Waymarking or the demise of virtuals and never increased the find count either. However, I don't mind Benchmarks remaining remain on the Geocaching.com site. After all it was a single import to the system and they aren't being updated, so why bother changing it - however...

 

I think the best consistent solution to many of these things would be:

• Container-based finds (geocaches) would be listed on Geocaching.com and each log would increase an account's "Find Count"
  
• For consistency, Benchmarks could be moved to a Waymarking Category owned by a fictitious owner "National Geodetic Survey" (and the link to the owner's page goes to an account that lists this page a the owner's website)
  
• Virtuals and Locationless caches should have moved to the Waymarking Site
  
• Earth Caches and Events - also Groundspeak items that have no true container (except that many events try to have a log book) - would move to Waymarking as well
  
• Have Waymarking.com have find counts as well
  
• Have a single Groundspeak profile that has tabs for Geocaches and Waymarks that would split them by types and a separate list for finds and hides.
  

That would be the best for consistency for everything. However, the outcry for events and earth caches not counting in Find Counts would be huge - bigger than the outcry when Locationless Caches went to Waymarking, because now there's more people that use the site.

 

Ultimately, my personal opinion is that the problem lies in the fact that we are a competition driven society, and that in general people can't seem to think something is worth doing if they don't get that extra "point".

 

AGAIN - I am not a moderator in this forum (only the Getting Started forum) and these opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Groundspeak and are not an official statement.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Great write-up Markwell...as usual

[+bflentje]

Please note - I am not a moderator in this forum (only the Getting Started forum) and these opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Groundspeak and are not an official statement.

Virtual Caches are as much caches as Earth Caches are caches. Neither of which fit the definition of cache (i.e., dictionary definition of the word). So, it's a bit arbitrary.

I agree, and personally disagree with the decision to re-allow the Earth Caches on Geoaching.com.

Not knowing the history and therefore hypothesizing, it seems that maybe Virtual Caches would still be allowed to be published if Groundspeak had made them accountable to rules/guidelines like those required of Earth Caches by the Geological Site of America.

So here's the history. After the rampant silliness of "I dropped a shoe in the woods, e-mail me the brand" or "E-mail me the type of dead animal carcass at these coordinates", reviewers were under the guidelines to only allow caches that gave the individual some type of "Wow" experience. This guideline was fairly arbitrary and unevenly implemented by reviewers. Some published just about anything while others hardly published any virtual caches between 2003 and their eventual ban on new virtuals in 2005. The forums were also riddled with cachers who thought that their really cool rock in the woods and really cool Confederate Soldier Cemetery were worthy for virtuals even if the reviewer did not.

 

So Groundspeak endeavored to lump locationless caches (caches that had criteria that cachers then found the spot that matched the criteria, but no containers) and virtuals (locations with no containers) into the site "Waymarking". I remember thinking at the point that Geocaches themselves could conceivably become waymarks, just waymarks with containers and log books.

 

I personally believe the reason the Waymarking site never took off as much as Groundspeak hoped was because visiting a waymark doesn't increase an individual's find count. If it were truly just about visiting a location (as many people state) then Waymarking would be a great solution. But since it doesn't boost people's numbers on the Geocaching.com site, people would rather go out and find something that causes "findcount=findcount+1". (slight tangent: I also believe that's why multi-caches and difficult puzzle caches get very rare finds and why easy 1/1 lamp post finds get so many visits).

 

Don't get me started on how Benchmarks don't fit any better than a Virtual Cache that is a physical object/location ...

Finding Benchmarks does not increase your total find count. However, these were added long before Waymarking or the demise of virtuals and never increased the find count either. However, I don't mind Benchmarks remaining remain on the Geocaching.com site. After all it was a single import to the system and they aren't being updated, so why bother changing it - however...

 

I think the best consistent solution to many of these things would be:

• Container-based finds (geocaches) would be listed on Geocaching.com and each log would increase an account's "Find Count"
  
• For consistency, Benchmarks could be moved to a Waymarking Category owned by a fictitious owner "National Geodetic Survey" (and the link to the owner's page goes to an account that lists this page a the owner's website)
  
• Virtuals and Locationless caches should have moved to the Waymarking Site
  
• Earth Caches and Events - also Groundspeak items that have no true container (except that many events try to have a log book) - would move to Waymarking as well
  
• Have Waymarking.com have find counts as well
  
• Have a single Groundspeak profile that has tabs for Geocaches and Waymarks that would split them by types and a separate list for finds and hides.
  

That would be the best for consistency for everything. However, the outcry for events and earth caches not counting in Find Counts would be huge - bigger than the outcry when Locationless Caches went to Waymarking, because now there's more people that use the site.

 

Ultimately, my personal opinion is that the problem lies in the fact that we are a competition driven society, and that in general people can't seem to think something is worth doing if they don't get that extra "point".

 

AGAIN - I am not a moderator in this forum (only the Getting Started forum) and these opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Groundspeak and are not an official statement.

 

That was a great summary.. some of which I hadn't heard before. I don't have a say. But if I did, I think everything should be merged together in a way you described. And with whatever added controls (if possible) in place to control silly virtuals.

 

Some people say it's about the numbers. Some say it's about the adventure. For me it's the entire package. The primary reason why I don't use Waymarking is because of the count issue. But I do admit to using it to try and locate very cool photography spots.

[+Semper Questio]

As I've stated before, I've checked out Waymarking off and on since its launch. I even own a couple of listings. But I still don't like it and never use it. It is just different...and not (IMO) in a good way. To be more specific...

 

* I like 1-stop shopping. I have no desire or need to bounce to different sites to get stuff to go find. There are plenty of cache on GC I can go after. That's one of the reasons I don't use those "other" sites (TC, NC, etc.), either.

 

* I just find it too hard to find things I like on WM.

 

* Incorporating waymarks with my caching is too much of pain to deal with.

 

* Waymark logging requirements are often far to onerous to be bothered with and keeping track of those requirements while in the field is a major pain.

 

* "Virtuals" on Waymarking or not the same as the original virtuals. Knowing what you are gonna see when you "visit" the spot before you go takes a LOT of the fun, adventure, and excitement out of going to "find" it.

 

And before someone jumps on me about my find count and my high number of low-terrain-rating cache finds, it's not because I'm playing a numbers game. A disabling caching accident over 1-1/2 years ago keeps me from doing the higher terrain caches...for now.

 

I've just never understood why virtuals could not be brought in, use a "qualifying form" of some type to thin out some of the junk, and let the local caching communities police them. If a virtual were to get complaints for not being compliant via NA's or some other reviewer notification vehicle, bag 'em.

 

OK, enough lashes on that deceased equine.

[CoyoteRed]

...a single Groundspeak profile that has tabs for Geocaches and Waymarks that would split them by types and a separate list for finds and hides.

If geocaching and Waymarking become too connected then, in essence, Waymarking would be virtual caching. This could be seen by landowners as one and the same--which it really is, anyway. I can see it now, "I don't think I want to let you put a geocache on my land, but see'ns how these here waymarks are just as good, but without a box, I'll allow those." Then moving virts to Waymarking wouldn't have accomplished a thing.

 

Also, I'm so sure about the "reward" issue being relevant as to why Waymarking is not taking off. There are not only stats in Waymarking, but also awards for certain numbers of posted and visited, a built in states map, and even a cool category grid.

 

The reason I don't use Waymarking is it is confusing and what waymarks I can find simply aren't that interesting.

 

I find Waymarking.com, most Groundspeak sites, kind of like Microsoft products, powerful, but hard to use. Conversely, there is no "Apple" equivalent geocaching site--two clicks to whatever you want to do and teh choices are obvious.

 

Then when I do figure out how to get a list of the nearest waymarks, I have to tell ya, the locals sure aren't doing a very good job of marking anything interesting. Maybe, I just don't get it. I show up at a Burger King I drive past every other day, take my picture, and post it? Is that it? Big whup. What else is there. Let's see. Water towers? Historical markers? Have my picture taken in front of a museum? Tattoo parlor? Airforce base sign? Really?

 

It's not until you start filtering on categories that you can start to find things of interest.

 

I think the major problem with Waymarking is it's worse than trying to find a decent cache in a sea of the most lame cache one can possibly imagine--and then times that by 100.

 

For me, about the only time I'd use Waymarking is if I could pick a few categories and download everything within a certain distance so I could add them to my Nuvi as a POI. Certain waymarks are kind of interesting, but I've yet to see one that I'd go more than a mile out of route to see.

 

That's IMHO, YMMV.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Personally, I like virtuals when they are of high quality. We recently went to Washington DC and I downloaded all the virtuals for a day of "caching". What a great way to find the "out of the way" points of interest in that city. I had visited DC several times, hitting the normal spots and never discovered the "Summer House" at the Capitol until I used the Virtual listing.

 

I tried Waymarking a few years ago but found it to be listings of non-interesting places. Like I really want to visit all the Starbucks within 20 miles of home base......

 

I'd like them returned also but have become resigned to the new reality. Putting all "under one roof" just made much more sense.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Has there been any thoughts or discussions to bringing them back into the fold?

 

Yes. This site chose to create Waymarking.com as the replacment for virtual caches.

Waymarking is something new. It has some elements of a virtual cache but it's another thing.

Enjoy the virtual caches that remain on this site while they last.

[+tozainamboku]

I pretty much concur with Markwell's take on virtuals and Waymarking. I previously have posted my take on the topic. A couple of points on Marwell's take in red below.

 

 

[*]For consistency, Benchmarks could be moved to a Waymarking Category owned by a fictitious owner "National Geodetic Survey" (and the link to the owner's page goes to an account that lists

this page a the owner's website)

There are currently a number of benchmarking categories on Waymarking. These allow benchmark hunter to find benchmarks not in the NGS data and also makes benchmarking an international activities with benchmarks from several countries outside of the US listed. There are some features of benchmarking on Geocaching.com that are not implemented in Waymarking (such as the Destroyed log and the DNF log).

[*]Virtuals and Locationless caches should have moved to the Waymarking Site

Locationless caches were all given the opportunity to move the Waymarking Not all locationless owners choose to do so. Virtuals are harder to move. You basically have to determine what category they belong in or create a special category just to store old virtual caches. Then you'd have people complaining why they couldn't add new waymarks to the old virtual cache category.

[*]Earth Caches and Events - also Groundspeak items that have no true container (except that many events try to have a log book) - would move to Waymarking as well

As mentioned, the original plan was to move EarthCaches to Waymarking where they would have been a better fit. The EarthCachers complained and my suspicion is that EarthCache.org pulled out an agreement they had with Grounspeak to list EarthCaches on Geocaching.com to force them to stay. I don't really mind events on Geoaching.com as these are events with fellow geocachers. One could debate whether they should count in your find count, but I would still like these to show up in my Geocache searches.

[*]Have Waymarking.com have find counts as well

Waymarking does have find counts (actually visit counts) The Waymarking stats bar shows the number of waymarks you own and the number you have visited. The really weird thing is that in Waymarking you can only visit a a waymark one time. The site won't let you log a visit a second time. On Geocaching you can log a find on cache multiple times. Some puritans complain that once you have found a geocache you can't find it again and would like the site to prevent multiple found logs. On the other hand, visiting something doesn't prevent you from visiting it again. Except on Waymarking.com. This inconsistency between Geocaching.com and Waymarking.com shows that Grounspeak is arbitrary and capricious in its rules. So long as TPTB treat geocaches and waymarks inconsistently, any idea of merging them is doomed to fail

 

As I've stated before, I've checked out Waymarking off and on since its launch. I even own a couple of listings. But I still don't like it and never use it. It is just different...and not (IMO) in a good way. To be more specific...

 

* I like 1-stop shopping. I have no desire or need to bounce to different sites to get stuff to go find. There are plenty of cache on GC I can go after. That's one of the reasons I don't use those "other" sites (TC, NC, etc.), either.

TPTB have mentioned that their ultimate goal is move Geocaching and Waymarking onto a common platform (backend database). There would still be separate sites for Geocaching and Waymarking, but behind the scenes geocaches would just be another Waymarking category. Eventually, they would provide ways for individuals who want to see waymarks and geocaches together. For example you could get a PQ that has both geocaches and waymarks from your favorite Waymarking categories together. Before this happens they need to add a lot of functionality to Waymarking (PQs, TBs, Found and DNF logs, bookmark lists, etc.) and they need to treat waymarks and geocaches consistently (see my rant above)

 

* I just find it too hard to find things I like on WM.

I find it easy to browse the categories and pick the just the categories I am interested in. Perhaps there needs to be some tutorials on how to find interesting Waymarks. I hear far more complaints from people who can't find the geocaches they like without getting stuck searching for ones they think are lame.

 

* Incorporating waymarks with my caching is too much of pain to deal with.

Again TPTB have announce long term plans to address this, but who knows when this will happen?

 

* Waymark logging requirements are often far to onerous to be bothered with and keeping track of those requirements while in the field is a major pain.

This is not any differerent than the requirements for logging virtuals.

 

* "Virtuals" on Waymarking or not the same as the original virtuals. Knowing what you are gonna see when you "visit" the spot before you go takes a LOT of the fun, adventure, and excitement out of going to "find" it.

In fact most virtuals you knew exactly what you were going to find when you searched. But that doesn't mean you can't have Waymarking categories where the target of your search is not revealed till you get to the location. The Best Kept Secrets category, for example, allows for these kind of Waymark. I agree that most Waymarking categories lack elements of the search in geocaching. A proper virtual cache consisted of a specific target that you had to find at the coordinates listed and some kind of verification that you found it. Not every virtual met this standard but most did. You posted a 'Found It' log because you found the target (and verified this with the cache owner). You could conceivably post a DNF on a virtual (I did at least once). When I created the Best Kept Secret category, I had hoped that others would propose categories that emphasized what they liked most about virtual caches. I've been disappointed that instead of trying to make Waymarking work better, people just continue to complain about why it isn't the same as doing a virtual cache on Geoaching.com. Meanwhile, Waymarking has been more or less left to people who want to make lists of things whether they be giant roadside attractions or McDonalds Restaurants. There really is room for some neat games in Waymarking but unfortunately not much interest in developing them.