+Xopster Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 It has recently come to my attention that geocaching.com is no longer accepting new webcam caches, any new caches are being refered to Waymarking.com. I must say that some of the most fun I have had in geocaching has been participating in WebCam caches. Whether it was at a Caching Evenet where all the participants posed for a webcam pic or when I was in Vegas phoneing my friend back home on the cell and getting him to snap my pic in front of the MGM Hotel. I thought that the requirements that the picture quality be quite good in order to stop the proliferation of crap cameras where all you see is the outline of a hand waving in the distance was adequate. Further I know that one of the most popular Caches where I live, near Vancouver, is a WebCam Cache in a touristy area of Vancouver and has been logged by hundreds of people as has the one in Vegas I referred to. I looked up some of the Webcams on Waymarking.com and found them to be interesting for a viewing on the Internet but few have been ever logged and even fewer were of 'Good Quality' and I would never consider searching out these webcams. Please reconsider and allow new Good Quality WebCam Caches as they come available, I am sure I am not the only one that feels this way. Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 (edited) Wow, for a minute there, I thought it was November 2005. After a quick calendar check, all's well now. In my experience, webcam caches tend to be unreliable and more prone to maintenance issues and abandonment by the owner. I rarely log them, as they don't feel like geocaches. I "found" one over the Thanksgiving holiday, mainly to give my homebound mother a chance to feel like she was part of the caching and Waymarking fun being had by the rest of the family. I found that the webcam had switched websites, switched coordinates, and had an absent owner who wasn't responding to maintenance concerns. But I took the smiley! Edited November 30, 2006 by The Leprechauns Link to comment
+Jamie Z Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 I must say that some of the most fun I have had in geocaching has been participating in WebCam caches. As Mopar once said, "Just because it's fun doesn't make it geocaching." Yes, web-camming can be fun. I've done it a few times myself, but geocaching is about finding a container. Since webcams typically don't have a container, they were disallowed on the geocaching site and moved to a more appropriate location. Jamie Link to comment
+Kabuthunk Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 I must say that some of the most fun I have had in geocaching has been participating in WebCam caches. As Mopar once said, "Just because it's fun doesn't make it geocaching." Yes, web-camming can be fun. I've done it a few times myself, but geocaching is about finding a container. Since webcams typically don't have a container, they were disallowed on the geocaching site and moved to a more appropriate location. Jamie Well... they DO tend to have a container... but that's usually the protective case that it's in to keep it from being stolen Link to comment
+budd-rdc Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 (edited) I must say that some of the most fun I have had in geocaching has been participating in WebCam caches. As Mopar once said, "Just because it's fun doesn't make it geocaching." Yes, web-camming can be fun. I've done it a few times myself, but geocaching is about finding a container. Since webcams typically don't have a container, they were disallowed on the geocaching site and moved to a more appropriate location. Jamie Well... they DO tend to have a container... but that's usually the protective case that it's in to keep it from being stolen I might as well add my theory, since there really isn't a consistent separation of Waymarking and Geocaching based on "containers"... Here's a Geocaching.com container... and each log entry can contain the following*: Traditional/Multi/Mystery caches: can be very few bytes ("TFTC<enter>") Virtual caches: log entry + storage and bandwidth for e-mail verification Codeword caches: same as above, also grandfathered. Locationless caches: log entry + mandatory image, 30,000 bytes for 300x225 .jpg Webcam caches: log entry + mandatory image (size varies, but way larger than a simple log entry) Earthcaches: black sheep of the group. log entry + e-mail AND/OR image. WAS in Waymarking. So there you have it. Looks like Waymarking uses a larger log book and needs a larger container, while Geocaching is just a lamp post micro in comparison. Not sure if one or the other requires more maintenance visits... * size of cache listing and meta data not included - sold separately. Edited November 30, 2006 by budd-rdc Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Geocaching is finding something hidden somewhere - lots of oppurtunity elsewhere to get your picture taken!! Link to comment
Mushtang Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 geocaching is about finding a container. Unless you're at an Event Cache or Earthcache. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 Please reconsider and allow new Good Quality WebCam Caches as they come available, I am sure I am not the only one that feels this way. Sorry, but no. There are no plans to allow web cameras on geocaching.com. There is absolutely no difference in new web cameras on Waymarking.com and those on geocaching.com. The quality of them are identical. Closing this thread. Link to comment
Recommended Posts