Virtual Cache questions

[+mcgillz]

I have been trying to find out why virtual caches are no longer allowed and only grandfather virtuals still exist. I read the reason in the tutorial and I have gone to the Waymark site and most of the 1400+ waymarks within 100 miles of my location have never been logged even once. So why were virtuals disallowed as geocaches? Weren't they successful as geocaches? The ones I have found certainly had more than a few finds unlike the Waymarks I looked at.

 

What gives?

[+Arrow42]

The concept of virtuals was spun off into a new game called Waymarking.

[jholly]

A cache is a place with a container.

A virtual is just a place.

 

There are many threads discussing this subject. Search is your friend.

 

Jim

[+Shop99er]

A cache is a place with a container.

A virtual is just a place.

 

Jim

 

That's the "Official" company line.

 

Which doesn't change the simple truth that Waymarking became way too common. You can't spit without hitting a Waymark in some areas. There doesn't seem to be much of an review process. I would not be surprised if you could waymark your backyard BBQ grill....

 

Virtuals kept the Wow factor as they used to call it as a requirement right to the end. It was a lot tougher to get one approved.

 

BTW, I'm not a fan of WM....

[+Chrysalides]

Virtuals kept the Wow factor as they used to call it as a requirement right to the end. It was a lot tougher to get one approved.

There's 3 reasons I can think of why virtuals are more popular than waymarks.

 

1) they show up when you're searching for geocaches. Waymarks don't.

2) there's nothing like a PQ for downloading waymarks.

3) virtuals show up under your find count. waymarks don't.

 

Anyway, it seems like waymarkers prefer to create waymarks than log them. Waymarks are a combination of locationless/reverse cache (creating) and virtual cache (visiting / logging).

[+bittsen]

Virtuals kept the Wow factor as they used to call it as a requirement right to the end. It was a lot tougher to get one approved.

There's 3 reasons I can think of why virtuals are more popular than waymarks.

 

1) they show up when you're searching for geocaches. Waymarks don't.

2) there's nothing like a PQ for downloading waymarks.

3) virtuals show up under your find count. waymarks don't.

 

Anyway, it seems like waymarkers prefer to create waymarks than log them. Waymarks are a combination of locationless/reverse cache (creating) and virtual cache (visiting / logging).

 

I find the concept of virtual caches and/or Waymarking silly.

[+tozainamboku]

I have been trying to find out why virtual caches are no longer allowed and only grandfather virtuals still exist. I read the reason in the tutorial and I have gone to the Waymark site and most of the 1400+ waymarks within 100 miles of my location have never been logged even once. So why were virtuals disallowed as geocaches? Weren't they successful as geocaches? The ones I have found certainly had more than a few finds unlike the Waymarks I looked at.

 

What gives?

Here's a link to something I wrote 482nd previous time this topic cam up.

[+ambegador]

A cache is a place with a container.

A virtual is just a place.

 

There are many threads discussing this subject. Search is your friend.

 

Jim

 

And so an earthcache qualifies how? Appears to me to be favoritism, leaning toward the enrvironmentalist/evolutionist.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

And so an earthcache qualifies how? Appears to me to be favoritism, leaning toward the enrvironmentalist/evolutionist.

Somebody had to create the earthcache, so they lean toward environmentalist/evolutionist/creationists

 

Perhaps one day Groundspeak will create a user profile setting where members can elect to have their PQs show geocaches, Waymarks and/or benchmarks in Pocket Queries. That would be awesome. Call it a Platinum membership. I'd pay more for that!

Edited December 19, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+lavender5215]

A cache is a place with a container.

A virtual is just a place.

 

There are many threads discussing this subject. Search is your friend.

 

Jim

 

And so an earthcache qualifies how? Appears to me to be favoritism, leaning toward the enrvironmentalist/evolutionist.

 

The earthcaches are educational, the locations demonstrate certain aspects of the earth. It allows people who are interested in such things a geology explore such things. Its kind of like they give you info about a certain earth phenomena and when you visit the cache you are actually getting to see said phenomena. Also a lot of the earthcaches have some really awesome scenery, cool stuff to see.

I have not yet visited one but plan to if any ever cross my path. This is just what i have gathered for my self from others talking about earthcaches and reading the earthcache pages

Not to mention, earthacaches actually show you something worth seeing, virtuals from what i have gathered had become too numerous and not very interesting.

 

phe⋅nom⋅e⋅non  /fɪˈnɒməˌnɒn, -nən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fi-nom-uh-non, -nuhn] Show IPA

Use phenomenon in a Sentence

See web results for phenomenon

See images of phenomenon

–noun, plural -na  /-nə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-nuh] Show IPA or, especially for 3, -nons. 1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.

2. something that is impressive or extraordinary.

3. a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.

4. Philosophy. a. an appearance or immediate object of awareness in experience.

b. Kantianism. a thing as it appears to and is constructed by the mind, as distinguished from a noumenon, or thing-in-itself.

Edited December 19, 2009 by lavender5215

[+davesterx]

While I understand that the real issue with the virtual caches was the armchair loggers that never visited the site, I find it profound that Earthcaches that are "educational" are allowed, but that virtual caches that are "educational" are not. What I've seen is that some cachers are making Earthcaches out of virtual caches by finding some geological aspect that they can attribute and yet still provide the educational tool that a virtual cache provides (Gettysburg has a number of "Earthcaches" that tell about how the terrain aided/hindered the fight). Obviously, I like virtual caches in the cases where physical caches are not allowed (The National Mall for example), and appreciate even more those physical caches that bring the cacher to learn something. Maybe what is needed is an alliance with some historical organization like Geocaching.com has with the Geological Society of America to review and post historically meaningful virtual caches. While I could care less to waymark the local loaf and jug, virtual caches to historical places are something I like to do.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I find the concept of virtual caches and/or Waymarking silly.

 

Not disagreeing about Waymarks. Waymarking has become the virtual equivelant of micro-spew. I have no idea why people want me to see all the 7-11's in a particular city and that is reflected in the find counts on most Waymarks. Many have zero finds and even less number of people interested in finding them.

 

Virtuals, however, have their place in geocaching. Is there a National Park that allows a physical geocache? Most, if not all, do not and only allow earthcaches or virtuals. So, if you're visiting a National Park and want to cache, virts and e/c's are the only option. Most National Parks are designated so because they are special places with incredible scenery, historic significance and a sensitive environment that needs to be preserved through careful management. Those are exactly the type of places that virtual caches were designed to exist.

 

It probably won't happen, but IF virtual caches were again allowed to be published, it would make sense to limit them to places where physical caches were prohibited.

 

Bruce

[4wheelin_fool]

All they really need to do is to have the waymark stats appear on everyone's geocaching profile and they will end up with more Waymarking logs and fewer virtual comeback instigators.

[jholly]

never mind

Edited December 19, 2009 by jholly

[+bittsen]

I find the concept of virtual caches and/or Waymarking silly.

 

Not disagreeing about Waymarks. Waymarking has become the virtual equivelant of micro-spew. I have no idea why people want me to see all the 7-11's in a particular city and that is reflected in the find counts on most Waymarks. Many have zero finds and even less number of people interested in finding them.

 

Virtuals, however, have their place in geocaching. Is there a National Park that allows a physical geocache? Most, if not all, do not and only allow earthcaches or virtuals. So, if you're visiting a National Park and want to cache, virts and e/c's are the only option. Most National Parks are designated so because they are special places with incredible scenery, historic significance and a sensitive environment that needs to be preserved through careful management. Those are exactly the type of places that virtual caches were designed to exist.

 

It probably won't happen, but IF virtual caches were again allowed to be published, it would make sense to limit them to places where physical caches were prohibited.

 

Bruce

 

If you are in a National Park exploring the beautiful scenery, why do you need a "virtual cache"? In many ways I think it would get in the way of sucking up the beauty and nature to have to look for ways to prove you were really there.

Just enjoy the darn park!

[+Sagefox]

I have been trying to find out why virtual caches are no longer allowed and only grandfather virtuals still exist. I read the reason in the tutorial and I have gone to the Waymark site and most of the 1400+ waymarks within 100 miles of my location have never been logged even once. So why were virtuals disallowed as geocaches?

 

In the early years everything geocaching was fun for many of us. After container caching got its feet on the ground virtuals were a fun new addition. About two thirds of those we have visited were interesting and some folks were very good in their choices of sites.

 

Next, locationless caches came along and many cachers were caught up in the frenzy of being first to log the objects in their territory. We lived in a remote area with few local cache placements so the locationless concept gave me something to do between long distance caching trips.

 

During the early forum battles over the virtual embargo I was a fierce defender of virtuals and argued for their preservation but it didn't take all that long for me to come to understand and get behind the logic of ending virtual and locationless cache types from the main site.

 

We've logged over 300 virtual and locationless caches and I believe I have a solid understanding of the concepts. I was happy to see the locationless caches get locked down. Finally I could drive the back roads without having to stop frequently to record potential hits! They were fun for a while but were also quite distracting. By the time the virtual caches got clamped down I was ready for that too. Far too many virtual placements in the months before the period of wow-factor enforcement were boring and nearly pointless.

 

It is still fun to find the grandfathered virtuals because they are like collector's items now but if there had not been a decision to end that cache type I believe they would no longer be included in my PQ searches. I have no problem with the oldsters remaining active as long as they are maintained (exterminating the European bogus logs). I also have no problem with them all eventually being shut down even if a sunset clause policy were to be announced.

 

I can understand that folks who joined the game post lockdown would like to see these cache types returned so they could go through that phase themselves but, with one exception, this is a container cache website now and I believe the game is better because of that change.

 

Earthcaches to me are an acceptable non-container alternative, mostly because I am a fan of geology. Earthcaches have been filling in some of the gaps in my understanding of local geology and so far I have found all the one's we have visited to be interesting. Why they exist on this site is not clear to me but I am not having a problem with them.

 

Many folks believe that there is room in this game for many alternative cache types and logging practices and that people can just ignore what they don't want to search for. For me, though, the image of the game, the way I view it, is cleaner without those distractions from the Prime Directive.

[+succotash]

I find the concept of virtual caches and/or Waymarking silly.

 

Not disagreeing about Waymarks. Waymarking has become the virtual equivelant of micro-spew. I have no idea why people want me to see all the 7-11's in a particular city and that is reflected in the find counts on most Waymarks. Many have zero finds and even less number of people interested in finding them.

 

Virtuals, however, have their place in geocaching. Is there a National Park that allows a physical geocache? Most, if not all, do not and only allow earthcaches or virtuals. So, if you're visiting a National Park and want to cache, virts and e/c's are the only option. Most National Parks are designated so because they are special places with incredible scenery, historic significance and a sensitive environment that needs to be preserved through careful management. Those are exactly the type of places that virtual caches were designed to exist.

 

It probably won't happen, but IF virtual caches were again allowed to be published, it would make sense to limit them to places where physical caches were prohibited.

 

Bruce

 

If you are in a National Park exploring the beautiful scenery, why do you need a "virtual cache"? In many ways I think it would get in the way of sucking up the beauty and nature to have to look for ways to prove you were really there.

Just enjoy the darn park!

 

For those who find virtuals silly - please consider that the greatest value of virtuals is that they can help you identify and discover fascinating and amazing things/features/places you might not otherwise know about. It's not just that they take you to the Top 10 sights already identified elsewhere. If you screen wisely as you would for any cache type the virtuals allow you to stop and look at something you might otherwise not see - something or someplace you would not read about in any tour book. If you are visiting a national park, the virtual might cause you to walk down a less-traveled path and see a special nature feature or wonderful view that is not mentioned in the park brochure. It has nothing to do with proving you are there; if anything, logging a virtual is about letting the owner know you appreciate the experience and sharing the positive with the caching community. Our all-time favorite virtual at the WWII Memorial in Washington DC... well, you just have to find it to understand.

 

I do not want to see the option to create virtuals reinstated but we've found the existing ones to be quite special and often wonderful.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Virtuals kept the Wow factor as they used to call it as a requirement right to the end. It was a lot tougher to get one approved.

There's 3 reasons I can think of why virtuals are more popular than waymarks.

 

1) they show up when you're searching for geocaches. Waymarks don't.

2) there's nothing like a PQ for downloading waymarks.

3) virtuals show up under your find count. waymarks don't.

 

Anyway, it seems like waymarkers prefer to create waymarks than log them. Waymarks are a combination of locationless/reverse cache (creating) and virtual cache (visiting / logging).

 

To elaborate on #2, since you can do a PQ for virtuals, they can also be included in a caches along a route search. For a long drive during a vacation it would be nice to know that there is an interesting and historical waymark near a highway exit, even if there isn't a cache located nearby.

[+briansnat]

For those who find virtuals silly - please consider that the greatest value of virtuals is that they can help you identify and discover fascinating and amazing things/features/places you might not otherwise know about...

 

You mean like real geocaches?

 

While I understand that the real issue with the virtual caches was the armchair loggers that never visited the site, I find it profound that Earthcaches that are "educational" are allowed, but that virtual caches that are "educational" are not...

 

Armchair logging was not why virtuals are no loger allowed. People armchair log real caches too.

 

There are several reasons.

 

People were submitting the most mundane items imaginable as virtuals. Fence posts, flag poles, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods and in one case a rotting animal carcass. It got so out of hand that Grounspeak introduced the "wow factor". This turned reviewers into judges of cache quality which is not, nor should it be part of their job description.

 

Another key reason is that when geocaching was being discussed with land managers, more and more often they would point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This jeopardized real geocaches in many parks. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could focus on getting real geocaches into parks.

 

 

Not disagreeing about Waymarks. Waymarking has become the virtual equivelant of micro-spew. I have no idea why people want me to see all the 7-11's in a particular city and that is reflected in the find counts on most Waymarks. Many have zero finds and even less number of people interested in finding them.

 

The great thing about Waymarking is that they are broken into categories. If visiting 7-Elevens doesn't interest you just don't bother visiting the 7-Eleven category. There are thousands upon thousands of waymarks that bring you to special places with incredible scenery or historic significance. Waymarking is

nearly identical to virtuals. Get the coordinates, use your GPS to visit locations then log your visit.

 

The chief difference is that waymarks don't add to your find count. If they did, they would be as popular as virtuals ever were.

Edited December 19, 2009 by briansnat

[+Isonzo Karst]

While I understand that the real issue with the virtual caches was the armchair loggers that never visited the site,

 

One issue among many. When I first started caching, I came to these forums, and left. They were mostly one long whine about "why didn't the reviewer publish my Special Virtual". A nightmare for the reviewers.

 

Our all-time favorite virtual at the WWII Memorial in Washington DC... well, you just have to find it to understand.

 

I'd agree, it is special, but I'd also note that it is the only Mall virt that isn't a distraction from your visit. Getting foundry dates off manhole covers, statuary etc, all things you've long forgotten and didn't care about at the time? what did that add to your visit besides smileys? To avoid making verification questions easy to research, many of them are incredibly trivial, or of interest mainly to the cache owner, and not just at the Mall.

[+L0ne.R]

Virtuals kept the Wow factor as they used to call it as a requirement right to the end. It was a lot tougher to get one approved.

There's 3 reasons I can think of why virtuals are more popular than waymarks.

 

1) they show up when you're searching for geocaches. Waymarks don't.

2) there's nothing like a PQ for downloading waymarks.

3) virtuals show up under your find count. waymarks don't.

 

Anyway, it seems like waymarkers prefer to create waymarks than log them. Waymarks are a combination of locationless/reverse cache (creating) and virtual cache (visiting / logging).

 

You're very right about the 3 criteria. Does anyone know why Groundspeak has never implemented PQs for Waymarking? One thing about Waymarking, it is locationless 'caching'. I can't think of a Waymarking example that is the equivalent of the old virtual. The old-fashioned virtual required people to gather information at the site and email the owner with a correct answer before claiming a find.

[+succotash]

 

<snip>

 

Our all-time favorite virtual at the WWII Memorial in Washington DC... well, you just have to find it to understand.

 

I'd agree, it is special, but I'd also note that it is the only Mall virt that isn't a distraction from your visit. Getting foundry dates off manhole covers, statuary etc, all things you've long forgotten and didn't care about at the time? what did that add to your visit besides smileys? To avoid making verification questions easy to research, many of them are incredibly trivial, or of interest mainly to the cache owner, and not just at the Mall.

 

Agreed - the point I was trying to make is that the value of virtuals is not to bring you to a well-known tourist site and perform research just to prove you were there (although I find that sometimes the research actually enhances my understanding of the location). The virtuals we appreciate most are those that take you to the lesser-known locations. It is true we may have to gather some information and send an extra email - a minor inconvenience in most cases. Even though I grew up near DC and visited many times, I would not have found a labyrinth if not for the virtual... I would not have visited the Ghandi memorial if not for the virtual. We would not have taken a short detour of I95 and visited the old gentleman who crafts huge, stunning mobiles on our way north if not for the virtual. That's the only point I was trying to make. Again, I am glad they are no longer allowed and I can't explain the apparent inconsistency in EarthCaches versus virtuals - but we do appreciate these lesser known treasures when we travel.

Edited December 19, 2009 by succotash

[+Touchstone]

The old-fashioned virtual required people to gather information at the site and email the owner with a correct answer before claiming a find.

 

The Waymarking site visit *requirements* , just like Geocaching, is largely based upon trust. Unlike Geocaching however, the individual Category Officers usually post the visit requirements in the Category Description. For the most part, a photo of the Waymark is sufficient. I can't think of any that require any email confirmation like the Virtuals on GC do.

 

I think the comparison of Waymarking to Virtuals is a bit misleading. The similarity to the old Locationless Caches is fairly obvious. I think that most people feel that the argument that Virtuals belong over on Waymarking is fairly easy one to make, due to the fact that many Virtuals (at least the well done ones), can usually find a home in one of the Categories over there.

 

FWIW, I participate in both games. I generally do Urban Waymarking, and backcountry/hiking Geocaching. Just depends on how much time I have usually.

[+zuma!]

I have been trying to find out why virtual caches are no longer allowed and only grandfather virtuals still exist. I read the reason in the tutorial and I have gone to the Waymark site and most of the 1400+ waymarks within 100 miles of my location have never been logged even once. So why were virtuals disallowed as geocaches?

 

In the early years everything geocaching was fun for many of us. After container caching got its feet on the ground virtuals were a fun new addition. About two thirds of those we have visited were interesting and some folks were very good in their choices of sites.

 

Next, locationless caches came along and many cachers were caught up in the frenzy of being first to log the objects in their territory. We lived in a remote area with few local cache placements so the locationless concept gave me something to do between long distance caching trips.

 

During the early forum battles over the virtual embargo I was a fierce defender of virtuals and argued for their preservation but it didn't take all that long for me to come to understand and get behind the logic of ending virtual and locationless cache types from the main site.

 

We've logged over 300 virtual and locationless caches and I believe I have a solid understanding of the concepts. I was happy to see the locationless caches get locked down. Finally I could drive the back roads without having to stop frequently to record potential hits! They were fun for a while but were also quite distracting. By the time the virtual caches got clamped down I was ready for that too. Far too many virtual placements in the months before the period of wow-factor enforcement were boring and nearly pointless.

 

It is still fun to find the grandfathered virtuals because they are like collector's items now but if there had not been a decision to end that cache type I believe they would no longer be included in my PQ searches. I have no problem with the oldsters remaining active as long as they are maintained (exterminating the European bogus logs). I also have no problem with them all eventually being shut down even if a sunset clause policy were to be announced.

 

I can understand that folks who joined the game post lockdown would like to see these cache types returned so they could go through that phase themselves but, with one exception, this is a container cache website now and I believe the game is better because of that change.

 

Earthcaches to me are an acceptable non-container alternative, mostly because I am a fan of geology. Earthcaches have been filling in some of the gaps in my understanding of local geology and so far I have found all the one's we have visited to be interesting. Why they exist on this site is not clear to me but I am not having a problem with them.

 

Many folks believe that there is room in this game for many alternative cache types and logging practices and that people can just ignore what they don't want to search for. For me, though, the image of the game, the way I view it, is cleaner without those distractions from the Prime Directive.

 

I agree with all of the above.

 

I will add that I enjoy Virtuals and seek them out when traveling since they often take you to interesting places, that I would not have seen otherwise. A good virt can be an excellent caching experience.

 

I also think Groundspeak really had no choice but to eliminate virts, since there is no reasonable safeguard to prevent areas from being flooded with uninteresting, uninspired virtuals. Those who have cached in Vegas should be able to relate to this. I know beauty when I see it, though I cannot define it. Also know junk virts when I see them, and I cant define that either.

 

zuma

[Clan Riffster]

A cache is a place with a container.

A cache is also a gathering of nerdy folks eating wings. (no container)

A cache is also a bunch of folks cleaning up litter. (no container)

A cache is also a unique geological feature. (no container)

 

At least according to the guidelines.

 

I think the simplest reason is that TPTB decided they were no longer going to accept virtuals, creating WM in its place.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+StarBrand]

A Geocache is a place with a container.

 

A virtual (Waymark) is just a place.

 

Seems clear enough to me.

[+KBI]

If you like Virtuals, there is a workaround.

 

But first: I support the ban on Virtuals. By definition, virtual caching isn’t real caching. It was getting in the way of real caching. Virtuals would block out locations where Actuals might have been placed. (Which is not the case with Earthcaches, or, as far as I know, Events or CITOs.)

 

The workaround: Virtual caches are no longer allowed on this website, but of course virtual stages are still perfectly legal.

 

If you discover a noteworthy location you’d like to showcase to other cachers, but the location isn’t a good place for a hidden container, then why not make it into Stage One of an interesting multicache?

 

I am planning to do exactly that with a couple of historic-interest sites near my home. One is a TV celebrity's grave in a local graveyard; the other is an historic marker at a busy suburban street corner. I probably would have listed them both as Virtuals already if it were allowed, but I really think I’m going to like them better as Actuals.

[+geodarts]

"Real caching" is a matter of definition. While it's Groundspeak's game, they can define it as they want. And they have chosen to expand into a second web site. But while I don't think virtuals will return, I think not permitting virtuals in places where physical caches are not permitted is short-sighted. And not letting existing virtuals be adopted is equally disappointing.

 

There are many areas where traditional caching will never be permitted and even offsets are not practical. Virtuals have helped open up those areas for me. I commonly look for the virtuals first when traveling, perhaps because they are disappearing. But i also enjoy the specific task, providing a focus that makes them different from Waymarking, more integrated into this particular game. Although were some virtuals that are hardly inspiring, others have ranked among the best in my caching experience. Sadly, some of those are no longer active. Ideally I would to see a "history cache" category similar to earthcaches that could be part of Groundspeak's commitment to education and placed only in places where traditionals are not permitted.

 

I have looked at Waymarking from time to time but it has never done much for me. Admittedly I have been playing around with gowalla on the iPhone, which is a similar concept, but more accessible with less mulitasking on my gpsr. But that simply has shown me that there is a big difference between virtuals and Waymarking (or spot finding).

Edited December 19, 2009 by Erickson

[+DanOCan]

In the past when these threads would come up I would chime in with my "Waymarking sucks" commentary. However, I have changed my perspective on things as time has gone by.

 

First, I have come to accept that Virtuals are dead and never to be seen again. The ones that remain tend to be the better ones and many of the lame ones have moved on. It is the fact that they are becoming more and more rare which makes them more special. Imagine one day when only a single Virt remains and it becomes as epic as the APE cache is.

 

Second, if you are willing to do some work on the Waymarking site then Waymarking doesn't suck. If you don't like a category such as "Starbucks", you can simply ignore that entire category and they all disappear. Wow, if sorting through caches was that easy my caching experience would vastly improve.

 

On a recent trip to Pennsylvania I discovered a lot of covered bridges via Waymarking. While some of them had caches at them, many did not. We had a great couple of days driving around finding them using our GPSr and then logging our experiences and photos online -- hey, just like caching, just without the smiley!

 

I admit in the past I think my biggest objection to Waymarking was the lack of a smiley -- hey, if I am doing this much work then I want "credit". Since then I have come to realize that if the only value a location has for me is that it adds to my smiley count then it likely isn't worth my time in the first place.

 

Waymarking is a far better place for Virtuals than Geocaching. I have come to see the light.

[+KBI]

I think not permitting virtuals in places where physical caches are not permitted is short-sighted.

I disagree, and the main reason I disagree is this point made by Briansnat:

 

Another key reason is that when geocaching was being discussed with land managers, more and more often they would point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This jeopardized real geocaches in many parks. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could focus on getting real geocaches into parks.

Park managers used virtuals as an excuse for denying permission for actual caches. The ban on virts removed the excuse. In my opinion that decision will prove to be invaluable to the future of our hobby -- which is exactly the opposite of short-sighted.

[Mushtang]

If you are in a National Park exploring the beautiful scenery, why do you need a "virtual cache"?

I don't think you "need" one to be there. I don't think that someone coming to the park to explore beautiful scenery "needs" a physical cache either.

 

In many ways I think it would get in the way of sucking up the beauty and nature to have to look for ways to prove you were really there.

And I don't think the purpose of the cache is to prove that someone was enjoying scenery. I think the purpose of the cache is to entertain yourself. If you want to entertain yourself by enjoying the park without finding the geocache, you can do that very easily.

 

It doesn't take an uber genius to figure that out.

 

Just enjoy the darn park!

(In the way that bittsen wants you to, not in the way that you want to)

[+geodarts]

I think not permitting virtuals in places where physical caches are not permitted is short-sighted.

I disagree, and the main reason I disagree is this point made by Briansnat:

 

Another key reason is that when geocaching was being discussed with land managers, more and more often they would point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative. This jeopardized real geocaches in many parks. By taking virtuals off the table, negotiations could focus on getting real geocaches into parks.

Park managers used virtuals as an excuse for denying permission for actual caches. The ban on virts removed the excuse. In my opinion that decision will prove to be invaluable to the future of our hobby -- which is exactly the opposite of short-sighted.

 

I tend to doubt that many of our national parks (Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Bryce) will ever permit physical containers. I tend to doubt that many historical, cultural, natural preserves, and archeological sites will ever permit physical caches. I know the kinds of discussion that I had to go through to get some earthcaches in the grand canyon. But virtuals in these areas have been a fun part of the game.

 

If anything a category of virtuals (like earthcaches) may help break the ice through cachers working with park officials.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Erickson

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I find the concept of virtual caches and/or Waymarking silly.

 

Not disagreeing about Waymarks. Waymarking has become the virtual equivelant of micro-spew. I have no idea why people want me to see all the 7-11's in a particular city and that is reflected in the find counts on most Waymarks. Many have zero finds and even less number of people interested in finding them.

 

Virtuals, however, have their place in geocaching. Is there a National Park that allows a physical geocache? Most, if not all, do not and only allow earthcaches or virtuals. So, if you're visiting a National Park and want to cache, virts and e/c's are the only option. Most National Parks are designated so because they are special places with incredible scenery, historic significance and a sensitive environment that needs to be preserved through careful management. Those are exactly the type of places that virtual caches were designed to exist.

 

It probably won't happen, but IF virtual caches were again allowed to be published, it would make sense to limit them to places where physical caches were prohibited.

 

Bruce

 

If you are in a National Park exploring the beautiful scenery, why do you need a "virtual cache"? In many ways I think it would get in the way of sucking up the beauty and nature to have to look for ways to prove you were really there.

Just enjoy the darn park!

 

You make it sound like it's either/or. It is possible to visit a park, see the incredible scenery and fulfill a virtual cache requirement. One does not detract from the other in any way.

 

I also use caching, in whatever form it's permitted, as a useful tour guide. It's easy to go to Yellowstone and know that you're going to visit Old Faithful but there are many virtual and earthcaches that bring you to overlooked and under-visited places...places just as cool and as visually arresting as the geyser basin. Many of these places are not the headlining attractions at the parks and having a cache there makes it much easier to plan and organize a trip beyond the obvious "must-do" destinations.

 

The great thing about Waymarking is that they are broken into categories. If visiting 7-Elevens doesn't interest you just don't bother visiting the 7-Eleven category. There are thousands upon thousands of waymarks that bring you to special places with incredible scenery or historic significance. Waymarking is

nearly identical to virtuals. Get the coordinates, use your GPS to visit locations then log your visit.

 

The chief difference is that waymarks don't add to your find count. If they did, they would be as popular as virtuals ever were.

 

I guess I wasn't able to get past the silly listings when I was searching for nearby Waymarks of interest. I was just perusing the listings and found a Waymark to visit a Pumba (from the Lion King) mechanical ride outside a local Toys 'R Us. I saw that and just closed out the tab. Perhaps I was hasty in doing so. Now that winter is here, I'll have another look at Waymarks and see if I can't find a few that will compel me to make the drive.

 

I agree with the find count opinion. I don't need it, personally. I just want interesting things to see/visit.

 

Bruce

[+BruceS]

 

I guess I wasn't able to get past the silly listings when I was searching for nearby Waymarks of interest. I was just perusing the listings and found a Waymark to visit a Pumba (from the Lion King) mechanical ride outside a local Toys 'R Us. I saw that and just closed out the tab. Perhaps I was hasty in doing so. Now that winter is here, I'll have another look at Waymarks and see if I can't find a few that will compel me to make the drive.

 

I agree with the find count opinion. I don't need it, personally. I just want interesting things to see/visit.

 

Bruce

 

Seeing there are four of those mechanical rides waymarked in your whole state it is like saying you won't look for caches because you saw one film canister hidden behind a 7-11. There are over 800 history related waymarks in your state but because you saw one Pumba ride waymarked you miss out on those.

 

With Waymarking if you don't want to see certain types ignore the whole department and they are gone. Are there some categories I don't like, yes several. I submit one waymark to those categories and I forget about the category. I have two mechanical ride waymarks, one just a standard one to get my waymark in the category and then I ran into a very old one and waymarked it.

[+mcgillz]

I have been trying to find out why virtual caches are no longer allowed and only grandfather virtuals still exist. I read the reason in the tutorial and I have gone to the Waymark site and most of the 1400+ waymarks within 100 miles of my location have never been logged even once. So why were virtuals disallowed as geocaches? Weren't they successful as geocaches? The ones I have found certainly had more than a few finds unlike the Waymarks I looked at.

 

What gives?

 

Wow, I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest, but thank you all for educating me on the history of virtuals.

I am new to caching with about 125 finds in the last three months. I have found several virtuals that were lots of fun and I have found quite a few traditional caches that were as exciting as doing a newspaper route. I have also found several traditional caches and been awed by the beauty of the locations. In one case, a small waterfall close to my home with beautiful swimming holes. I have asked friends if they knew it was there and most didn't. So this cache was valuable for me for its beauty which I had not seen or heard of in my 30 years in the area. I didn't need the stuffed toy in the cache to make it worthwhile to me.

 

I have gone to the Waymarking site to see what it was all about and looked through the unfiltered 100 closest waymarks and found that of the 100, 94 had never been logged and many of them had been around for a year or so. I was surprised because even though we are in a rural area no cache goes more than a day or two before the FTF and usually it's less than 12 hours so I was wondering why is no one logging the Waymarks?

 

Anyway, thanks again.

[+gravechaser]

I guess I misuse Waymarking. When going to Dr. appts in Indianapolis, IN and Rochester, MN I downloaded waymarks for additional things to go see. I didn't end up logging our visits to those locations but we had a good time. Most people I talk to locally don't know of Waymarking. Most of them DO know that I and our kids go caching. Lately when I've been asked to talk to local groups about caching I've also covered Waymarking. Local businesses are interested in Waymarking as a way to promote tourism.

[+fyerwatirs]

"If you are in a National Park exploring the beautiful scenery, why do you need a "virtual cache"? In many ways I think it would get in the way of sucking up the beauty and nature to have to look for ways to prove you were really there.

Just enjoy the darn park!"

 

 

 

Not wanting to take a stance on either side but I can say that if it was not for GCGZ71 virtual cache, I would have never known that the bluffs existed. There is no physical caches allowed in the smokies and many trails. This lead me to an awesome spot that took 2 hrs to kike to, would not have traded that virtual cache for 5 of my traditional smash and grab caches that take nothing more than to pull up next to a light pole.

Edited December 20, 2009 by fyerwatirs

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Seeing there are four of those mechanical rides waymarked in your whole state it is like saying you won't look for caches because you saw one film canister hidden behind a 7-11. There are over 800 history related waymarks in your state but because you saw one Pumba ride waymarked you miss out on those.

 

I didn't say I wouldn't look for Waymarks. I just said that I was scanning the listings and when I saw that one, I stopped. It seemed silly.

 

For the record, I was at Toys 'R Us tonight and saw the Pumba ride in person. I suppose I could have gone back to the car, got the camera and snapped a photo so I could log the waymark but I was there to shop. Heck, I would have no reservation about logging the waymark even after calling it a "silly" listing...I just wouldn't make a point of seeking it out.

 

Bruce

[+tozainamboku]

With Waymarking if you don't want to see certain types ignore the whole department and they are gone. Are there some categories I don't like, yes several. I submit one waymark to those categories and I forget about the category. I have two mechanical ride waymarks, one just a standard one to get my waymark in the category and then I ran into a very old one and waymarked it.

And perhaps this is the problem. There isn't a category for ordinary mechanical rides and another one for very old ones. There isn't a category for plain old historic markers and a different category for this is a really cool historic place that you might not have known about otherwise. (Ok, maybe you could put that in Best Kept Secrets). People seem to think that virtual caches had some sort of "Wow"ness to them. Perhaps it was the "wow" requirement that preselected these locations. With Waymarking, you might be interested in shot towers or railroad roundhouses, and then you can pick those categories and find places to visit you are likely to be interested. But if instead you just want a list of interesting places that someone with similar taste thinks are wow you don't have many choices. The Best Kept Secrets category was started specifically to list a certain idea of wowness. These are locations that you probably wouldn't have known was there. We we went even farther asking that Best Kept Secrets have you verify your visit by answering a question like a virtual geocache. I had hoped that there would be a whole section of categories that implement different ideas about what made virtual caches "Wow". But in managing this one category I see just how difficult this is. We get very few submissions because people have trouble understanding the requirements for a Best Kept Secret. And of those we do get, they are often not what I'd consider a best kept secret. Instead they seen to be people looking for a category for their waymark and couldn't find one, so they submitted to Best Kept Secrets because it sounded like a catchall.

[+Shop99er]

Virtuals kept the Wow factor as they used to call it as a requirement right to the end. It was a lot tougher to get one approved.

There's 3 reasons I can think of why virtuals are more popular than waymarks.

 

1) they show up when you're searching for geocaches. Waymarks don't.

2) there's nothing like a PQ for downloading waymarks.

3) virtuals show up under your find count. waymarks don't.

 

Anyway, it seems like waymarkers prefer to create waymarks than log them. Waymarks are a combination of locationless/reverse cache (creating) and virtual cache (visiting / logging).

 

You're very right about the 3 criteria. Does anyone know why Groundspeak has never implemented PQs for Waymarking? One thing about Waymarking, it is locationless 'caching'. I can't think of a Waymarking example that is the equivalent of the old virtual. The old-fashioned virtual required people to gather information at the site and email the owner with a correct answer before claiming a find.

 

As someone posted earlier in the thread, it never seems that anyone goes and finds them. There's a gazillion WM's around here that no one had ever logged.

 

They just get created. So, no PQ needed.

[+Chrysalides]

As someone posted earlier in the thread, it never seems that anyone goes and finds them. There's a gazillion WM's around here that no one had ever logged.

 

They just get created. So, no PQ needed.

Perhaps if there's a PQ mechanism, more people would visit them?

 

Or perhaps not. As noted earlier, people seem to prefer to play it as locationless / reverse caches than virtual caches.

[+Shop99er]

As someone posted earlier in the thread, it never seems that anyone goes and finds them. There's a gazillion WM's around here that no one had ever logged.

 

They just get created. So, no PQ needed.

Perhaps if there's a PQ mechanism, more people would visit them?

 

 

Frankly, I doubt it. With no smiley, most folks see no point. There's a fair number within 4-5 miles of my house, and I don't bother with them.

 

I do own a couple that were created back when WM was just ramping up, and they get logged once or twice a year. Maybe.

[+Packanack]

This thread has drifted off topic, I think a moderator should move it to the Waymarking Forums where it belongs, it sure does not belong on the Geocaching Forum, it is about Waymarking.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This thread has drifted off topic, I think a moderator should move it to the Waymarking Forums where it belongs, it sure does not belong on the Geocaching Forum, it is about Waymarking.

The topic 'bring back virts' always includes waymarks since waymarks are the new virtuals.

 

I haven't looked at the Waymark site lately, as neither of my two heve been hit lately... the Geocaching Tour Guide never since 2007 and the Favorite Fishing Holes not since 2008, but I did just go look to see what has changed.

 

The Waymarking.com home page says that there are now 200,000 waymarks listed, I thought that was pretty cool.

 

So I ran a search on my zip code, 35210

 

There are indeed some interesting waymarks near me.

 

Interspersed with signs for churches, Taco Bells and Pizza Huts there are indeed some interesting places.

 

Then I noticed that many if not most were duplicates - as many as six waymarks exactly alike! So much for the 200,000 number if that many duplicates are allowed!

 

Then I noticed that the first 10 and a half pages of the search results for 35210 are all posted by one guy!

 

Then I noticed that of the hundreds of waymarks he listed in those 10.5 pages NOT ONE has ever been logged!!!!! (okay, I may have missed one or two when visually scanning that many pages, but I don't think so).

 

So, if waymarks are the new virts then I would say that not only are both virts and waymarks dead, their numbers are vastly misrepresented!

[+briansnat]

One thing about Waymarking, it is locationless 'caching'. I can't think of a Waymarking example that is the equivalent of the old virtual. The old-fashioned virtual required people to gather information at the site and email the owner with a correct answer before claiming a find.

 

Nearly every Waymarking category requires you to submit proof of your visit with your log. Usually through a photo (which is a method used by many virtuals).

 

Waymarking is a combination of locationless and virtual caches. Someone starts a category, say for instance

"lighthouses". Then waymarkers go out and find examples of lighthouses to submit. That is similar to locationless caching, though instead of writing a log, they create a waymark when they find one.

 

Those waymarks then become the equivalent of virtual caches. People can use their GPS to find them, gather whatever proof is required by the category manager, then log the find.

[+briansnat]

Then I noticed that many if not most were duplicates - as many as six waymarks exactly alike! So much for the 200,000 number if that many duplicates are allowed!

 

Duplicates are not allowed, though waymarks can be listed in multiple categories. For example I might find find an old Catholic church with a cemetery next to it and list it under the "old churches", "Catholic churches", "stained glass", "churchyard cemeteries" and "National Register of Historic Places" categories (and perhaps a few others).

 

Though the same location is used, generally the waymarks won't be exactly alike, as different categories require different information on the pages. The Catholic Church category shows information such as diocese and archdiocese , while the same location in the Old Churches category will require information about the history of the building and congregation. Of course if the same person posts both waymarks he might cut and past much of the same information on both pages, but the pages still won't be identical.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Then I noticed that many if not most were duplicates - as many as six waymarks exactly alike! So much for the 200,000 number if that many duplicates are allowed!

 

Duplicates are not allowed, though waymarks can be listed in multiple categories. For example I might find find an old Catholic church with a cemetery next to it and list it under the "old churches", "Catholic churches", "stained glass", "churchyard cemeteries" and "National Register of Historic Places" categories (and perhaps a few others).

 

Though the same location is used, generally the waymarks won't be exactly alike, as different categories require different information on the pages. The Catholic Church category shows information such as diocese and archdiocese , while the same location in the Old Churches category will require information about the history of the building and congregation. Of course if the same person posts both waymarks he might cut and past much of the same information on both pages, but the pages still won't be identical.

Otay, technically they may not be duplicates, but here's what I get when I run a search on zip code 35210...

 

 

This shows four waymarks by just one user on the same building.

 

Now, that looks pretty much like duplicates to me!

 

And, if each of those counts as a waymark then indeed the 200,000 number is totally bogus.

Edited December 20, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

Then I noticed that many if not most were duplicates - as many as six waymarks exactly alike! So much for the 200,000 number if that many duplicates are allowed!

 

Duplicates are not allowed, though waymarks can be listed in multiple categories. For example I might find find an old Catholic church with a cemetery next to it and list it under the "old churches", "Catholic churches", "stained glass", "churchyard cemeteries" and "National Register of Historic Places" categories (and perhaps a few others).

 

Though the same location is used, generally the waymarks won't be exactly alike, as different categories require different information on the pages. The Catholic Church category shows information such as diocese and archdiocese , while the same location in the Old Churches category will require information about the history of the building and congregation. Of course if the same person posts both waymarks he might cut and past much of the same information on both pages, but the pages still won't be identical.

Otay, technically they may not be duplicates, but here's what I get when I run a search...

 

 

Now, that looks pretty much like duplicates to me!

 

And, if each of those counts as a waymark then indeed the 200,000 number is totally bogus.

 

Exactly what I was referring to. They are listed in multiple categories. People who are interested in the National Register category may have no interest in the Wikipedia Entry category so there is no reason not to cross list locations that fit in multiple categories. A quick look at the pages will show that the information on each is different.

 

Anyway I don't see the issue. Somebody can log an object several times. So?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Anyway I don't see the issue. Somebody can log an object several times. So?

"Somebody can log an object several times. So?" Yeah, that was my point about Pocket Caches at events, too. Not too many folks agreed!

 

So if waymarks serve as the new virtuals then there should be one waymark for each place, like virts. That waymark can be discoverable under several categories without creating a new waymark for each... that's what makes the 200,000 number bogus.

 

And, if waymarks are not the new virtuals but a different animal indeed then the 'bring back virtuals' outcry makes sense.

[+BruceS]

 

So I ran a search on my zip code, 35210

 

There are indeed some interesting waymarks near me.

 

Interspersed with signs for churches, Taco Bells and Pizza Huts there are indeed some interesting places.

 

Then I noticed that many if not most were duplicates - as many as six waymarks exactly alike! So much for the 200,000 number if that many duplicates are allowed!

 

Then I noticed that the first 10 and a half pages of the search results for 35210 are all posted by one guy!

 

Then I noticed that of the hundreds of waymarks he listed in those 10.5 pages NOT ONE has ever been logged!!!!! (okay, I may have missed one or two when visually scanning that many pages, but I don't think so).

 

So, if waymarks are the new virts then I would say that not only are both virts and waymarks dead, their numbers are vastly misrepresented!

 

Those that you think are duplicates are for same location but are in different categories thus are not duplicates, just part of the game.

 

Of those 250 waymarks on the first 10 pages from zip code 35210 are waymarks posted by 10 different waymarkers. (add in the next 1/2 page and you have 2 more waymarkers)

 

Roughly 20-25% have had visits. Sure we would like more visits but smiley's are the drivers for many (no I don't want waymarks to count as geocaches)

 

Now there is a new iPhone app "powered by Waymarking.com" with just the history related categories available. The iPhone experience of Waymarking will be different than someone going to the website and doing a perimeter search as it is pre-filtered to history and culture categories only.