Vote to bring back virtual caches!

49 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Goto geocaching.com then click the Feedback button on the right.  The highest voted topic so far is to bring back virtuals.  Go and vote to bring them back, and submit any other ideas you might have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I added to that list last night to bring back Webcams too. I think they have their own challenge to get because you have to have help to snap the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Goto geocaching.com then click the Feedback button on the right.  The highest voted topic so far is to bring back virtuals.  Go and vote to bring them back, and submit any other ideas you might have!

Thanks for posting this and yeah, also bringing back webcams is a great idea too!!!  O0 O0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I added to that list last night to bring back Webcams too. I think they have their own challenge to get because you have to have help to snap the picture.

not really you can just do it with your phone now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I added to that list last night to bring back Webcams too. I think they have their own challenge to get because you have to have help to snap the picture.

We did two webcams on our trip. I was able to use my phone and save the picture. Didn't have to call anyone.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Jeremy has been adamant that virtuals will not darken the GC.com door again.  But I say "Fight the power!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Jeremy has been adamant that virtuals will not darken the GC.com door again.  But I say "Fight the power!"

He's being dense.  For a site that preaches "leave no trace" just what in the heck does he think about microspew!!!!!  :tickedoff:

Where's his argument?  Servers?  The money he WASTED on waymarking and whereigo could've EASILY purchased a BUNCH of servers.

We're with you on fight the power! O0:peace:

He's being a nincompoop.  A real knucklehead.  >:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Voted for and then went to waymarking to see if it's comparable.  Almost but not quite as exciting as getting a smiley.  Heading to STL for the holiday and just found another few hundred thinds to look for on the way.  :crazy2: Wish I could create a route to add to the one I generated on GC.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Voted for and then went to waymarking to see if it's comparable.  Almost but not quite as exciting as getting a smiley. 

Yeah, well, with waymarking you'll always know where McDonald's and Starbucks are  ;D  but with Virtuals you'll be able to do boring things like see the wonders in National Parks and oddities you wouldn't find anywhere else without creating a geo-trail or worries about muggles.... :boring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You choose which one you'd rather see:

[House cleaning - attachment deleted by admin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You choose which one you'd rather see:

Depends on how hungry you are.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The trouble is, with some cachers being what they are (see LPC micro-spew), there would be virtuals at every McDonalds, WalMart and newspaper stand in the country.  Folks could "place" hundreds of caches all over without ever leaving their home.

It would take an Earthcache-like review process to weed out the trash from the valid virtuals.  Maybe they could open them up again to areas where traditional caches are off-limits, like national parks?

Sorry if I sound like Jeremy...  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Arches National Park > Golden Arches in my book.

I completely agree.

Picture taken for Virtual at Dead Horse State Park over looking Arches/Canyon Lands

moab-4.jpg

...although 300' behind where this picture was taken was a traditional... placed by the park.. no less.

http://coord.info/GC1PNQ8 (new link option on cache page is nice)

However.. we got an EarthCache, Virtual, and Traditional within 500'...  O0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yeah, well, with waymarking you'll always know where McDonald's and Starbucks are  ;D  but with Virtuals you'll be able to do boring things like see the wonders in National Parks and oddities you wouldn't find anywhere else without creating a geo-trail or worries about muggles.... :boring:

They have all the cool places too on waymarking. But I think they have too many categories that it is hard to sort through them all to find the good ones. You can ignore the categories you don't like and they won't show up for you anymore.

Also, the problem I see with waymarking is they let the community pick the new categories and with not enough people involved it lets in too many non ideal categories and poor waymarks. It is a good start, but you can see that they don't have enough manpower / desire to fix it, or it would be much better.

Yeah, you don't get a smiley for visiting a waymark, but hopefully you enjoyed your visit. You just don't get another +1 added to your finds list. It's not about the numbers is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In agreement with HC's comment, what we need is a history cache category, with an earth cache like review board. 

One of the many problems with waymarks is the absence of any PQ like feature and no simple paperless way to carry logging requirements with you.  It's easy enough to use automation to make GPX of a category like Texas historical markers (though against the TOS) that all have the same logging requirements but if you want to get more elaborate, the difficulty goes way up.  For me the fact that every Starbucks in the world is a waymark undermines the value of finding them.  If it is no more difficult than buying a cup of coffee, then why bother to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The trouble is, with some cachers being what they are (see LPC micro-spew), there would be virtuals at every McDonalds, WalMart and newspaper stand in the country.  Folks could "place" hundreds of caches all over without ever leaving their home.

It would take an Earthcache-like review process to weed out the trash from the valid virtuals.  Maybe they could open them up again to areas where traditional caches are off-limits, like national parks?

Sorry if I sound like Jeremy...  :o

No you don't. One reason they stopped approving them was because of a shoddy review process....and you're correct, a earthcache type process would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's not about the numbers is it?

It shouldn't be but reality dictates otherwise with the masses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

One of the many problems with waymarks is the absence of any PQ like feature and no simple paperless way to carry logging requirements with you.  It's easy enough to use automation to make GPX of a category like Texas historical markers (though against the TOS) that all have the same logging requirements but if you want to get more elaborate, the difficulty goes way up.  For me the fact that every Starbucks in the world is a waymark undermines the value of finding them.  If it is no more difficult than buying a cup of coffee, then why bother to do it.

I agree with the idea that it is a burden in trying to navigate the differences in the logging requirements from category to category. There has been talk of making a standard logging requirement across all categories, but I don't think it has been implemented. Groundspeak would have to bless that big of a change, and they have been hands off on waymarking for a while now IMHO.

They have LOC file downloads for one page at a time, but that is not ideal either.

The iPhone "Historic Places" waymarking app is a good idea, but limited in practice.

I can see the limited benefit of having a database of the Starbucks, but I wouldn't consider it fun and wouldn't want to participate in that category either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They have LOC file downloads for one page at a time, but that is not ideal either.

Its automating the download for multiple pages that violates the TOS.

I can see the limited benefit of having a database of the Starbucks, but I wouldn't consider it fun and wouldn't want to participate in that category either.

While  messing around on the waymaking site the other day, I noticed that you had made a sizable contribution to some good categories.  It made me think about starting to find them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

While  messing around on the waymaking site the other day, I noticed that you had made a sizable contribution to some good categories.  It made me think about starting to find them.

I had marked the most Texas Historical markers in the category a while back. I'm not sure if I am still at the top. I know a lot of people are marking new ones all of the time.

History got me interested in waymarking in the beginning. I still try to stop, mark, and take pictures of the Texas markers when feasible, but I am not as obsessed with it as I once was. :) I know I have a backlog of pictures / coordinates that I'm not sure if I will ever get around to posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm on the review board for the Waymarking Category of Space Flight Memorials and Exhibits, along with Thot and John Charles.  I've helped approve lots of waymarks to that category, yet I've only logged one waymark in my life.  I think (because of my caching name) they thought I was somehow associated with NASA when they asked me to participate -- LOL.

BTW, I noticed there is also a vote on the GC feedback page entitled "Don't bring back virtual caches".  ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To address the problem of people making virtual caches at McDonalds or other questionable locations, they could implement something like you have to have at least 500 cache finds to place a virtual...and in order to place one virtual, you must have at least 10 virtual cache finds, and you can only place one virtual cache for every 25 other cache types you've placed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To address the problem of people making virtual caches at McDonalds or other questionable locations, they could implement something like you have to have at least 500 cache finds to place a virtual...and in order to place one virtual, you must have at least 10 virtual cache finds, and you can only place one virtual cache for every 25 other cache types you've placed.

Something like that probably would help out with the problem, but it would be sort of a pain for the reviewers to have to look up a person's stats before they could approve a cache.  Thinking outside of the box like this though is probably what needs to happen to come up with an idea that takes care of quality, if they were brought back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To address the problem of people making virtual caches at McDonalds or other questionable locations, they could implement something like you have to have at least 500 cache finds to place a virtual...and in order to place one virtual, you must have at least 10 virtual cache finds, and you can only place one virtual cache for every 25 other cache types you've placed.

Something like that probably would help out with the problem, but it would be sort of a pain for the reviewers to have to look up a person's stats before they could approve a cache.  Thinking outside of the box like this though is probably what needs to happen to come up with an idea that takes care of quality, if they were brought back.

I was thinking it could be more of an automated process...the system will know people's stat's so it simply won't let some one submit one if they don't meet the requirements.  Then again, a lot of the cache publishing guidelines could be approved or rejected automatically...i guess it is just a matter of them programming it into the approval process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now