Vote to bring back virtual caches!

49 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

OK, lets compromise.... Allow victuals where traditionals are not allowed by NON-COMMERCIAL land managers or other rules of cache placement.

I think that lets in national monuments and parks and airports but leaves out the McDonalds and Starbucks.  Maybe up the minimum distance to two miles.... Those would be easy rules to enforce (thus reducing the review burden) yet would give a good result, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

OK, lets compromise.... Allow victuals where traditionals are not allowed by NON-COMMERCIAL land managers or other rules of cache placement.

I think that lets in national monuments and parks and airports but leaves out the McDonalds and Starbucks.  Maybe up the minimum distance to two miles.... Those would be easy rules to enforce (thus reducing the review burden) yet would give a good result, I think.

Not liking the non-commercial part.  We have several in pocket parks in business areas that should be virtuals but they would fail your test.  Also, the two mile rule would kill two of the three (Emily Morgan/Faith, Charity & Hope, R U TXN)

No, bring them back with more stringent review rules....even if it means providing pictures to the reviewer of the area and justification of why you think it's a spot for a virtual.

GC should quit penalizing the community for their own shortsightedness and shortcomings.  >:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

OK, lets compromise.... Allow victuals where traditionals are not allowed by NON-COMMERCIAL land managers or other rules of cache placement.

I think that lets in national monuments and parks and airports but leaves out the McDonalds and Starbucks.  Maybe up the minimum distance to two miles.... Those would be easy rules to enforce (thus reducing the review burden) yet would give a good result, I think.

Not liking the non-commercial part.  We have several in pocket parks in business areas that should be virtuals but they would fail your test.  Also, the two mile rule would kill two of the three (Emily Morgan/Faith, Charity & Hope, R U TXN)

No, bring them back with more stringent review rules....even if it means providing pictures to the reviewer of the area and justification of why you think it's a spot for a virtual.

GC should quit penalizing the community for their own shortsightedness and shortcomings.  >:(

I did those 3 caches a couple weeks ago.. They were AWESOME!!  But I agree, a virtual would be more fitting for those areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm not really in favor of bringing back virtuals.  I have found over 135 of them and to be honest, some of them were really lame.  The only requirement for a couple was just to go to the site and you could log it as a find.  Perhaps there could be some firm restrictions or even have them as categories.  Earthcaches are a find example.  They must have some geological purpose before they are allowed.  Maybe they could comprise new categories like a Histo-cache (a history virtual), where you would have to learn something historical.  I am just afraid that if virtuals returned, willy nilly, there would be a flood of new virtuals that do nothing but give someone a smiley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Virtuals are coming back folks!  The details haven't been announced, but Jeremy said  "we have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don't want them back."

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050805-bring-back-virtuals?utm_campaign=Widgets&utm_medium=widget&utm_source=feedback.geocaching.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Virtuals are coming back folks!  The details haven't been announced, but Jeremy said  "we have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don't want them back."

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050805-bring-back-virtuals?utm_campaign=Widgets&utm_medium=widget&utm_source=feedback.geocaching.com

YEA O0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hooray!  I love virtuals, and look forward to getting my first one published.  ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Virtuals are coming back folks!  The details haven't been announced, but Jeremy said  "we have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don't want them back."

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050805-bring-back-virtuals?utm_campaign=Widgets&utm_medium=widget&utm_source=feedback.geocaching.com

I wonder if it means that they will be putting back virtuals but keeping them on a separate site like waymarking.  We did a a ton of virtuals and earthcaches in Yellowstone NP because that was all that was allowed, and we were glad to have them as an option.  However, both the virtuals and earthcaches really took a long time to log because of all of the extra email requirements.  The logging was the part that we didn't enjoy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They ought to bring them back the way they were instead of trying to port them over to Waymarking.  Waymarking is a mess with their less stringent listing requirements....aside from the fact that they really are mostly Locationless and as most know a Locationless cache did not a Virtual make.

No, they ought to bring them back As Is and force more stringent listing requirements much like Earthcaches.  They're worth it and it'll weed out the lame ones.

Also, they should NOT under any circumstances limit people by the number of finds as this would negate people who live in more remote places from meeting requirements.  Some people on the feedback site mentioned having a time limit like three or six months which seems the most reasonable way to weed out the casual one-and-done iPhone/Android/Gadget cachers.  (And by that we mean the ones who get the app and try it, and with limited experience hide a cache that has....issues.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sweet!  I just hope people who make new ones make the logging requirements stringent enough to actually require people to visit the site.  Too much armchair logging goes on now which may be the very reason that virtuals disappeared to begin with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Also, I think the quality of virtuals was going downhill.

We did a few out in Utah along IH-80, that were pretty lame.  The title on the cache page leads you to believe it was a film set for a movie....

When we get there, it's just a regular old gas station. 

Sweet!  I just hope people who make new ones make the logging requirements stringent enough to actually require people to visit the site.  Too much armchair logging goes on now which may be the very reason that virtuals disappeared to begin with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I couldn't find the other thread about bringing back virtuals so I'm posting this here. I was cruising the forums and found this posted by Jeremy:

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

Some points:

It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.

Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.

It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.

We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

For those who want to read the entire thread, you can find it here:

http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=269023&st=50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just found this old thread which seems to say to me, the challenges are the new virtuals.  Yes, many of you already figured that out.  IF that is the case, I'd have to say, we've gotten all of the bad that was anticipated and very little, if any, of the good that was desired by those that wanted virtuals back.

How to fix it?  I'd vote for virtuals as they were with a review process.  I've like ALMOST all the virtuals I've done but can think of a few that are pretty worthless, Big Mega House (near Pearland), or whatever it's called comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I couldn't find the other thread about bringing back virtuals so I'm posting this here. I was cruising the forums and found this posted by Jeremy:

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

He's a perfect candidate for Washington....

On the site where it said "Bring Back Virtuals"  It said, first, "Planned" and then something like "In Progress"  and not ONCE did it say, "Oh, and by the way?  We don't really mean it like it used to be, but rather, this new fangled thingy that'll surely be a 6 for a 9"

What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'm uncommitted on bringing back virtuals.  I want web cam caches back.    :tickedoff:  They are so hard to find.  :o  The one on the UT campus was recently archived and I think the nearest one I haven't found is 400 miles away in Oklahoma.  :-*  I have found 14 and not many cachers have that many.  Let's start a movement to renew web cam caches...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Let's start a movement to renew web cam caches...

 

Well, I'm open to some horse-trading.  I'll vote for the web cam return if you vote for the return of virtuals.  Oh wait, you already owe me for a vote, oh well, you get a two fer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If the new "Challenges" were supposed to replace "Virtuals", they've missed the mark.  The two ideas are totally different.  They need to seriously re-look this and come up with something that rewards people for going somewhere of interest/historical significance without having to do some trivial task that may or may not have anything to do with this hobby/activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If the new "Challenges" were supposed to replace "Virtuals", they've missed the mark.  The two ideas are totally different.  They need to seriously re-look this and come up with something that rewards people for going somewhere of interest/historical significance without having to do some trivial task that may or may not have anything to do with this hobby/activity.

O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I am working with a cache owner and trying to adopt a few virtuals. This is what it says when he puts the cache into the adoption space.

Adoptions

The 'Virtual Cache' listing cannot be adopted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I just read the fact that virtuals and webcams can not be adopted. Oh well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why are they wanting to adopt out? Usually no maint req'd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why are they wanting to adopt out? Usually no maint req'd.

They are longer interested in caching. Only own two virtuals and they have not found a cache in years. they do want to keep these alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why are they wanting to adopt out? Usually no maint req'd.

They are longer interested in caching. Only own two virtuals and they have not found a cache in years. they do want to keep these alive.

How about they give you access to their account so that you can change email address and maintain them through that account.

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