Belleterre

Okay, maybe it's not a thief. Maybe its someone who's just trying to be helpful and get these caches online. But I'm not betting on that.

For those of you who know of my efforts to get 6 Yellowstone virtuals listed, (see this thread.) http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=2180944054 There are two new Yellowstone virtuals listed today: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=22731 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=22729 These are two of my caches!!! The coordinates, the titles and the cache wording are mine, with few variations. After more than two months of just trying to get a response from admin. these two stolen caches are listed. Poof! They belong to a thief. Yes, I'm pissed!! I'm seeing red. I'd like to punch someones lights out. This is not what this game is supposed to be about. Maybe I'll get calmed down in a while, but this is the kind of stuff that drives people away.

Alan2 suggested that I post them on another cache site, navxxx. It's been done successfully. I'm still hoping they'll show up here though.

quote:Originally posted by Alan2: Why don't you post them on Nav!cache site. Alan Good idea! It's been done successfully. Thanks for the idea. I'm still holding out for approval here.

quote:Originally posted by Markwell: I asked this question specifically to Jeremy via e-mail, as someone moved one of my http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=14433 to a National Park. Jeremy said that it's OK for virtuals in National Parks. No box, no worries. That answer doesn't seem to jive with the 6 virtual caches that I placed, but can't get approved in Yellowstone. Check out this thread. http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=2180944054

No luck yet. I sent Jeremy another e-mail on the 8th asking for an explanation on why he won't approve them and still haven't heard anything. Maybe it's going to take e-mails from a few other people to get them listed.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup: I would suggest splitting them into two three-leg virtuals, putting the three handicap accessible ones together as one of the two, and the more challenging trio as the other. I'd thought of trying something like that, but the same problem of distance comes up. The best split, distance wise, would be to group two into a westside cache and 4 into an eastside cache. The two on the west would be about 24 miles apart and include 1 handicap accessible. From them, it would be at least a 40 mile drive to the nearest cache on the east side where there are 2 handicap accessable. The farthest east cache is about 30 miles from the next nearest one. All those distances add up to why I think the caches are more appropriate separately.

quote:Originally posted by seneca: Hopefully the "approvers" were just making a suggestion that these individual virtuals be combined into a multi, and are withholding approval until this suggestion has been considered. It would be very dissappointing if after Belleterre rejects the suggestion, approval is still withheld. I can understand the initial disapproval because the person didn't know that it was 150 miles and they expressed the concern of answers being found on the internet. However, I immediately sent a polite e-mail saying that I didn't think combining was a good idea because of the 150 miles. I also told him some of the answers so he could see that it's very unlikely that they would come off the net. I have sent several follow-up e-mails over the past two months and have gotten no response. I take that as making the combining a requirement, not a suggestion. I think Yellowstone is more than big enough to handle 6 individual caches. As they are now, 3 are accessable to people in wheelchairs and 3 are not. Making it all-in-one eliminates these people and also the many people who do not drive the loops, but only pass through a portion of the park. My intent was to make something available for families with young children, handicapped people and anyone who simply doesn't have time or desire to drive all over between these.

I’m looking for some input from people who like virtual caches, or at least accept their existence. I placed the following 6 virtual caches in Yellowstone NP. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16351 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16352 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16350 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16348 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16347 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16346 They are easy, ‘1’ difficulty and ‘1’ or ‘1.5’ terrain, caches. They simply ask for the subject of a sign at the given location. The signs are informative about the area and should not be able to be figured out with an internet search. It appears that they won’t be approved unless I combine them into a single multi-cache. I don’t think that’s practical because it would involve over 150 miles of driving. Maybe it would be okay for a ‘5’ difficulty killer cache, but not for these simple ones.

1. I think the GPS (for those of us who aren't orienteers) should come before the find, instead of after. 2. Leave out the ''challenge to be first'' part. Virts are fun, but be sure the answer can't be found without going there.

If there was a river between you and it or it was 40 feet up in the air between two poles or even wedged in a crack in a rock 20 feet up that you couldn't get to, I'd say no. But, as long as you could have easily retrieved it, I'd say it was a find, if it was my cache.

I must have read the same issue of Backpacker Magazine that Hawk-eye did. It was on my list of ''web sites to check out someday'' for quite awhile before I got my round tuit. Got hooked right away when I finally saw what it is. Now, if I could just get hubby to be a little more interested.

I must have read the same issue of Backpacker Magazine that Hawk-eye did. It was on my list of ''web sites to check out someday'' for quite awhile before I got my round tuit. Got hooked right away when I finally saw what it is. Now, if I could just get hubby to be a little more interested.

Quotes from FAQ page: - GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. - Virtual caches - .... You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know ''as proof that you were there''. I’m amazed that anyone can believe it’s okay to log a find on a cache that they haven’t been to. It seems so obvious that it doesn’t need to be mentioned. Something like the catsup bottle that says, ‘’Open before pouring’’. In regards to this quote: ‘’cache owners had not stated that a physical visit to their cache was required’’. I’m not sure I’ve seen any cache pages that specifically require a physical visit. So, to carry that line of logic further – if it’s not required on the cache page, I don’t have to do it, therefore I don’t really need to go to most caches to log the find. If I start logging now, I wonder how long it’ll take to get up to 16k?

When I had virtual caches archived immediately, at least I got the courtesy of an immediate e-mail telling why it was archived. I sent a reply back addressing all of the concerns about the caches and asking that they be un-archived, but haven't had a reply to my requests yet.

Glad-ware's annoying, but as long as he keeps replacing it, I'd leave it up to the cache owner. Replacing the container can come across as a real slap in the face to the owner.

I'd have no problem deleting a log when the cacher admits not physically visiting the site. In the big picture, it probably doesn't matter - the cacher will just leave out that little bit of info in future logs. But at least you don't have a big ''I CHEATED'' log on the cache page. Changing the verification requirement to something else might be a good idea.

DO Remember that what isn't your cuppa tea, may be someone elses. DON'T Compete for 'Last-Jerk-Standing' in the forums. HAVE FUN!!!

DO Remember that what isn't your cuppa tea, may be someone elses. DON'T Compete for 'Last-Jerk-Standing' in the forums. HAVE FUN!!!

'Not Founds' make great log entries. Check out http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15526&logs=y&decrypt=. It has more NF logs than founds. After the 3rd NF, I rechecked things, added a spoiler photo and e-mailed encouragement to the cachers. Still got 2 more NF's before the dam broke.

Thanks to everyone who left helpful suggestions on this thread. I’ve decided how to respond to him, so there isn’t a need for more posts. I’d like to close the thread so it will go away. BUT, if I do, I suspect I’ll be accused of chiding, making requirements, self-importance, exercising editorial control over the internet, censoring, demanding, arrogant, unreasonable, manipulative, inefficient, controlling, inviting/expecting rudeness, nonsensical. So, I will only “suggest” that no more posts are made. BTW, I like the chicken hat and red and blue tennies idea. Maybe I could name that cache after the person who suggested it.

Maybe we should start a new thread called "Y'all or Ya'll". I've always thought it was y'all because it's a contraction of "you all". Websters agrees with me. But, ya'll are still invited for supper.

Maybe we should start a new thread called "Y'all or Ya'll". I've always thought it was y'all because it's a contraction of "you all". Websters agrees with me. But, ya'll are still invited for supper.

I have seen the requirement for 'approval to post a find' in several virtuals and it can save a lot of hassle later. If someone either doesn't send an e-mail or gives the wrong answer, how many e-mails do I send and how long do I wait before deleting the log? Judging by other topics, I'd get answers anywhere from sending 1 to several e-mails and waiting from a few days to a few months. It works out a lot better to get things squared away before the find is ever logged.

I have a virtual cache listed with the following requirement: ''Send us an e-mail telling what the bar is most known for by the locals. (It's something about what's on their T-shirts). Any logs made without my okay will be deleted.'' A cacher logged a find without getting pre-approval. I deleted his entry and sent the following message to him: ''I deleted your find because you didn’t give the answer or get the required pre-approval.'' I just received the following e-mail from that person: ''Thank you for your interesting email chiding me for not getting your "required" permission before daring to post a "found it" log for your virtual cache. I'm fairly new at this and had not yet encountered a cacher so self-important as to exercise editorial control over my use of the internet, and, in any event, I had no idea how to obtain your permission had I wanted to. I would consider it a favor if you would inform me of the procedure for acquiring pre-approval from censors such as you.'' I have no problem helping a new cacher, but right now, the only answer I feel like sending him is @#(%#(*($$(@#^@@!!! Any suggestions on how to deal with this?