DonKeyHoeTee

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other. I'm not impressed with the structure, or , for that matter, the purpose of Waymarking. No, something's acutely wrong here. After all, finding a cache means using given geographically-based information to find a specific place that you can find something new to you and of interest and value. Even the definition of swag is something that should be of value, even if minimal.. Knowledge gained by visiting sites that do not have physical swag or physical logs still meets the criteria. So my point is that the swag of a virtual is knowledge, appreciation for history, or other enlightenment; something you didn't possess before you visited the site. I know I'm fighting a useless battle, but I do have a passion for the sport, not what the website wants.

Go start your own web site. I don't understand why you just don't get "no" as the answer to bringing back new virtual cache submissions on this site. Jeremy has been pretty clear. He said no. Some of the slams against the site and against the volunteers just keep driving that nail home. I like them, but I have enjoyed not having to argue with people about unacceptable submissions much more. I need to go back to "being lazy". See ya. In this case, the highest authority possible has already said "No". You can appeal your fictional case all the way to the supreme court, and when they rule against you, what happens then? You accept it. That's the case here--the supreme court has ruled against you, so accept it. Right. So accept it and move on. You're just peeing into the wind at this point. Not true. Link to the post and the (in)appropriate quote is below. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3057174 As the parent of a 2 year old, isn't it annoying when you do tell them they can't have a cookie, and explain the various reason they can't have it, yet they continue to ask anyway? As has been pointed out to you before, it's not going to change. If you still want to create virtual caches, feel free to join one of the other sites that offers them. Have fun! You can imagine my confusion. I went to the dictionary to refresh my memory... 1: moderator - one who arbitrates:MEDIATOR 2: a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor. I suppose we've been spoiled, living in a democracy and all, expecting that maybe our voices are heard. And, as Motorcycle-Mama pointed out, this is a private site. But it relies upon a very public activity whose support is needed for it's continuing success. My premium membership is up for renewal. I've decided that my hard-earned $$ are archived. Have fun! I seriously doubt that the few people who would not have premium memberships over this issue would even make a blip on the radar of Groundspeak, financially or mentally. Remember, Jeremy didn't get into this website to become a huge successful multi-millionaire. The site grew beyond his expectations, and he's using the money he gets from it to hire people to keep it running at the comparative level and better than it was before. He's not here to make a bunch of money. This is his hobby as well as all of ours. I don't think that it affects him much when a few people dislike a decision that he's made. At least I tried!

Go start your own web site. I don't understand why you just don't get "no" as the answer to bringing back new virtual cache submissions on this site. Jeremy has been pretty clear. He said no. Some of the slams against the site and against the volunteers just keep driving that nail home. I like them, but I have enjoyed not having to argue with people about unacceptable submissions much more. I need to go back to "being lazy". See ya. In this case, the highest authority possible has already said "No". You can appeal your fictional case all the way to the supreme court, and when they rule against you, what happens then? You accept it. That's the case here--the supreme court has ruled against you, so accept it. Right. So accept it and move on. You're just peeing into the wind at this point. Not true. Link to the post and the (in)appropriate quote is below. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3057174 As the parent of a 2 year old, isn't it annoying when you do tell them they can't have a cookie, and explain the various reason they can't have it, yet they continue to ask anyway? As has been pointed out to you before, it's not going to change. If you still want to create virtual caches, feel free to join one of the other sites that offers them. Have fun! You can imagine my confusion. I went to the dictionary to refresh my memory... 1: moderator - one who arbitrates:MEDIATOR 2: a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor. I suppose we've been spoiled, living in a democracy and all, expecting that maybe our voices are heard. And, as Motorcycle-Mama pointed out, this is a private site. But it relies upon a very public activity whose support is needed for it's continuing success. My premium membership is up for renewal. I've decided that my hard-earned $$ are archived. Have fun!

TBTP listed virtuals because someone had suggested them as an alternative for areas where you could not place a physical cache. The concept seemed simple. You would give the coordinates of an object. The finder would have to use the GPS to find the object and there would be some way to verify that he found the object in lieu of a log book. Almost immediately this definition began to cause problems. First there was the meaning of "could not place a physical cache". Did this mean areas like National Parks where the land manager did not allow physical caches or would it also apply to an area where caches kept getting muggled, or one where the cacher thought a physical container would be inappropriate, like a 9/11 memorial. I think if TPTB had defined what it meant to not be able to place a physical cache there would've have been a lot less problems with virutals. But they found this caused another problem. Land managers who were thinking about what geocaching policy to have would see that they could solve their problem by banning physical caches and allowing virtuals. One of the reasons new virtuals went away is to remove this incentive to land manangers to outlaw physical cache hides. Next came the definition of an object that you could find with a GPS. Some people listed mountain summits, scenic overview, parks, and large structures like bridges as virtuals. You probably didn't need a GPS to find these and even if you did, exactly what were you finding? The idea was to have to search for something when you got to the coordinates. This concept seems too difficult for some people to grasp. Some did understand the search part and decided that any sign, historic marker, tombstone, etc. etc. could make a virtual cache. This resulted in a flood of virtuals - because they were too easy to make; even easier than throwing a 35mm film can under a lamppost. So TPTB add the "Wow" guideline that said The Wow guideline cause nothing but headaches for the volunteer cache reviewers. They were accused of applying it inconsistently or even of having personal agendas in deciding which virtuals to approve or not. Approving a virtual took up a significant amount of the reviewers' time; time which could have been spent reviewing physical caches. Another reason TPTB decided on no new virtuals was they were just too much trouble to deal with. Perhaps this is the reason that Earthcache are still permitted. For earthcaches, an outside group (Earthcache.org) is responsible for approval of the earthcache and geocaching.com is merely a listing service. Again, it comes down to the fact that someone (TPTB in this example) thought they were too much trouble to deal with. Trouble is a matter of opinion. There are many people that feel the reviewers apply some guidelines for physical caches inconsistently as well. This doesn't mean they should be banned, or no new listings should be allowed. They have no trouble dealing with this. And again - you can't tell me that they are important enough to keep but too much trouble to get new ones. And again, I ask - what do we need to to do get them considered to be moved off the "no new" list? Amen. You stated it well. Thank You

The point of a virtual seems to be that you ask a question or questions that would almost guarantee that a cacher has visited the site. If you block activities just because some people might cheat, this old Earth would come to a standstill! But the value of a virtual is far too important for GC.com to just summarily dismiss them. For example, I spend several months each year in northern Texas. The caches tend to be historical virtuals or else micros placed in high places. If you put a regular cache at ground level on public property, chances are it's gonna wind up in the Gulf after the next heavy rain. History is a big part of of Texas pride, and virtuals are often based on historical and local enlightenment of historical facts. Seems to me that that's a lot more important than somebody taking a bouncy ball out of a regular cache. Virtuals should be based on specifics, such as memorials or buildings or plaques, which are far more likely to have a greater permanence than most physical caches I never realized that the purpose of caches were to be convenient to reviewers. I'm really beginning to wonder who is guiding this activity. It seems to be evolving into a sport of political administrators rather than those of us who are out in the woods and fields enjoying the hunt and the find, and what interests us. I never saw a notice or explanation why virtuals were sent to the gulag. Nor, as a long-standing premium member, was I asked my opinion. Here in Northern Wisconsin, I recently decided to do a series of virtuals that involved tributes to military veterans. These were typically in cemeteries and at special monuments, and were intended to introduce fellow cachers to the importance of the contributions of our people in our many services of their contribution to our country, through war and peace. These are not places you want to desecrate with containers full of trinkets. Rather, it was meant to be a tribute to our veterans, where cachers visits would be rewarded two-fold, with the ability to log a "find" and to learn something so very important in our country's history and people. Today I discovered that Virtuals had been proclaimed to be banished. I can't imagine how many positive experiences will be missed because somebody worried about the carcass of a dead animal becoming a tasteless virtual. How ridiculous! I'd like to see a front page vote regarding the reinstatement of virtuals.

Is the smiley really what prompted the change?No, but it prompts many of Brian's rants. Then what did? I haven't heard the "official" reasoning...is it noted somewhere by GC.com? Not that it matters...just curious.As I understand it, there were two reasons (in no particular order):It was often difficult to negotiate with land managers for geocaches to be placed. It was too easy for them to allow virts instead of 'real' caches. The quality of virts was often questionable. Rather than allow every piece of trash and decaying animal to be a virt, they initiated the 'wow' test, but this was difficult (or impossible) for the reviewers to manage and only served to cause additional angst. Uh....What???

You could. But most people don't look before posting. I also received a red Jeep TB...yesterday. I didn't know it was going to be red before it arrived, so I am offended that there might be a separate post regarding Jeep TB colors. Chill, guys. The directions posted so far do not work. All I want to do is to make sure this Jeep gets on it's way. If you're into cynicism, bash me all you want, but at least give me the info I need to participate...that's what it's all about. DonKeyHoeTee

I'm never gonna go to sleep again

First thanks to all who responded in the forum and via emails. It took some doing but I finally got the TB logged in the proper site. Although I tried a number of things, I didn't initially get them in the 'right' order. Evidently there was a glitch when I logged the initial retrieval of the TB: it said it was in my possession, but did not appear in my TB inventory. In order to fix this, I deleted the retrieval log and then re-entered a 'new' retrieval. I then went to the cache site note for where I dropped it off and deleted that log. Re-entered that log and the wayward TB was now in my inventory, and was then capable of being placed. Guess the moral he is to start totally from scratch, and make certain you have a log of TB tag #'s for future reference! Again, Thanks to all

The TB is Rocket (5C Bluejay 2005), relatively new with only a few posts. I picked it up on 10/29 from GCQ4P0 and placed it in GC2149 on 11/11.

I''ve picked up and dropped off several TB friends, but recently picked up one, logged it in and went to place it in a new location. Although the TB's log shows it to be in my possession, it also shows it being in the cache I retrieved it from. When I attempt to place it in a new cache it appears that I don't have it in my possession! Just wondering what I can be doing wrong, and how I can correct it

Musta been to some caches in N WI, often in berry or sticker or burdock patches! I've learned to wear long sleeves even in summer

I thought I knew most surveying and associated stuff. Thanks Z15 for adding this info!

Thanks John (2oldfarts) for the response. However, the survey disk (with a witness post) is clearly marked as "Muskellunge Tower". with a 1934 stamp. This is the kind of info that makes us compare historical info. Pictures by tolleybrew Muskellunge Tower, Vilas Co, WI) confirm this location. Thanks for the input, DKHT

Wow, what excellent research! The question remains, how do the dead-center-below-the-tower benchmark finders log their finds? I've searched as much as I can and haven't found a separate listing for MUSKELLUUNGE TOWER. This was a GREAT job! What's the next step?

I'm soo VERY impressed with the responses. I know I erred on the original post, but I've learned more by the responses than I could've ever expected!. Deserves another visit to the site and maybe a visit to my old friend who's a local surveyor.

Thanks to all posts. With chagrin I admit I did transpose numbers with an Onieda county benchmark QM0472 (thanks to GH55 for the message). But the mystery of the "LOT D" reference when the marker clearly indicates "Muskellunge Tower" as well as the service date stamped does not appear to be 1940. The posts add clarity and mystery to this spot I apologize for my errors in this forum post and it has been suggested that I delete it. However, the responses have been a wonderful source of information for all of us who not only enjoy benchmark-hunting, but are interested in this particular area. Thanks again to all who responded. If you think I should delete it, please let me know.

Sorry for my errors in the initial forum posts.I freely admit most of this is a complete error on my part. However, the excellent responses I have received to my query regarding discrepancies in benchmark hunting has brought forth some very expert responses. It has been been a wonderful experience in learning benchmark geofinds. The original question posted appears below: I'd like to know who to contact when I find obvious benchmark database errors. For example, there is a benchmark, when accessed by the Muskellunge Lot D, etc (QM0472) in N WI description and coords , takes you to a whole bunch of GPS enthusiasts who figure that this is the Muskellunge Tower benchmark, which is well documented with coords and pictures. I can confirm that those coords , and is confirmed by multiple GPS'rs and a close proximity cache (GC2149) However, a search on the geocaching.com site for a PID with the same QM0472 becomes a Lot D benchmark in Oneida Cty, many miles away. The caching db is as good as those who provide the data. For those of us who occassionally like to 'do' benchmarks, errors like this should have an easier way of reporting. I'm not going to suggest that somebody who has a few decimal degrees of argumentation should modify these records. But a reporting form or authourity would be a wonderful addition. Benchmark information is a somewhat different animal than geocaching, but I believe we have a responsibility to provide the best information at our disposal. Responses are welcome