erik88l-r

I don't know the specifics of what Jeremy has in mind, but I've never had park authorities point to benchmark hunting or confluence hunting or locationless caches as alternatives to hunting physical caches, so there is hope that the two can coexist in a similar way. ~erik~

C_T_D wrote: What I meant was that a minority of geocachers might be fine with the park authority's limits, not that the minority liked virtuals. Team Tigger Intl. wrote: That is indeed true, but we tend to assume that our sport is acceptable and adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy. Then when the park authorities learn of our caches there is often an understandably "knee jerk" reaction. Here is an example: That press release was never issued. I edited out some of the specifics as they are not relevant, could just as easily be the forest in your area. Our organization was able to meet with the park authorities and discuss our sport. Once they learned that virtual caches were really not an acceptable alternative in a forest environment, and that the existing physical caches caused a much lower impact than assumed, they were quite willing to discuss processes that both the rangers and geocachers could work with. Working out the details of that is still in the works, but the press release is a good example of virtuals being seen as a more acceptable alternative. Were there no virtuals we would not have this uphill battle. Virtuals have there place, IMHO, just not where they can be viewed as a safer choice by park managers. ~erik~

I did not decline the virt. in question, but likely would have if I'd seen it first in the approval queue. Yes, it is discrimination, but discrimination based solely on changes in the guidelines and changes to the site since the earlier "graveyard" caches were approved. Once upon a time there was no way to deal with missing TBs. They'd be perpetually listed on the last cache page they were logged onto. TB Graveyards became a logical workaround for the problem. Remember though, that was a time when anything could be posted as a virtual cache. The current guidelines preclude posting something that doesn't exist. Jeremy has also made it possible to temporarily take TBs out of circulation when they turn up missing, and then log them back into the fray if they reappear. That update to the TB listings made TB graveyards redundant. The existing ones were "grandfathered" and still remain (one holds five of my bugs), but no new ones have been approved for quite a while. Regretfully, erik - geocaching.com adminion

The dirty little secret about virts is that it blocks future physical caches. On a small scale it literally blocks those placed within a .1 mile radius from being approved. On a larger scale it can block entire park systems from future caches, can result in existing physical caches being pulled. Small scale - as a cache reviewer I had to decline to post a physical cache last week placed by a new geocacher local to an island in the Carribean because of an existing lame vacation virtual placed years ago. The "owner" of the virt declined to achive it, and as a result he's impeeding the growth of our sport in a place that had no local geocachers until recently. Large scale - entire park systems have taken note of past virts and have seen this as an acceptable alternative to permiting physical caches in their parks. It may be acceptable to them, and it may be acceptable to a minority of geocachers, but I don't think it's good for the sport. Unfortunately this situation continues to crop up as park managers discover our sport and all its variations. It's a hard battle to fight. So hopefully that helps explain the reluctance by the cache reviewers to approve virtual caches. erik - geocaching.com admin

If you use the "note to reviewer" field to specify when a cache should be approved we'll do our upmost to accomodate you. We may even temporarily change the cache name to make it stand out in the approval queue. For example if your cache is called "My Cache", you may see it's name changed to "Approve 3/12 - My Cache". When it is approved the prefix will be removed. If your regular cache reviewer is on vacation or unable to approve the cache he'll ask another one to fill in for him and get your cache posted. Just don't do this too far in advance, or it clogs up the approval queue, and please don't ask us to approve them at 3:00 am in the morning. If you wonder about the validity of your cache concept or location just e-mail the info to your cache reviewer before placing the cache. We'll be happy to discuss your idea and make suggestions for alternatives if there's a problem. erik - geocaching.com admin

Thanks for your service as a mod, Lap. You've done a difficult job with sensitivity and grace. And no, I have no interest in filling your shoes. ~erik~

The site worked very briskly last Sunday night. It was obvious that everyone in the US was watching the Super Bowl. Of course I was too - with one eye. ~erik~

Keystone Approver's link did not work for me. Try this one: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...9143&hl=virtual for a recent discussion ~erik~

Playing the devil's advocate here..... (usually as a cache reviewer I'm just seen as the devil) "Notes to Reviewer" are permanent notes attached to the cache page. They may not be visible once a cache has been approved, but they are still there and can be retrieved. I retrieve them all the time in the case of a multistage cache that has a new cache placed nearby. The only way I can see if the new cache is too close to the final stage of the old one is to pull up the original "Note to reviewer" that documented those coords. If a cache is archived, then unarchived and unapproved for editing, and new information is sent as an e-mail to a cache reviewer that information is lost the next time the cache reviewer cleans out his mailbox. Some may maintain their own database of all the coords of all the caches they've ever approved, but that's not practical for me. If someone does send me an e-mail I will copy and paste that info as my own "Reviewer's Note" on the cache page just to maintain the documentation. For that reason I would agree that fixing it so "Notes to Reviewer" are not sent out to those who have a cache on their watch list would be a good thing. Just using e-mails as a work around would not be a good thing, IMHO ~erik~

There are many that can be done at night. Let us know what part of Atlanta you'll be in. I could consider my Suwanee area to be north Atlanta, but so could folks in Roswell. They are a long way apart. Will you be driving, or limited to how far you can walk from your hotel? My company had a meeting in Buckhead about a year ago and I spent several happy evenings walking within a mile or two of my hotel and finding urban micros. One you can even do on a rainy day there is Buchhead Dragon. ~erik~

As Markwell quoted above, a memorial or historic plaque is too common to generally be approved as a virtual cache. I had the opportunity to draw attention to a local aviation tragedy when a historic plaque was errected 50 years later. I placed a micro in the bushes a few feet away and it in no way detracted from the marker as the target of the hunt. In fact without doing so it would have been pretty lame, since you can see the marker hundreds of feet away as you drive up to it. So it makes it a little bit of a search, even if it is a borederline lame driveby micro. ~erik~

If the cache is actually in the cemetery, as opposed to just outside the graveyard, the cache reviewers will ask that permission be obtained. This is especially true if people are still being intered there or relatives are still visiting loved ones. It's less of a concern in ancient and/or abandoned cemeteries. If in doubt ask the church pastor, groundskeeper, or whoever else might be responsible. I've found caches in cemeteries that were tastefully done and were a great hunt. I have also found a cache in a crypt that was broken open. That was bad. Possible publicity from a hide like that would be very bad for our sport. erik - geocaching.com cache reviewer.

Thanks Seth! That really brings back some memories of racing to find the one placed in the Atlanta area. I think I was 5th to find, got a nifty Planet of the Apes trading card. ~erik~

So everything that follows will be out of context. ~erik~

That's very interesting. I've found a number of damp microcache logs in black film cannisters and attributed it to people not closing the lid securely. Now I wonder.... ~erik~

Welcome back! Nice too that you were able to renegociate your salary contract to double what you were previously getting. Or was that a secret? ~erik~

Welcome to our little group. But be careful - I've heard that geocaching can become addictive. ~erik~

I would suggest placing a replacement cache in an area not as close to her home - Unless you think she has a GPS and uses it to find your caches. Pretty sad state of affairs, but I don't think you can make a win-win situation out of it with this woman. Life is too short to waste time butting heads with a fool. ~erik~

That's basically what I did before the days of EasyGPS down loads to the GPS. I'd mark the spot where I was standing, then just edit it to match the coords on the cache page. I still have waypoints in my GPS named "Cache1" , "Cache2", etc. that I use for multis. I edit the old coords associated with one of those waypoints to lead me to the next stage of the multicache. ~erik~

''Couch Potato Rätsel Cache'' Is a German term for puzzles that are posted as "geocaches". Please remember that this site is about geocaching, and finding geocaches. There are plenty of legitimate virtual caches, locationless caches, and physical caches to be found. There are also plenty of other websites devoted to solving puzzles. If a puzzle has to be solved to find a cache that is great. If it is only solved to log a "find" it should not be submitted on this site. Please remember that the whole reason for our sport is to get people away from their computers for awhile and out getting exercise. Why would you have a "cache" that encourages people to be couch potatoes? How stupid is that? Anyway, when I approved the German caches I would occasionally have to regretfully archive a ''Couch Potato Rätsel Cache'' submission and remind people what this sport is about. I appreciate being supplied a list of all such "caches". I don't have the time to do it now, but I think you would agree that if I find my name as the cache approver on a listed ''Couch Potato Rätsel Cache'' that started as a legitimate cache, but was changed after I approved it, then I have every right to archive it. I am responsible for what I review and approve, and do not want my name associated with something that makes a mockery of our good sport. Please keep in mind that I am speaking of recent puzzle caches, I would not put the old "Radio KAOS" in that catagory. I logged that myself many years ago in the days when this site would list anything. We do now have geocaching guidelines that spell out what's acceptable. I have nothing against people who enjoy solving puzzles, as I count myself among that group. But if you have a puzzle on a cache page please have that puzzle lead to a real cache, or post your puzzle on another website. Best regards, erik - geocaching.com admin

That's the thing. You wouldn't submit geocaches for listing on a fundraising site, would you? Please keep in mind that there are many things besides 9/11 appeals for blood that were posted on this site in the past. There were vacation caches, manhole covers as virtual caches, mailboxes as locationless caches, traveling caches that ended up where caches were banned, event caches that had nothing to do with geocaching events, caches near RR tracks, etc., etc. The site discovered that these were not a good idea. Some were allowed to remain as grandfathered caches, others were archived, but the rules were ammended over the years to preclude others from being posted. There is no shortage of places to donate to help those who suffered from this terrible tragedy. Please keep geocaching out of it. ~erik~

Post a "needs archived log" to explain that the cache is no longer usable as is, and offer your alternative. That may jog the current owner into action. If not then there's the alterantive of cache adoption and the alternative of archiving it so you can place a replacement nearby. ~erik~

In this case it's a moot point, but in the future posting the GCxxxx waypoint number of your cache would be helpful to the other cache reviewers who might read threads like this. It takes a lot of time to research which cache is being discussed, but if the waypoint number is posted I and other cache reviewers might be better able to serve you with an intelligent response or e-mail to the reviewer covering your area. We want to help expedite the process, but don't always have time to go through a long list of caches waiting approval to find one with your name on it. erik - geocaching.com adminion

Don't mean to throw cold water on your race to grab the TB, but please keep in mind why geocaches go through a review process. As a cache reviewer I regretfully have to decline to list caches at times because they are located in places that are inappropriate, illegal, or unsafe. Besides being arrested or hurt looking for your travel bug, you may find that you grabbed a TB out of a cache that is going to be moved or archived. Then how do you log it? Why not just wait and play it safe? ~erik~

You can might try e-mailing the person who approved your cache, assuming you have a cache and live in the same area as the cache you think needs looking into. I sometimes get such e-mails and am happy to act on them. If you can't do that just post a "needs archived" message stating why the cache needs attention. The cache owner may not have logged onto the site in months but may still get the e-mail alert. He can then post a note vowing to attend to it. Failing that, someone may offer to take over maintenance, or a cache reviewer may disable it and ask that it be removed in a few weeks if no maintenance takes place. Hope that helps, erik - geocaching.com adminion