erik88l-r

The link takes you to today's paper though. A search brought up this page which looks like it. Apparently in another four or five days it'll be archived and you'll have to pay to read it. I know the cache mentioned at the end of the article - it's one of several island caches best done during the summer. ~erik~

quote: Not all of the approvers have the same criteria as you, WICacher. Yeah we do. It's posted here: http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp We are required to recite it from memory daily before punching in to approve caches. Seriously, we do all try to adhere to those guidelines and question any caches that aren't clear, regardless of cache type. Every so often someone will e-mail me and ask why a particularly lame virtual cache was posted whereas their's was questioned. In a lot of cases I remember the submission and the string of e-mails that were sent defending it so it would be posted. At times like that I wish people would spend half as much time putting together a physical cache as they do defending a lame virtual at the same spot. erik - geocaching.com adminion

quote: That should then make the cache acceptable if I add that info, right? It would probably be best to correspond directly with the person who initially declined to post your cache. I've asked the other cache approvers to read this thread so he or she should be aware. My parole officer won't let me approve out of state caches so I don't know if I can help you. ~erik~

Jeff35080 wrote: quote:So erik since I have demonstrated that this virtual cache is in a coffee table book can you suggest what else I need to do to get this one approved? Thanks for the help, by the way, the GC number is GCC2CF. Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread above, but did you say there was no way to put a traditional cache within .1 mile of your virtual spot? Keep in mind that the cache approvers have reviewed 20,000 caches in the last five months so we do appreciate having all the info available the first time we view a cache. As far as "internet finds" only cheating the cheaters that do it; that's not entirely true. It cheapens the sport and cheapens the honest finds that others have made. Some have gone so far as to post "No Internet Finds" on their virtual cache pages just so there are no misunderstandings. Personally, I think it's a fun challenge to try to "solve" some of the verification questions on virtual caches that are submitted, but unless the answer pops up pretty quickly on google there just isn't time to ensure that it can't be logged that way. So some do get posted that can be "found" on the internet. Can't do that with traditional caches can you? ~erik~

Marky makes a good point, and it's one the approvers also consider when reviewing virts. If the virt is in a park or out in the woods where a traditional cache can readily be hidden a geocacher can have a physical cache to find, a log book to read, and McToys to trade. Plus he can learn about the historic location to boot. So you can see that posting a virt can sometimes deprive others of the chance to put a traditional cache in the same area. I felt badly turning down an ammobox cache submission yesterday because there was already a virtual cache at the same spot. I suggested that the cache submitter ask the "owner" of the virt to archive it but I know that won't happen. The other extreme are virts in a busy urban area where even a microcache would be stolen. I think all the cache approvers would be happy to post something like a virt in a "cache poor" city environment, assuming it meets the criteria of being unique and interesting. The cache text does have to demonstrate to the cache reviewer that the location is "coffee table book material" or it will be archived or put on hold pending elaboration. If you want the find to be a surprise put a "Note to the cache approver, delete after reading" on the page to explain it all in detail. That helps a lot. erik - geocaching.com admin lackey

Yep, I have Haw Ridge, and exchaged e-mails with the website owner to be sure he was ok with it being held up as and example. I had St. Johns River too. That one will probably go on top of the stack Some of the state parks do have "draconian" policies, but I see it as getting a foot in the door. Hopefully those at the local park level who actually interface with the public have some flexibility in administering the official policy. I suspect in some cases it's a matter of getting to know the park manager to establish some level of trust. Time will tell. ~erik~

Thanks BrianSnat. I printed out that one as well. I'm getting quite a folder together. Any others out there? I know North Carolina and Arkansas have approved geocaching under some restrictions, are there any other states? I thought NY State Parks had authorized geocaching utilizing a "special use permit" with fees waived. What I'm looking for is a web link or official document as a .pdf I can use to document these approvals. If there are any other state, county, or municipal parks who have a documented pro-geocaching policy let me know please. Thanks! ~erik~

Dinoprophet, geospotter, and Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy thanks for the additional links. I've printed out the cache pages for my binder. If there are any other website URLs that I could use - either a park's web site or a cache posted by a park let me know please. Thanks again! ~erik~

quote: That's what Cleveland Metroparks did although it appears they pulled them for the winter and il re-plant them when it warms up. Anyone else have any links like that? I'm trying to come up with a booklet of screen prints to show parks managers how their counterparts use geocaching to attract users to the park. I don't have time to afix the links right now but I already have a Geocache site application from the St. Johns River Water Management District in Florida; the same thing from the State of Maryland; the web site of "National Forests in Alabama" mentions geocaching as approved with prior arrangement. I also have caches posted by Warner Parks in Nashville, TN; and the Geauga Park District in Ohio. Can anyone "markwell" me to others? Thanks! ~erik~

Lazyboy & Mitey Mite wrote: quote: It's more difficult to get virtuals approved on this site these days. If it isn't "special" enough they'll turn it down. If it's in an area where a regular cache could be hidden they'll turn it down. What some are doing now is placing a micro cache not far away with only a log in it. So you get the info off the virtual and then find the micro and sign that. I guess I can live with that. Well, what you say is correct, but done to counter complaints of a flood of lame virtuals. For the whole story, keep in mind what the posted guidelines are and what the approvers receive as submissions are all too often questionable. This is the text of the last virtual cache I reviewed, with only some non-relavent text removed to avoid embarrasment to the poster: quote: Go to these coordinates, look around and obtain the name of "The Big Kahuna". The name is 5 letters long. In order to get credit, you must e-mail me with the name you see there. Please do not reveal this name in your cache report. Well, that may be the greatest gift to the geocaching world, but perhaps not. That geocacher, and those who post similarly questionable caches get the following e-mail from me: quote: Hi, Your virtual cache was archived to prevent blocking of the approval queue. Frankly there was insufficient information on your virtual cache submission to ensure that it fits within the parameters described here, http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp The location should be a unique and compelling one of the sort that you'd find in a coffee table book., and there has to be some way to verify that the finder found it. Generally virtual caches are placed in locations where a traditional cache would not be allowed or would be inappropriate, since the virtual prevents a later physical cache being placed within a .1 mile radius of that spot. Often a micro cache can be readily placed at or near the same spot submitted as a virtual cache. That is usually the case unless the spot is in the middle of a busy city. That would not only bring people to your special spot but give them a physical cache to find as well. Please don't hesitate to respond with an explanation if it's been misjudged or after you've amended it to meet the guidelines. Please reference the cache name or number when you reply via e-mail to "erik88L-R". Thanks for your understanding, erik - geocaching.com admin Well, most people do not reply at all and their cache remains archived. I would assume that they agreed after reading the guidelines for virtual caches that their's did not live up to them. Those who bother to reply with an elaboration nearly always have their virtual cache posted as soon as the e-mail is read. I say "nearly always" because with some "explanations" one is left feeling that if half as much effort were put into creating the cache as defending it the cache would have been posted to begin with. You can defend creating a virtual cache out of a bench on a trail in the woods 'till you're blue in the face and I'll still tell you either put a micro cache under it or find a spot that's unique enough to meet the guidelines! Some people amend the cache to better fit the guidelines, but in all cases the approvers try to work with those who submit caches. We want to have good caches to hunt as much as anyone. Cache on! (both physical and virtual) erik - geocaching admin lackey [This message was edited by ~erik~ on January 08, 2003 at 03:33 PM.] [This message was edited by ~erik~ on January 08, 2003 at 03:34 PM.]

A battle field tour should make a fine virtual, as doing something in a group would probably preclude someone sneaking around looking for a microcache while others listen to the presentation. Do not, however, make a cache of every stop on the tour, as that would be analogous to making a virtual of every cage in the zoo - the example of "how not to make a virtual" in this link: cache guidelines A certificate of achievement makes a nifty momento, but doesn't really verify the find, which is what's required. The find verification for a virtual is typically done by asking that a question be answered or a photo be posted - both structured in such a way that a visit is required, not a web download. The C of A can be done as a neat supplement. Create a document in MS Word, and password protect it. Upload that document to your cache posting as you'd upload a photo. That's it. Have fun! ~erik~

Some alternatives that some already employ- I, and probably the other approvers, get e-mails from geocachers whose past caches we've approved who want to "run something by us". In affect they are asking for pre-approval of a cache concept that may be somewhat off the wall just to be sure they don't waste time on something that may not be posted. I've had a few attach a note to a cache saying "please approve and archive this. I'll e-mail you the night before to unarchive and post it..." Others attach a note saying "please do not approve before 10pm 12/24/02". We can't deal with too many of the latter type as it blocks the approval queue, but these are things you might try that don't involve Jeremy reprogramming the site to add a new feature. Happy Holidays folks! erik - geocaching adminion lackey

Renegade Knight you're right, ten feet is a tad close. If you've found every cache within a hundred miles you could take a little break in hunting and concentrate on placing for awhile until others have put out some to find. You could open a new account and start all over again. Or you could wait for alzheimers to set in and start all over again. Or did I already say that. I forget....... ~erik~

The only suggestion would be to add some way to verify that a person actually took your tour before logging it. That is to prevent someone who was in the area on vacation last year from logging it as a "find". Perhaps ask for a photo at a specific spot of the geocacher with his GPS, or ask a question that can only be answered by a visit. ~erik~

Reading the text of my archive message quoted above it's obvious that I was unaware that this very event had been discussed in the forums since Oct 23rd. Therefore the suggestion to do just that prior to posting. Also was not aware that the geocaching association referenced was defunct. I've e-mailed Slith to ask for some slight edits to conform with normal geocaching event postings and we'll post it. Please feel free when submitting a new cache to add a "note to the approver, please delete after reading" to explain any possible ambiguity. Also don't hesitate to e-mail the approver if there is a misunderstanding about a cache. Voilá ~ http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=45905 Have fun folks! Hope the weather cooperates for you. erik - geocaching.com admin [This message was edited by ~erik~ on December 11, 2002 at 09:06 AM.]

When reviewing a cache we click on "find nearest cache", time permitting. If the nearest cache is shown to be "0 miles away" we enter the coordinates of that cache and the submitted one at this site: http://www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm (leave the seconds field blank, enter the decimal minutes in the minutes field). The result in miles is then multiplied by 5280. That gives the result in feet. If the number is something ridiculous like 62 feet the cache is archived. If it's close to the 528 feet (that's .1 mile) we'll usually give it the benefit of the doubt. If we archive it the cache submitter always has the option of replying with an explanation about the cache being on the other side of a canyon or river and we'll consult the map. We have baffled more than one person with an e-mail stating something to the effect of "If your coordinates and those of a nearby cache are both dead on the cache you have submitted is only 62.5 feet from it..." I suspect some think the approver went out with a tape measure. Now the other approvers will be ticked off that I gave our secret away But seriously, click on that "find nearest cache link" and if there is one too near please relocate your cache before submitting it or include a note to the approver if there is a topographic condition we should be aware of. Cheers, erik - geocaching.com admin

I wish we could post all the guidelines but they change. I could be flippant and say that currently we would not post a cache container consisting of a 4" diameter PVC tube if that tube is over 5' long and the cache is within 2 miles of an airport. But seriously, a week ago no one would have given a second thought to the ramifications of a geocacher being seen hefting something like that. (Think "Stinger") One down side of posting every constraint is that they may then result in further constraints. Example - what if I listed the few states that prohibit caches in their state parks. What if the administrator of a park not listed there saw it when investigating whether to limit caches in his parks? Guess what the result would be? He'd take the path of least resistance. Even the examples of no caches within .1 mile of another and none within 150 ft of RR tracks have to be taken with some flexibility. If the cache is in a public park seperated with a high fence from RR tracks 75 ft. away we'd post it. If a cache is on the other side of river rapids from another we'd post it even if the distance were under .1 mile. See what I mean about sometimes taking things on a case by case basis and not posting so many rules that it becomes needlessly restrictive? Too many restrictions also stiffle creativity, which sux. ~erik~

quote: I honestly think that if another approver would have reviewed it, it would have been approved with no questions asked! Mudfrog, I just took a look at the thread in which the approvers discussed this genre of caches. There were 54 views and 9 replies. You'll just have to believe that I have better things to do than reply to myself and view those replies 54 times! Many others are involved in this besides me. If you would amend your cache as indicated above we can move on and I can join the others in reviewing and approving caches - the queue has been getting long......... Cheers, ~erik~

Unfortunately the posted rules or guidelines can't always be updated to reflect every nuance of the game. A few days ago the authorities of one state contacted Jeremy to ask that no more hide-a-key micro caches be stuck to steel supports of bridges there. Apparently a passerby saw a cache hunter and assumed it was Al Queta planting a bomb. We have similar situations with dams in other areas. In my state the State Parks have severe limits on physical caches. We can't post all the everchanging rules guys; we rely on the forums and reviewing caches on a case by case basis to address changing situations. If an approver isn't sure he posts if for all the admins to view and discuss. To keep the approval queue from becomeing a clogged mess the cache in question is usually archived until things can be sorted out. Apparently the seasonal cache issue came up this past Halloween, with several approvers recalling that the solution was to ask people to deactivate them when Halloween was over and to "reuse" that cache next year instead of asking the approvers to go over it all again. It seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it? ~erik~ PS, what was the GCXXXX number of that cache you referenced above

The approvers have been discussing these same issues, and have raised similar points. Please consider the following: We won't approve one-time-caches. I'm sure Markwell can reference where this has been discussed. A cache with ten items in it that gets archived when all are gone would last a day in some areas, would last forever in others. The approvers have no sure way of determining which the case would be with a given cache. Much of what was previously approved predated the posting of guidelines in May to limit silly locationless caches, lame virtual caches, and also traditional caches. See http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp There are situations that may not be addressed in the guidelines that are nevertheless agreed upon by the approvers. We won't post events that are not geocaching events, we won't post caches within 150ft of RR tracks or within .1 mile of another, and so on, so please understand that not every situation can be found in that link. We won't post caches without a log book or some other means of cache find verification. As I indicated to one of the Christmas ornament cache posters - "to prevent people from logging it from 1000 miles away with TNLN, just ask that those who log it e-mail you the answer to some question - like with a virtual cache." It does say in the link above that caches have to be permanent. That is why we don't post corn field mazes as virtual caches. Same with seasonal Christmas illuminations. Would you not assume the same would hold true of physical caches? To cut to the chase: as noted in the first sentence the approver group has been discussing the issue of seasonal caches as well. Here is what we propose as a solution to satisfy both those submitting caches and those who have to laboriously review, approve, and post them: We'll post seasonal caches under one of two conditions - either they stay on as a "normal" cache after the season ends, or they are "deactivated" (not archived) by the cache owner and then "reactivated" next Christmas (or Halloween, or whatever). Does that sound reasonable? Remember though - there has to be some way to verify the find. You can't just hang ornaments in a tree out in the woods and say "come get it", and as with any traditional cache the cache hider is expected to maintain it. Cheers, erik - geocaching.com admin

This was not a cache I reviewed and declined to post, however in looking at it there is nothing about geocaching in it. Nothing about what size of cache or how it is hidden. The text is only about a festival of lights, complete with many links describing the event. Remember that in the context of the guidelines posted here: http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp something can be considered "commercial" even if its free if the cache submission promotes an agenda rather than a cache. I suspect that if it were submitted as a normal physical cache would be, but with a caveat that after sundown the cache seeker would have to pay a fee due to the Christmas light show in the park, there would be no objections to posting it. The way it is currently written the approvers read it as a ploy to get people to view the Christmas lights, not a cache. We have nothing against Christmas light shows, but keep in mind that this site is all about geocaching. Hope that helps. erik - geocaching.com adminion

That's funny! It must have been English to American or vice-versa ~erik~

I ordered ten of the $3.99 .50 cal boxes from them. The total with shipping was just under $50. Of the ten boxes nine looked brand new. One had a bit of wear, but I would have been happy if all ten were like that at the price. ~erik~

Not Disney World, boys and girls, but at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/go2orlando/cvb/meet/facilities/tupper_info.htm erik - geocaching.com admin

We all have fond memories of our first! ~erik~