I wouldn't. Too much angst for too little gain. That being said, if I suddenly found myself working at Groundspeak, and Jeremy directed me to come up with a way to make it happen, I would first find a set of folks who loved virtuals, probably through stalking profile pages. I would recruit these folks as a volunteer virtual reviewer staff, and ask for their opinions.
There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines.
First, I would remove all virtuals, new and old, from the total find count. While locating a plaque on the side of the road can be pretty kewl, a plaque is not, by my own, inner, biased definition, a geocache. In this, they would show up like benchmarks. I know this would cause the numbers cachers to squawk, but it's how I feel. I would further suggest to Jeremy that all Earth Caches, events, CITOs, locationless, mega-events, 10-10-10 events and webcam caches, (basically anything without a container and logbook), be removed from the total cache find count. The site would still tally them, it just wouldn't up your find count.
I would suggest not placing any rigid proximity rules, other than one dictating that the same object/building/etc could not get more than one GC number. If BillyBobNosePicker can articulate why one way kewl spot, which happens to be close to an existing virtual, should be listed, it will be listed.
The burden of proof would be on the submitter to show why a spot deserved to be a virtual. This would be made clear in the guidelines, in the hopes of reducing the amount of angst heaped upon the reviewers when BillyBob's favorite McDonalds got rejected.
Once a virtual was submitted, it would enter a queue established specifically for the virtual reviewers, so they would not clog up the primary reviewer queue. Once in the queue, it would undergo scrutiny. At least three reviewers would need to check off on the virtual, acknowledging that it does meet the guidelines.
The types of locations that could qualify as a virtual cache would likely be the greatest source of angst. To qualify as a virtual location, a spot must have substantial historical significance. While that definition sounds like it could be highly subjective, I think if three reviewers, who are all on the same sheet of music, can agree on a spot, that would be good enough for me. If a spot is so questionable that three reviewers can't be found who are willing to sign off on it, that also is good enough for me.
The owners of existing virtuals would be notified, and given the opportunity to demonstrate why their virtual should remain active. Any virtual not demonstrably in compliance with the new guideline would be archived eventually. In an exception to the current status quo, if a virtual owner has left the game, and as such, does not respond to the aforementioned notification, their virtual would not automatically be archived. Instead, it would go under further scrutiny, to see if it could be brought into compliance. The reviewer staff would be given the opportunity to adopt it or kill it, according to how they felt about it. That way, really kewl virtuals with long histories, could survive.
Finally, I would suggest that Jeremy fully support the decisions of the virtual reviewer staff. If a virtual was denied by the group, it would stay denied.
Just one ole fat crippled guys thoughts on the matter. I seriously doubt any of them will be implemented.
i agree completely