Team PodCacher
-
Posts
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Team PodCacher
-
-
A San Diego geocacher's pizza party!!
(hint hint pqmommy
, consider us in to help!)Best advice is to just keep caching, you're bound to run into someone soon (in my opinion)
~Jess
Was a decision ever made to hold a get together? I may have missed the posting ...
-
New PodCacher Show:
Just posted a new show at www.podcacher.com
In this show we talk about "Tools of the Trade", logging in 5 caches that the Senior Sleuths hid on the South Poway Trail (GCN272) which included a snake encouter, and a mad dash to be FTF on a newly hidden cache.
-
The 1st PodCache has been posted on Big Green:
We really enjoyed making this one. Many thanks for your suggestions, keep 'em coming! Yes, the audio aspect takes care of the indoors problem. Also we've found that you can get VERY VERY specific to describe where the cache actually is if you choose to do so. There are positives and some negatives, but all in all, pretty fun. We will certainly create another for sure sometime soon. We'll give different audio experiments a try. Variety is the spice!
On another note, we will be soon looking to interview some local cachers for their perspectives and opinions. Does anyone want to step up to the plate? Topics could vary: Favorite caches, good camo, caching stories, tools you use, strategies for the ever elusive FTF, etc.
We could meet over lunch and get the audio for a short 15 - 20 minute "chat". I'm sure the community would love to hear from the likes of some of you celebrities!
Let me know.
Drop by our website. You can find out more about what we're doing and find contact info there too.
-
Can't wait for the next one and maybe we'll have an iPod by then!
Thanks iTrax and FoxTail for the fun dash out the door tonight
John&Jess
Outstanding, amazing, well done! Yes, we'll be planning another PodCache sometime in the near future. Until then, if anyone has any suggestions for future "shows" or wants to participate in this grand experiment (perhaps an interview?) Please let us know. You can reach us at www.podcacher.com.
-
My fellow San Diego Cachers,
Here's a puzzle cache challenge for you. I thought I'd give this thread first shot at it. I have not yet posted it to big green so others may not even know about it ... for awhile anyhow. Is it possible to go caching without a GPS? Have you heard of podcasting yet?
This is a "PodCache". A combination of podcasting and caching. Here's the idea: an MP3 audio file that has clues to lead you to a cache. Ideally you download the MP3 into a portable player and walk the route that we describe. The audio gauntlet has been thrown down. Who will be first to find on this first PodCache? Only one of you can be first on the first! How's that for a challenge?
Here are the URLs you'll need:
http://podcacher.blogspot.com/
Good Luck!
iTrax and FoxTail
-
Anyone know what kind of lizard this is? I assume it's local...
Cool!
He is beautiful.Look who I found today out near Rancho San Diego.
Did you snap that photo or is it a photo similar to one you saw?
-
I already got a response from a GC admin:
Here is an excerpt from the email to me.
******************
Hi iTrax,
I have been following the virtual cache thread from the beginning. I
have
actually personally visited the location as well as many other
lighthouses. To qualify for a virutal cache a location should be
unique.
Lighthouses are not unique, they are common. There are more than 1,000
in
the US, and they are in more than 30 of 50 of the US states.
Groundspeak will be creating a new section on the site for both
Locationless and Virtual Caches. Until that time virtual caches are
still
listed, but are not common. We are activly working on a solution to
this
problem, but at this time it is not complete. We all look forward to
this
new section being activated on the site.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Happy Geocaching!
*********************************
So there we have it. Alas my proposal for this virtual cache did not have the elusive / mythical "wow" factor.
Thank you, everyone, for your contribution, thoughts and perspectives!
-
You may want to write Groundspeak again and close this topic then.
Fair enough, I'll do that.
Thanks again for the time, effort and help here. A healthy worthwhile discussion, in my humble opinion!!!
One thing is for certain ... I won't be proposing another virtual cache until they revise the rules and / or method of posting a virtual cache. ...
...
unless I find another lighthouse ...
-
I do think you got it now! YOUR proposed virtual cache does not qualify UNDER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES as a virtual cache.
In addition, if you didn't even bother doing any of the other caches nearby while planning YOUR cache, how can you even think it would be allowed at all.
At least go do the caches nearby. If you are going to place a cache in this park, shouldn't you have done as much research as possible on possible constraints? Steps to a multi are a constraint!
And THEN explain WHY we need TWO virtual caches in the same area?
-J
If my proposal for a virtual is the same as an already existing virtual, then I agree, it should not be allowed on top of the other. Point taken.
-
Here's the pic of your virtual you posted on your mock up cache page:
Look familiar?
Yes! It' almost looks like the classy black and white picture that I posted, except that the BW version has a lot more "wow" factor to it!
...
...
What was your point again? Was it that my proposed cache doesn't qualify under the current guidelines for a Virtual Cache? Or was it something irrelevant to reasons why my proposal was denied?
-
I think that the cache is too dependant on photos. (Look! A new whine!) It wouldn't work for many paperless cachers who don't download the pictures before heading to a cache area.
As for yes/no on the virt.... NO. Aren't there already 3 virtuals within 1 mile of the location? From the faked page I can look at the GC.com maps and see 4 caches, one within 94 ft, and the others at 0.2, 0.2 and 1.2 miles. Maybe the coords are wrong on the faked page but still... 3 virts in the area already! Folks will be there exploring and unless they are totally blind I'm certain they will see the lighthouse. And those who would go to the lighthouse will probably go, and those who have no interests in lighthouses will not bother.
Virt#1- Homeland Defense #1
Virt#2- Point Loma Lights
Virt #3- Leapin' lizards
Traditional cache 1.2 miles away- Resting Soldiers
Again- a multi step wouldn't hurt, or post it on another site more open to virtuals, or rethink WHY you would even want to bother with placing a cache anyway. Not all cachers must place caches, and not all areas need a bunch of virtual caches. Maybe work with the other virtual owners in the area and ask them to add a question bringing folks to the lighthouse as a possibility.
-J
You make a good point here.
What I noticed because of your point is that it appears the homeland defense cache which is a multi-virtual starting .1 mile away seems to take you to the same target as the OP's new virtual. Looking at that caches gallery, most of the pictures are of the lighthouse. Many of the logs on that cache mention the lkighthouse. Why do we need TWO virtuals for essentually the same place?
I was wondering if anyone would notice that.
Also note- there is a traditional cache within 1.2 miles, NOT 3 miles. So theoretically there may be space in the same area for this caches endpoint as well.
But again I ask- why two virts taking you to essentially the same place?
-J
I surveyed the area prior to creating this cache proposal. The closest cache (a virtual) was .2 miles away. Not 94 ft.
I read the guildelines regarding cache saturation on the gc.com website and mine met the guidelines.
Since the volunteer approver did not state that (saturation) as a reason for denying my proposal, what was therefore in question was whether or not my proposal met the current posted guidelines of a Virtual Cache or not.
I believe it does.
-
Thanks again for your comments / perspectives.
I have sent this email to the gc.com appeals admin:
Geocaching admin,
In regards to proposed cache: GC...
I have proposed a cache that has been denied and archived.
I believe it should be posted as proposed, (virtual cache) and would like to appeal the decision made by my local approver.
I have followed your process within your Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines under the section entitled “If your cache has been placed on hold, temporarily disabled or archived…” I have communicated with the local approver.
I have recently posted a topic on the Forum “Geocaching Topics”. There have been over 100 replies from individuals at this time. Here is a link to that Forum Topic:
http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=92405
There have been some very good, insightful replies for and against the approval of this cache. As I stated in the forum, I will humbly respect your final decision regarding this appeal.
I would like to bring some items to your attention:
The process you have outlined on how to appeal is reasonable to me. I wanted to state that I appreciate the efforts of the preliminary screening by local volunteers. These must be some very dedicated, hard working volunteers if they are expected to screen and scrutinize every cache that passes by them. I can only imagine the amount and variability of caches that the must evaluate.
I would also encourage you to read every post (again slightly over 100) in this forum topic. There are some very well thought-out comments by some insightful individuals. In particular, several people commented that they believed that my proposed cache meets the “current guidelines” as written on the gc.com website. Several people felt that the current written guidelines need to be changed on the website in order to reflect the current philosophy regarding virtual caches if they are truly no longer being approved.
I understand that you may be revising a strategy on how we are to do virtual caches, but until that time, leaving the written guidelines for virtual caches as they are now expressed may cause many people to still attempt to post them and result in confusion, agitation, and disappointment when they are not approved. It may result in a “waste of time”, energy and attention that could have been avoided.
Please let me know what your decision is regarding this proposal.
Thank you for your time and attention to this subject.
iTrax
-
BUT, am I convinced that you couldn't make a multi-cache out of it? Nope.
I DO believe pointing out this particular lighthouse is worthwhile. It's far better than any number of parking lots I've gotten to see. However, I'm not convinced there is no option other than a virtual.
You make a good point here, and in all actuality, if this cache is not approved as a virtual, the I'll re-post as an off-set, or hide a micro as part of a multi somewhere outside the park "on the way back".
Isn't this admission sort of the end of the inquiry? Why are we wasting our time?
It is your choice on how you want to spend your time.
The answer to your question can be found in the part of my comment which you omitted when you quoted me.
-
I think that the cache is too dependant on photos.
As I have stated, I'm more than willing to add more descriptive words to the photos to make it possible for those who have gone paperless to read the description without the photos and still be able to complete this cache. I only put the photos on there because I thought manipulating them in photoshop was kinda cool ...
-
BUT, am I convinced that you couldn't make a multi-cache out of it? Nope.
I DO believe pointing out this particular lighthouse is worthwhile. It's far better than any number of parking lots I've gotten to see. However, I'm not convinced there is no option other than a virtual.
You make a good point here, and in all actuality, if this cache is not approved as a virtual, the I'll re-post as an off-set, or hide a micro as part of a multi somewhere outside the park "on the way back".
The reason I posted this inquiry was that if anything deserved to be a virtual, in my humble opinion, this one did. If they're not going to allow virtuals, simply state that on gc.com and avoid the confusion and disappointment.
Personally I think the GC world is big enough to allow virts. I've been to a few (i.e. The Grassy Knoll in Dallas is a memorable one) that took me to a spot that I may not have otherwise visited. There are some places where you can't place a physical cache and the reward is the location itself. But my personal opinion of whether or not virts should be allowed is not why I posted. I believe that my proposed cache meets all the guidelines stated regarding virts and therefore should be posted, OR the new world rules need to be changed and clearly stated on the gc.com site.
Thanks again everyone for your opinions on this one.
-
I've taken a snapshot of what the "cache in question" would look like. This will allow you to see the proposed cache and help you make a determination about your perspective on this virtual cache.
This is not an official posting and is (obviously) not linked to the official geocaching.com website. You will not be able to log this cache as a find until it is officially approved.
-
Personally I don't care for virtual caches. However I think this one meets the guidelines best as I can tell. Seems that the biggest question about it so far has been the wow factor.
Doing a Google seach I learned that it was one of 8 original lighthouses built on the west coast and at that time it was the tallest in the world. Also it has enough wow factor that 1.2 million people visit each year.
El Diablo
It fails the GPS test though. You really don't need a GPS to find major tourist attractions like this. How does it relate to geocaching then?
An interesting paradox then.
The cache must be a place that has a "wow" factor, yet be so obscure that you couldn't know about it or find it without a GPS ...
-
Once again, thanks for your comments, perspectives, and opinions. After some time, I will call to attention this thread to the approvers / gc.com admin. After viewing your comments, they will make a decision and I will respectfully honor that. So let your voices be heard one way or another!
Many thanks!
-
I don't understand why this is an issue.
Send the folks to your historic place, ask a question that requires them to really read the information (just like a virtual!) and then have a micro or full size cache somewhere that is just a short walk away.
Why is this such a big deal?
I can't send them to a micro of full size cache within walking distance. It's on National Park Service Land. The nearest place I could place a "real" cache would be about 3 miles away.
-
Okay that was really funny! No, I mean it!
-
Just to fan the flames:
This is a quote from the guidelines on gc.com.
"A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples."
So I found this link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846
-
Either approve virts like this that meet the supposed guidelines, or actually ban them until the new solution for virts and locationless caches is available.
This was one of the reasons that I am contesting this. I spent a good deal of time planning this cache, driving out there, taking strategic photos, working on the pics in photoshop, etc. etc. If they had stated, and I had known that Virts were not going to be approved, I wouldn't have even begun scheming to produce one. From the guidelines posted on GC.com, I had assumed that it was still possible for me to get mine posted, this was misleading.
Another reason is that I genuinely believe that it fits the parameters of the current definition of a virtual cache.
Also, I've always enjoyed a good, intelligent debate. It keeps you on your toes, really makes you think about what's right and wrong. I don't think we should accept conditions "just because". We need to have some convictions about what we believe. This is after all a "process". According the GC.com site, this is what I am SUPPPOSED to do to appeal a decision. You are part of the process. Your opinions matter.
Thanks for all your honest comments and opinions! Keep 'em coming.
Respectfully
iTrax
-
If it was a multicache, I would have to send them much farther away from the lighthouse.
How much?
I'm guessing it would have to be about 3 miles away ...
-
Interesting. Why would the others not be approved today?
, consider us in to help!)
He is beautiful.
The San Diego Thread
in West and Southwest
Posted
The 2nd PodCache: PodCache in the Park, has been posted.
GCPW54
PodCacher.com
Picked up some CA Geocoins this weekend from the Dillon Gang ... very cool!
iTrax