Team PodCacher

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 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

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

How much? I'm guessing it would have to be about 3 miles away ...

Interesting. Why would the others not be approved today?

Yes. This is what is stated on the GC.com guidelines: "Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it."

Thanks BlueDeuce.

Well? I can't place a micro there. It's on National Park Service land. If it was a multicache, I would have to send them much farther away from the lighthouse.

I need your opinions, perspectives, and help. See my post here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=ST&f=6&t=92405 Thanks for any input you are able to contribute!

Greetings! I need your help, opinions and perspectives as fellow cachers. A few weeks ago I submitted a cache for approval. It was not approved and was archived. I belive it should be approved. I went to the geocaching site to read the detail on what is and is not considered a Virtual Cache. My (proposed) cache fits the guidelines. I wrote the volunteer who did not approve the cache. He wrote back and explained his reasons. My next step, according to the site is this: "Next, you should feel free to post a message in the “Geocaching Topics” section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived." So here we are ... I would like your honest opinions about this cache. If you too believe that it should not be approved, I will respect your opinions and this process and discontinue my effort to get it posted. If however you think it should be posted, I will send a link to the GC site admin to have it further reviewed. Many Thanks in advanced for your time and efforts here! First let me describe the cache (since you can't go to view it as it is archived) In San Diego there is a famous historical landmark called the Point Loma lighthouse. Note it is an official historical landmark (landmark #51 actually) so it is significant structure (as GC.com says it need to be). When you go to the site you will see pictures where I photoshopped out some details. You needed to go to the actual lightouse, walk around and answer a few questions. Then you needed to email me the answers and post a log. That's it. Okay here we go, please bear with the reading, but you need the details to make a good decision. After the ### signs please read the email that I wrote to the GC person who did not approve. Then I will return after the ### signs again to write more to you here. ########################## To: GC.com WestCoastAdmin In regards to submitted cache: GCMVXQ I am confused. Why wasn't my cache approved and posted? Can you please respond to my questions (found between the ***), and enlighten me. I would like to be educated and learn so that I can make better decisions as I attempt to place my caches. On 2/21 you stated: ------------- Log Date: 2/21/2005 Greetings. While I did not think this submission qualified under the current guidelines for virtual caches, I felt that it had enough merit to warrant additional opinions. As such, I submitted it to the other volunteer cache reviewers for their opinions. Unfortunately, they also voted against listing it. Have you considered making this into an offset or puzzle cache with the final stage off of the military property? This seems like a good candidate for this type of cache. Thank you for your understanding and contribution to geocaching! Best regards, WestCoastAdmin ---------- ***Why do you believe that it doesn't qualify as a Virtual Cache?*** I have read the qualifiers and quidelines regarding Virtual Caches. My cache clearly fits every requirement. 1) That the cache is a unique physical object: It is. 2) That is is of novel interest: It is. Please note the following web sites. It is clearly "coffee table" material. http://www.nps.gov/cabr/lighthouse.html http://lighthousegetaway.com/lights/ptloma.html http://www.letsgoseeit.com/index/county/sd.../lighthouse.htm 3) That there are questions about the location: I asked several questions about the location. 4) "An original photo is acceptable" (does not apply to my requirements) You were vague in your reasons why you didn't post this cache. ***Can you please clearly state why, if this is indeed the reason, it does not qualify as a virtual cache?*** ***What reasons did the other volunteers give as to why this cache was denied?*** In another section of your comments you stated: "Have you considered making this into an offset or puzzle cache with the final stage off of the military property?" ***Is this your reason for denying this cache?*** This is not on a military base. It may be on military owned land, but the property is on National Park Service Land. On any given weekend, hundreds if not thousands of visitors and tourists arrive here by car and tour bus to visit the lighthouse and the nearby Cabrillo National Monument. Finally: Another nearby virual cache (GCH7FY) was approved on 11/2003 that is similar to mine. ***Can you please explain why this cache was approved and mine was not?*** Again, I would appreciate it if you would respond to this inquiry and my specific questions (between the ***). I look forward to your illumination of this subject. Thank you iTrax ##################################### Okay I'm back. He responded with this ################################## To: iTrax Hello. In response to your questions... I did not feel that your virtual met the guidelines for virtual caches. It did not "wow" me, as lighthouses are a very common sight along the coast. It does not require a GPS to find, just a road map. The verification questions forced a cache hider to print out pages to comply, although many cachers are paperless and would not have the photos necessary. In addition, this section of the guidelines applies as well: Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question "why couldn't a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?" Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate. It is apparent to me that without being in the confines of the restricted boundaries, this could easily be a offset or multi-cache. I suggested as much to you in the reviewer note. In view of the above, I still submitted this cache for review by all of the other reviewer. The poll results were the same as my original view. There has been one virtual cache approved since June of 2004 in So Cal, below 37 degrees. Any caches approved prior to your submission have no bearing whatsoever on current submissions. From the guidelines: First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is. Currently gc.com is working on a solution for virtual caches. hopefully, this will occur soon. Best regards, WCA ################################### Okay, back again. I'm more than willing to add more words below the pictures to make it easier for people who have gone paperless as he states. I didn't want to make it an offset or multi-cache. I've done several of those, and the purpose of this one WAS the actual lighthouse. Whew! I know that was a lot of reading. I truly appreciate your help with this process to decide if this cache should be posted or archived. I know that the volunteers at GC.com are hard workers (and volunteers after all!) and I appreciate all their work. I would appreciate your honest opinions and feedback here as we go through this process. Thanks! iTrax

Ah, I suspect the cache will be under a shrubbery then????

By fiddling around with HTML I was able to put a link under Latest News in my profile to my Bookmarked Favorites link ... http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=d5...a8-d3ed733fdcb1

Haven't heard / sang that one in awhile!

Here's a clue: Use IE and highlight this: Do the same thing there Okay, I just found out (by trial and error). You MUST use IE on a PC. A mac will not do. Any other browser will not do. Grrrrr.

Stuck on 5 and don't know how to cheat ... any hints here?

Hey Congrats Parsa!!!

Here's the latest from Sign on San Diego: SAN DIEGO – A mysterious object that turned out to be a cassette-tape carrying case prompted a precautionary evacuation at Pacific Beach Middle School today. A teacher spotted the box in a patch of shrubbery at the Ingraham Street campus shortly before 9 a.m., according to San Diego police. Administrators cleared everyone out of classrooms and offices and patrol officers blocked off nearby roads while arson investigators with an X-ray scanner determined that the box was harmless, SDPD Sgt. Rod Vandiver said. -------- Something to consider when placing a cache that could potentially cause a panic ... I'm glad it wasn't identified as a cache. That could make for some negative press ...

Okay, I had to look ... And he's out and about caching again?!?

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster. - Oscar Goldman

Sounds like fun!

Oww! What a bummer. I hope you feel better soon.

Wow talk about a minimalist! I guess he doesn't have to worry about mud stains on his jeans!

You may have already seen the article on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/01/14/geo.caching.ap/index.html iTrax