Need Input Of The "community" About A Virtual

[+Wreck Diver]

Considering the location and the coordinates, I would wager that the active ban would include virtuals.

 

The letter asking the NPS for permission to place the virtual cache and their response would make an interesting thread as well.

[+Runaround]

I've been to DC a couple of times and I've done about 20 of the virts in the area. I can't really say that any of them added anything special to the trip beyond just the experience of already being there.

 

Does a virt at the Washington Monument say WOW! to me? Nope.

[+Runaround]

Considering the location and the coordinates, I would wager that the active ban would include virtuals.

 

The letter asking the NPS for permission to place the virtual cache and their response would make an interesting thread as well.

How would they ban a virtual? They would have to make walking with a GPS, taking photo's, taking notes, and counting stuff illegal.

[+robert]

Considering the location and the coordinates, I would wager that the active ban would include virtuals.

   

The letter asking the NPS for permission to place the virtual cache and their response would make an interesting thread as well.

 

There's nothing being placed, so there's nothing to ban. Are they going to ban someone walking up to the monument and counting a few bricks? Nah.

 

I don't see the WOW factor in this either, at least as the virtual guidelines as they are now state it must be. Someoene else said it well earlier, you're going to visit this spot anyway. A virt would be cool for some of the out of the way less-visited spots in DC that folks might enjoy seeing. The current virts there are hard to use as a baseline because they've been there for a while.

 

Your best bet is probably to hold off on your submission until the reported new system is in place and re-submit it then.

[+Team Perks]

I've been to DC a couple of times and I've done about 20 of the virts in the area. I can't really say that any of them added anything special to the trip beyond just the experience of already being there.

That's where I would tend to stand on this particular virtual. Does one of the most popular tourist destinations in the capital really need a cache to get you to see it? If I'm going to DC, odds are I'm going to be visiting the Washington Monument anyway, and having a virtual there would add nothing to enrich the experience of my visit. It's clearly identified on every map, there are thousands of photos of it on the internet, and it's something that everyone is pretty well familiar with already. Sure, the monument itself has WOW factor...but in my book, a virtual there would not.

[ju66l3r]

Actually, robert, I lived near BWI until the age of 23. I visited DC on a dozen different school trips and went down there to tour and sightsee on my own many many more times than that. I've seen the Lincoln memorial, been in the White House, and even sat on the floor of the House of Representatives (and used the Rep-only bathroom too!).

 

I have yet to walk up the hill, go inside, or check out the Washington Monument from any closer than the Mall or the reflecting pool.

 

So, I guess, you're not *always* going to visit it anyways.

[+robert]

Actually, robert, I lived near BWI until the age of 23. I visited DC on a dozen different school trips and went down there to tour and sightsee on my own many many more times than that. I've seen the Lincoln memorial, been in the White House, and even sat on the floor of the House of Representatives (and used the Rep-only bathroom too!).

 

I have yet to walk up the hill, go inside, or check out the Washington Monument from any closer than the Mall or the reflecting pool.

 

So, I guess, you're not *always* going to visit it anyways.

Chances are pretty good though

 

Would you have gone up to it to log a though?

[ju66l3r]

BTW, when did "really needing a virtual to see something" go into the virt guidelines?

 

It's been quoted many times here, but I can't find it there anywhere.

 

The oft argued "WOW factor" doesn't mean it should be neat (and yet completely forgotten by modern man). It just means it should be neat. Whether the bar is continually set higher and higher into the Super Neat category or not is obvious.

 

As geocaches are restricted in DC, I see this as a prime example of where the WOW shouldn't be jacked up so high, since the "just put an offset micro nearby" argument is null and void.

 

And besides, living between Baltimore and DC gives me a perspective on this cache. I'd actually like to see this virtual but require three parts. Not only would you have to visit and photo yourself with the DC monument, but also the other Washington Monument and/or even the *first* Washington Monument.

 

I don't know that the topic starter's travels take him to these areas of MD on any regular basis, so this cache idea may be best left to someone in the B-W corridor. It should be a virtual with coordinates starting at the DC monument (so as to be seen by the greatest number of interested people).

[+Wreck Diver]

How would they ban a virtual? They would have to make walking with a GPS, taking photo's, taking notes, and counting stuff illegal.

The virtual could effectively be banned because it would require the listing of the Monument coordinates and much of that information has been deliberately removed from the Web because of security concerns.

[ju66l3r]

Would you have gone up to it to log a though?

Yes, I would. I haven't met the cache I would refuse to log.

[ju66l3r]

How would they ban a virtual?  They would have to make walking with a GPS, taking photo's, taking notes, and counting stuff illegal.

The virtual could effectively be banned because it would require the listing of the Monument coordinates and much of that information has been deliberately removed from the Web because of security concerns.

Horse crap. This page comes up first on a google search for:

 

"Washington Monument" coordinates

 

You'd think that might be the first step to getting "that information deliberately removed from the Web"...that page uses it as their *demonstration* of how to read a coordinate map.

 

Or this page...

 

or this page...

 

In fact that last one is a goverment website...

Edited July 24, 2005 by ju66l3r

[+Runaround]

How would they ban a virtual?  They would have to make walking with a GPS, taking photo's, taking notes, and counting stuff illegal.

The virtual could effectively be banned because it would require the listing of the Monument coordinates and much of that information has been deliberately removed from the Web because of security concerns.

As if someone needs coords to find the Washington Monument. Besides, a number of online mapping sites will easily give you coords. They haven't been removed.

[+mtn-man]

But alas, since I do not feel I should post the private messages sent to me out of respect for the senders, and the public posts are what the reveiwers and Groundspeak will be reading, I will concede that this issue has been settled. I will leave the thread open but will no longer participate in the discussion.

You had no problems posting personal communications I sent to you now did you!

 

I think this line just kills me in this whole thing...

Realistically, I really don't know what all the fuss is about and why some in this game want to keep others from enjoying the parts they enjoy.

Franky, you are the one causing the fuss. Pretty much everyone else says it is not a good cache. What I don't understand is why you cannot accept that this site wants to run itself the way it wants to. I'm sure there are a few people in the community want virtuals banned totally and removed from the site. Should we cater to them if they start a forum topic?

[+fluffy&itchy]

But alas, since I do not feel I should post the private messages sent to me out of respect for the senders, and the public posts are what the reveiwers and Groundspeak will be reading, I will concede that this issue has been settled. I will leave the thread open but will no longer participate in the discussion.

You had no problems posting personal communications I sent to you now did you!

 

I think this line just kills me in this whole thing...

Realistically, I really don't know what all the fuss is about and why some in this game want to keep others from enjoying the parts they enjoy.

Franky, you are the one causing the fuss. Pretty much everyone else says it is not a good cache. What I don't understand is why you cannot accept that this site wants to run itself the way it wants to. I'm sure there are a few people in the community want virtuals banned totally and removed from the site. Should we cater to them if they start a forum topic?

mtn-man

 

I put your communication on the original post because the Groundspeak Regulations said the next step, after the original denial and asking you to post the cache to the reveiwers private forum, was to post it here for the "community" to weigh in. In order for them to weigh in, they would need to know YOUR and MY reasoning for why this cache should be approved or not.

 

The forumites who sent me private emails on the subject had nothing to do with the above so they should not be posted.

 

Franky, you are the one causing the fuss.  Pretty much everyone else says it is not a good cache.  What I don't understand is why you cannot accept that this site wants to run itself the way it wants to.  I'm sure there are a few people in the community want virtuals banned totally and removed from the site.  Should we cater to them if they start a forum topic?

 

I am not causing any fuss. I followed the Regulations as to what to do when a cache you belive should be approved was not. The posters here have caused the "fuss". I asked for opinions, not personal attacks.

 

You need to re-read my last post above. Did it not gracefully say I accepted the outcome and it was time to move on?

 

I never asked to be catered to. I only asked the opinions of the "community" as the REGULATIONS SAID I WAS TO DO IN THIS CASE!! The "community" gave its opinions and now its time to move on.

 

No we shouldn"t cater to them either, just as I have not asked to be catered to.

 

And since you decided to make this a personal attack, I will also add that, since you are the decenting reveiwer in this case, you should not weigh in on this thread. This thread is for the "community" input, not the reveiwers. I asked you, as the Regulations state, to post my objections to your decline of activating the cache over on the revewers private site. Weigh in there.

 

Also, if you think the virtuals in DC are lame, why don't you archive the one you have active there? I see yours is still active. Heck, I'm one of the ones that just logged it last week!!

 

Your profile says you live in GA. Just because these (virtuals in general) may be grandfathered, how can you maintain your vitual caches as you have so pointedly told me I can not? If you're so convinced no one needs "another virtual monument in DC", then do your part and archive your own and set an example.

 

Even though you have been less than congenial to me through this whole proccess, I well tell you that I truely enjoyed finding YOUR VIRTUAL in the DC area and would hate to have it archived. I never tire of visiting the area and to have caches there to log as I visit those special places is truely a bonus.

 

(stepping down off soapbox now and going to the house)

Edited July 24, 2005 by fluffy&itchy

[+rjb43nh]

I found this thread interesting and very similar to the “Unapproved Cache(s), Would like a consensus and some opinions” thread. In both discussions the OPs have come up with an idea for a cache that they think is great but the reviewers say don’t meet the guidelines. Instead of accepting that decision, or trying to modify the cache to meet the guidelines, the OPs have traded several e-mails with the reviewer trying to “prove” their caches are an exception to the rule.

 

When that has failed, they decided to start a thread because they feel that other cachers will also think this is a great idea for a cache and back them up. However, when they get an obvious overwhelming response backing the reviewer they say something like:

“As a side note, I was warned not to come on these forums and ask for constructive critisism and expect to actually get it. From what I have seen so far, that advisory is correct. I had hoped to get a few open minded inputs pro or con, so that the cache could be re-evaluated for consideration or not. So far the comments posted have been of a non-constuctive nature and seemingly condesending.”

Translate “comments….of a non-constuctive nature and seemingly condesending” as any reply that disagrees with them. I think if fluffy&itchy reread their own posts they will find they unwittingly answered their own question when they said:

“I understand that as a reviewer you have a very difficult job and you get cachers that are obstinate about whether their cache should be approved or not.”

Score: mtn-man- 1 , fluffy&itchy- 0

[+fluffy&itchy]

QUOTE

“As a side note, I was warned not to come on these forums and ask for constructive critisism and expect to actually get it. From what I have seen so far, that advisory is correct. I had hoped to get a few open minded inputs pro or con, so that the cache could be re-evaluated for consideration or not. So far the comments posted have been of a non-constuctive nature and seemingly condesending.”

 

Translate “comments….of a non-constuctive nature and seemingly condesending” as any reply that disagrees with them. I think if fluffy&itchy reread their own posts they will find they unwittingly answered their own question when they said:

QUOTE

“I understand that as a reviewer you have a very difficult job and you get cachers that are obstinate about whether their cache should be approved or not.”

 

Score: mtn-man- 1 , fluffy&itchy- 0 [/quote}

 

Did I not agree to disaggree with the "community" and the reveiwer, even though this thread has degradesd into personal attacks including you after I have already conceded? I did't start the personal attacks. I only asked a question for all the weigh in on AS THE REGULATIONS SAID I SHOULD!!!

 

No I didn't agree with all the opinions, but I have bowed to the consencis and have offered to move on.

Everyone else should too.

 

Topic CLOSED.