Conversion to a virtual?

[+Delta68]

OK, this sort of question gets asked now and again, but this traditional was hidden September 23 2005 which I understand means it COULD have been a virtual originally.

 

The cache I have in mind is at a small monument of historical interest and a reminder our industrial heritage. Or there would be one if it hadn't been muggled thus making currently unavailable.

 

It's not one of ours but I would be keen to adopt it if it could become a virtual

 

 

Thanks

[+BlueDeuce]

You want to adopt someone else's cache and make it a virtual?

 

(checks calendar)

 

Good luck!

[+sbell111]

OK, this sort of question gets asked now and again, but this traditional was hidden September 23 2005 which I understand means it COULD have been a virtual originally.

 

The cache I have in mind is at a small monument of historical interest and a reminder our industrial heritage. Or there would be one if it hadn't been muggled thus making currently unavailable.

 

It's not one of ours but I would be keen to adopt it if it could become a virtual

 

Thanks

Sadly, that won't work. Generally, if you wish to convert a cache from one cache type to another, you have to archive the first and create a new cache page. This is to maintain the history of everyone who came before. This new cache page would only be listed if it met the current guidelines.

[+whistler & co.]

If there is absolutely nowhere at the interesting monument to hide a container, why not make a simple puzzle/mystery cache where the posted coords lead to the monument, then once there, cachers have to answer a simple question with info from the plaque to get the final coords. Then people would have the opportunity to see the relevant historical item, and you could hide a container nearby, yet in a secure, less-visited spot.

Edited April 1, 2008 by whistler & co.

[+Prime Suspect]

OK, this sort of question gets asked now and again, but this traditional was hidden September 23 2005 which I understand means it COULD have been a virtual originally.

That would never have been a virtual cache. This was part of the guidelines at the time it was submitted:

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

 

Not a virtual, then or now.

[+Delta68]

You want to adopt someone else's cache and make it a virtual?

 

(checks calendar)

 

Good luck!

 

The current owner hasn't logged on since last August...

[+Delta68]

If there is absolutely nowhere at the interesting monument to hide a container, why not make a simple puzzle/mystery cache where the posted coords lead to the monument, then once there, cachers have to answer a simple question with info from the plaque to get the final coords. Then people would have the opportunity to see the relevant historical item, and you could hide a container nearby, yet in a secure, less-visited spot.

 

Mainly because I'd like a virtual in our portfolio

 

 

That would never have been a virtual cache. This was part of the guidelines at the time it was submitted:

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

 

Not a virtual, then or now.

 

Oh well, it was worth a try...

[+BlueDeuce]

You want to adopt someone else's cache and make it a virtual?

 

(checks calendar)

 

Good luck!

 

The current owner hasn't logged on since last August...

 

4/1/2008.

[+sbell111]

OK, this sort of question gets asked now and again, but this traditional was hidden September 23 2005 which I understand means it COULD have been a virtual originally.

That would never have been a virtual cache. This was part of the guidelines at the time it was submitted:

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

 

Not a virtual, then or now.

I'm almost certain that that was the revised virtual guideline, not the original.

[+Quiggle]

OK, this sort of question gets asked now and again, but this traditional was hidden September 23 2005 which I understand means it COULD have been a virtual originally.

That would never have been a virtual cache. This was part of the guidelines at the time it was submitted:

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

 

Not a virtual, then or now.

I'm almost certain that that was the revised virtual guideline, not the original.

Note the bold part of Prime Suspect's statement.

 

Virts were removed as active cache types in November 2005 so it's safe to say it wouldn't have been listed as a virtual on September 23, 2005. This link from March of that year shows the guideline.

[+sbell111]

OK, this sort of question gets asked now and again, but this traditional was hidden September 23 2005 which I understand means it COULD have been a virtual originally.

That would never have been a virtual cache. This was part of the guidelines at the time it was submitted:

"Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

 

Not a virtual, then or now.

I'm almost certain that that was the revised virtual guideline, not the original.

Note the bold part of Prime Suspect's statement.

 

Virts were removed as active cache types in November 2005 so it's safe to say it wouldn't have been listed as a virtual on September 23, 2005. This link from March of that year shows the guideline.

You are absolutely right. A clear case of lazy reading on my part.