Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GeoGryffindor

Upset because our historical cache was turned down

Recommended Posts

I received on May 28th an email stating the following:

 

"Your virtual cache was archived to prevent blocking of the approval queue. It was archived since it does not conform to the requirements regarding virtual caches. There are several traditional caches nearby and this virtual most likely could be a part of a traditional multi-cache. Cemeteries are not unique and gravestone caches are no longer being approved unless there is something exceptionally compelling about them."

 

Well, this is quite upsetting to me.

 

First of all, I went to a cemetery today for three separate hunts, i.e., Bob Wills, "Cult" Queen and Would be Prophet.

 

I am not sure if you have ever been to Sapulpa, Oklahoma, but I want you to know that our city is named after the Chief Sapulpa. The Indian Burial site is a very rare, interesting and historical site to see.

 

Matter of fact, I almost feel offended by the fact that the above mentioned would be considered compelling, but yet someone of this high stature would go unnoticed.

 

Furthermore, there are no other caches in this area that are associated with this one.

 

And, to end this message, you have written in your requirements the following:

 

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.

 

I believe this cache would more than justify itself. Therefore, I am asking again, that this cache be given the "Okay", and let everyone visiting Sapulpa go back to a time when Sapulpa was coming to be.

 

Thank you.

 

Tonja Muret

GeoGryffindor

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't hear you say why you couldn't use the site as the starting point of a multi cache with a regular cache at the end of it. That's what the e-mail to you sounded like it was getting at.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Share this post


Link to post

Does it have to be in a multi cache? Is that a new rule? The virtuals that I referenced in my first statement were not multi caches. They were all listed individually.

 

Also, I went to a couple of caches in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma today that were single virtual caches. They were not multi caches.

 

Does that make sense? Sapulpa is special and sacred to me. You would have to see the site, which is in a odd location, that no one would ever suspect of being there. Do I need to add in more history about Chief Sapulpa, or Sapulpa in general?

 

I am just blown away that these others got by with it, but mine isn't alright.

Share this post


Link to post

<sigh>

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp :

 

quote:
Keep in mind that there is no precedent for placing caches. If a cache has been posted in the past and break any rules listed below, you are welcome to report it. However, we honor the posting of older caches that came in before the rule was issued.

 


 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post

If you can place a traditonal cache at all you should.

 

If you can't then you might have a case for a traditional.

 

A cemetary is interesting and while thousands of them exist they do have significant local impact and so are well worth a traditional cache.

 

There are many local things not known nation wide that are worthy of interest. So much so it gets passed down by the locals to other people as they in turn become locals. These things are often wispered legends.

 

Even so, you still have to make a case why something is worthy.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GEOGryffindor:

Does it have to be in a multi cache? Is that a new rule? The virtuals that I referenced in my first statement were not multi caches. They were all listed individually.


 

It seems like that's what you are being told in the e-mail. If you can put in a regular cache near-by then a virtual won't be approved. So in that case, yes it has to be a multi. Once again it's a case of you asked for a cache to be approved, they said no you have to do it this way. So you have to do it that way or just move on. That's why they are called TBTP.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Share this post


Link to post

Well thanks guys. I am just going to move on then to the next one. There is no way to put a traditional cache there because it is enclosed and is a sacred indian burial site, with the whole Sapulpa family buried there. If I can figure out a way to to add it to my cache I have at home, then I will. And, I am sure that I will. I just had to argue my point regarding the other legends in cemeteries before giving up. But, thank you for your help and I will try to figure out something else.

 

My other cache is "Big" Boulder cache, GCG4QM. If you don't mine, look over it and see if you could suggest a way to add it to that cache. With this being new to me, I would appreciate the help.

 

One thing I do want to say to all that have replied. I do appreciate your help and we love all the people that we have come across. We love the world of geocaching and it seems like everyone we encounter ends up being just like family.

 

Thank you for your patience with me.

Share this post


Link to post

Because geocaching is relatively new, it is evolving. I see the trend now, and I agree with it, to put the CACHE back into geocaching. I've enjoyed virtuals with historical significance just like what you want to do, but it isn't geocaching. Locally I've seen such requests directed to someplace called waypoints.com or something like that. Really, that is all a virtual is. A waypoint.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GEOGryffindor:

Well thanks guys. I am just going to move on then to the next one. There is no way to put a traditional cache there because it is enclosed and is a sacred indian burial site, with the whole Sapulpa family buried there. If I can figure out a way to to add it to my cache I have at home, then I will. And, I am sure that I will. I just had to argue my point regarding the other legends in cemeteries before giving up. But, thank you for your help and I will try to figure out something else.

 

My other cache is "Big" Boulder cache, GCG4QM. If you don't mine, look over it and see if you could suggest a way to add it to that cache. With this being new to me, I would appreciate the help.

 

One thing I do want to say to all that have replied. I do appreciate your help and we love all the people that we have come across. We love the world of geocaching and it seems like everyone we encounter ends up being just like family.

 

Thank you for your patience with me.


Without knowing where the archived cache is located, it's hard to make specific suggestions.

I will say that even if the EXACT location is impossible to hide a cache at, there must be someplace within say .25 mile of there to hide a cache. Use the virtual spot as the first stage, then take info found at that spot to calculate the location of the actual cache. I have done plenty of tasteful graveyard caches, and have even hid one. In my case, I hid the actual cache in an undeveloped area of the graveyard, but the road leading to it will take you past the historic memorial. There are tons of places to hide a micro if you get creative. Some of my all time favorite caches have been hidden in places where 1000's of people a day walk right past the cache and yet never notice. There is just something so cool about finding something hiding in plain sight.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I have several points to make so bear with me here. GEOGryffindor is a new cacher from my area. In fact one of the gravestone caches in mention is one of mine.

 

You shouldn't take offense because mine would probably not be approved today. It was placed over a year ago. I placed the cache because it was controversial. I've had positive responses and negative responses. But I tend to think that because of who this person was it's kind of surprising to see the end. Rather meager in comparison to their life. The whole idea is supposed to be a surprise you don't know what you are going to find until you get there. The other two were placed after mine by the same person. I enjoyed one the other I didn't care for. But that is just me.

 

Now as for virtuals. The problem in our area is that we don't have an in state person to verify that knows the area. It also seems that a lot of really good virtuals are being denied but for some reason many not so good virtuals are being approved. Combine that with new geocachers that don't understand why all these other virtuals just like theirs were approved but not theirs. You then have people that think the cache being denied is a personal thing. People put a lot of work into a virtual and then feel cheated.

 

Which is why I feel they should either put future virtuals on hold like locationless or allow them. The current standard of approval just seems to be causing problems. The forums are full of such posts like this.

 

The other thing that annoys me is the standard response of "go to waypoint.org" That's pretty insulting. The website is not user friendly and for god's sake the last new waypoint was more than a week ago. People just aren't going to use it and it doesn't allow you to do what you can do with a virtual cache.

 

The number one thing that waypoints.org doesn't offer is the community aspect. People find something special and they want to share it with someone. They want to hear other people's comments and share the experience. It totally lacks the log page where others can share what they found. It also lacks the ability to show your competitive spirit for those that cache for numbers.

 

Honestly I don't see how geocaching.com Benchmark Hunting and Virtuals can't coexist in three seperate websites. They are are 3 different things altogether. Each one I enjoy.

 

-beatnik-

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

One thing I do want to say to all that have replied. I do appreciate your help and we love all the people that we have come across. We love the world of geocaching and it seems like everyone we encounter ends up being just like family.

 

Thank you for your patience with me.


I am the person that archived the cache. I got your email last night regarding the cache. I just noticed this topic tonight.

 

The other cache of yours, "Big" Boulders Cache, is only 0.6 miles away from this virtual submission. It seems that you could have used the dates on some of the headstones to make a multi-cache nearby. I saw that you had a cache that was only 0.6 miles away and so I figured that it would be pretty easy to make a multi-cache out of this cache. It would still bring people to the location and they would still get to have the challenge of finding an physical container.

 

As far as the virtual aspect goes, towns all over are named after somebody. In Alabama it seems that about half the towns are named after some indian that lived there and is buried there. That give several hundred virtual caches in that state alone for gravestones of town namesakes. The cache in question is sort of borderline, but since the cacher has a cache that is 0.6 miles away I wanted to see if a traditional cache would be created instead of just another drive-by cemetery cache.

 

Sorry to not notice this topic. I have just been focusing on cache approvals and working on my personal web page. I would be interested in other cacher's comments regarding this cache's description...

quote:
This is a very easy cache to find and great for children and adults.

 

The first settler of the area was Chief Sapulpa, a lower Creek Indian of the Kasihta Tribe of Osocheetown, Alabama. He came around 1850 and began a trading post near where downtown Sapulpa is now located. The Atlantic and Pacific railroad came here in 1886 and called it’s station “Sapulpa Station” in honor of the chief who was very friendly to the workers and people.

 

Chief Sapulpa and his family are buried in Sapulpa. In order to claim this cache, please email us with the following information:

 

THE NAME AND EXACT AGE OF THE PERSON WHO IS BURIED IN THE FRONT ROW IN THE FAR RIGHT CORNER OF THE CEMETERY.


Share this post


Link to post

The point of a virtual and a traditional is to visit a location. Virtulas can never be about 'the hide' so the location should be worthy.

 

I don't see a problem with this virtual cache. But then mtn-man you already know I'm liberal at thinking caches should be approved.

 

He could post a link to more information about the chief's life. If he is a local legend there will be websites about him.

 

To be fair one of these kind of caches were approved in my territory. It brought me to a spot that left me astounded. Not so much because of the cemitary but because of the contrast. An OLD cemitary where I never knew one existed and a new subdivsion was swallowing it like an amoeba. It was worth the drive by.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

I don't see a problem with this virtual cache. But then mtn-man you already know I'm liberal at thinking caches should be approved.


Me neither. We LIKE doing virtuals. Not so much local ones but especially when we are over in the States it's a great way of seeing new places and places that are off the usual "tourist" trails. Earlier in the year we visited LA and spent a whole day doing virtuals in Downtown LA and Hollywood. Would we otherwise have got to see the Columbia Shuttle Memorial and other such neat stuff. I think not.

 

It seems to me that it has now got to the stage where cache approvers look harder for reasons to refuse caches than they do to appreciate the merits of a submission.

 

As for virtuals being archived because they are clogging up the approval queue, the answer to that is simple. Get some more approvers.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree with the post from Slytherin. I still feel it is not right to approve some virtuals and not others and basically require that they do multi-caches. And, like I have said in different emails and such, and other's that have posted here have said, there is no one in our state to approve our states virtuals. So, they just suggest multi caches or waypoint.org. It's not right, but I am not going to argue the point any further because it is getting me nowhere. I will either put it in with my other cache and do a multi or just not do it. It is a shame that the history of my city is being "left out" when other ridiculous or I should say "stupid and don't make sense" virtual caches at cemeteries are being accepted. But as I said, I argue the point no more. I need more information on how to get someone in Oklahoma to be able to approve requests for caches. Good day to all.

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

Well, then I guess that those of you that agree with the last few posts think that every sign or pole or marker or 100yr old house or grave or whatever should be called a geocache?

Since so many people are complaining about the standards THIS website uses for posting geocaches, why not just all email each other and start one of your own where everyone can post whatever they want, without review?

I just don't get the complaining.

There are already other geocaching sites with lower standards of approval then this one. If the majority of people WANTED every single object on earth to be called a geocache and logged as a find, I'm sure those other sites would be the ones getting thousands of pageviews every minute, not this one.

Anyone can plug geocaching into a search engine and find those other websites if they are unhappy with the high standards THIS site tries to adhere to, so don't tell me it's only because other people don't know about the others. The reason most people don't know is because they are happy with this website. They are GLAD Jeremy and his approvers aren't sending us out looking for tennis balls tossed out a window, or the serial number of every telephone pole in town.

Trust me, if the vocal few here that complain about the current standards got they're way and every cache submitted was approved, you would soon see thousands of previously happy (and therefore quiet) geocachers complaining about it. If you don't believe me, just search the forums a bit. Find the threads that complain about the caches that slip by the approvers. Start approving every old sneaker, or every candle, or every porno mag as a cache, and see how happy the REAL majority is.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post

To the above response,

 

I have never said I wasn't satisfied with Geocaching.com. Matter of fact, I believe it is one of the greatest sites I have came across. I love the world of geocaching and enjoy all the people that I have met.

 

You do have the right to your opinion, as I have the right to mine. But, the virtual that I wanted approved was not a tennis ball tossed out a window or a serial number on a telephone pole or a old sneaker or a candle or a porno mag. I have no complaints with geocaching.com and I appreciate their standards.

 

I have the right to argue my opinion (that was what I was told to do in the email that I received denying the virtual), just like you would and any other person that wants to.

 

Also, Oklahoma does not have anyone to approve their caches at this time, so it is all up to someone outside of the state. I did find out today that they may have someone to take on that task inside Oklahoma. That would be great!

 

Further, if you remember my first post, there were some caches that I had just been on that were virtuals (not multi's), with one particular virtual that had absolutley no meaning to me. It got approved, but mine didn't. I then found out that it was about December of 2002 that geocaching.com became a little more stiff with the rules. After having it all explained to me, I am fine with that. But, I must say, the idea of geocaching to me and obviously the people who started geocaching.com is the find and that includes virtuals and benchmarks. And, there is the known fact to all that geocache, if you don't like virtuals or benchmarks - don't go to them. Isn't that pretty simple?

 

Virtuals are wonderful for those of us who have young children that don't want to treck through the woods and get covered in ticks this time of year and those of us who do love history.

 

Furthermore, I see that you have a virtual that you adopted. Do you think that should be archived? Do you think it would be approved today? How would you feel if it wasn't?

 

Therefore, it is very obvious that we all have our favorite kinds of caches. All I can say is, "ROCK ON WORLD OF GEOCACHING". It's the greatest sport in the world.

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Well, then I guess that those of you that agree with the last few posts think that every sign or pole or marker or 100yr old house or grave or whatever should be called a geocache?

Since so many people are complaining about the standards THIS website uses for posting geocaches, why not just all email each other and start one of your own where everyone can post whatever they want, without review?

I just don't get the complaining.

There are already other geocaching sites with lower standards of approval then this one. If the majority of people WANTED every single object on earth to be called a geocache and logged as a find, I'm sure those other sites would be the ones getting http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=43160616&r=35260616#35260616, not this one.

Anyone can plug geocaching into a search engine and find those other websites if they are unhappy with the high standards THIS site tries to adhere to, so don't tell me it's only because other people don't know about the others. The reason most people don't know is because they are happy with this website. They are GLAD Jeremy and his approvers aren't sending us out looking for tennis balls tossed out a window, or the serial number of every telephone pole in town.

Trust me, if the vocal few here that complain about the current standards got they're way and every cache submitted was approved, you would soon see thousands of previously happy (and therefore quiet) geocachers complaining about it. If you don't believe me, just search the forums a bit. Find the threads that complain about the caches that slip by the approvers. Start approving every old sneaker, or every candle, or every porno mag as a cache, and see how happy the REAL majority is.


 

Your bias against virtual caches is showing. My gripe isn't about the current standards, it is that there is no standard. We say there are standards but at the same time we continue to see virtual caches appear that are just like those that are denied.

 

In the past month there have been two virtuals approved on a college campus. They are about a mile from each other. However, there are two walking tour virtual caches of the campus that have been in existance since last summer. They are in the same general area. So we have four virtuals in a one mile area on the same campus? 2 of them brand new.

 

In fact there are at least 15-20 new virtuals in the past couple of months. 2 that were approved were similar to one that I had denied 3-4 months ago during the supposed crackdown. They were benchmark related as was mine that was denied. (it's now a micro log)

 

Roughly 10 have been approved in the general OKC area. We now have 10 virtuals in the downtown OKC area within a 4 mile radius. 5 of those are newly placed. Can someone please explain how that is a standard? I'm dying to know.

 

I have found plenty of lame virtuals. Of course, I have also found plenty of lame physical caches. The opposite is also true for both. Like I have said before. I'm quite fine with them cutting down on virtuals. So let's put our money where our mouths are and actually do it, instead of this double standard we have now.

 

-beatnik-

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

To the above response,

 

I have never said I wasn't satisfied with Geocaching.com. Matter of fact, I believe it is one of the greatest sites I have came across. I love the world of geocaching and enjoy all the people that I have met.

 

You do have the right to your opinion, as I have the right to mine. But, the virtual that I wanted approved was not a tennis ball tossed out a window or a serial number on a telephone pole or a old sneaker or a candle or a porno mag. I have no complaints with geocaching.com and I appreciate their standards.

 

I have the right to argue my opinion (that was what I was told to do in the email that I received denying the virtual), just like you would and any other person that wants to.


I'm sorry if you felt I was singling you out, I really didn't intend that. My reply was aimed more generally, mainly at the 10-15 people in the last few days that have posted to the effect of "just because one person doesn't like something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, if there is someone who likes it, it should be posted".

Well guess what? There WAS someone who thought a telephone pole should be a cache. There WAS someone who submitted an old sneaker as a geocache. There WAS someone who tossed an old tennis ball into the woods and called it a geocache. There WAS someone who waypointed a dead, rotting animal in the woods and called it a geocache. So someone liked these things, they should all be geocaches?

This site has an owner, and he, with the input of thousands of geocachers, has come up with a set of guidelines. If you want a geocache listed on his site, free of charge, then you agree to abide by those guidelines. It's pretty simple. You don't go into a chinese place and demand they serve pizza, cause you don't like chinese food.

You don't walk into a motorcycle dealer and complain about the lack of SUVs. You don't go to urbanrap.com and complain about the lack of heavy metal rock music, do you? Why is geocaching.com any different?

There are guidelines in place that define what geocaching.com will list as a geocache. Those guidelines state that older caches placed before guideline changes are grandfathered.

 

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Also, Oklahoma does not have anyone to approve their caches at this time, so it is all up to someone outside of the state. I did find out today that they may have someone to take on that task inside Oklahoma. That would be great!


The addition of regional caches is great, but don't just assume that because the approver does not live in your county, he/she has no clue (I recently saw people complaining because since the approver lives 100 miles away, so he isn't qualified to approve caches in their city).

I recently took one of the admins from GA caching up here in NJ. I picked out some easy ones 10 miles from my house I hadn't logged yet. When we got there, he thought the place seemed familiar. Yup, he had already logged those caches last year!

I think for the most part, the people approving caches are familiar with your area, even if they don't live there. The approvers I know of are among the top cachers in their states, and the world. That's why the owner of the site trusts their judgment.

 

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Further, if you remember my first post, there were some caches that I had just been on that were virtuals (not multi's), with one particular virtual that had absolutely no meaning to me. It got approved, but mine didn't. I then found out that it was about December of 2002 that geocaching.com became a little more stiff with the rules. After having it all explained to me, I am fine with that. But, I must say, the idea of geocaching to me and obviously the people who started geocaching.com is the find and that includes virtuals and benchmarks. And, there is the known fact to all that geocache, if you don't like virtuals or benchmarks - don't go to them. Isn't that pretty simple?


The people that started the game of geocaching, and the website geocaching.com, started by hiding a bucket in the woods and finding it with a GPS.

The game was played like that for a long time before the idea of "virtual" caches came about.

When virtuals came about, they were intended as a way around places that banned real caches. Nobody ever expected every sign, tombstone, or whatever to be listed as a virtual cache.

 

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Virtuals are wonderful for those of us who have young children that don't want to treck through the woods and get covered in ticks this time of year and those of us who do love history.


I've geocached with an infant. I've also hiked through the woods with an infant to visit a 200yr old graveyard that is now 1/2 mile into the woods. I looked at the graves and didn't try to make one a geocache. Go figure. There are plenty of physical caches you can do without going into the woods and getting ticks. I have placed 3 you can push a stroller or wheelchair to. 1 you can drive a car to within 5ft of. If you just want to go find interesting places with your GPS, check out waypoint.org , that's exactly what they are there for.

 

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Furthermore, I see that you have a virtual that you adopted. Do you think that should be archived? Do you think it would be approved today? How would you feel if it wasn't?


 

You missed the recent virtual I have under a different account, so please don't think I am biased against virtuals (as beatnik suggested).

If you could search the forums back to when the virtual I adopted was placed back in 2001, you would find I complained about it when it was placed. It *IS* an extremely cool and historic virtual, but there is room to put a caches there. I know this because one of the very 1st caches in NJ has been hidden for over 2 years just a few hundred feet away.

Did I think it should have been archived when it was placed? YUP. But now, almost 50 finds later, I only recently adopted it BECAUSE it was in danger of being archived. Again, please don't say I'm biased against virtuals, or I would have let them archive this one. The person who placed it dropped out of caching after only 1-2 finds, and this hide. He hasn't responded to emails since. If it hadn't been adopted, it would have been archived. Even though it's grandfathered, I still intend to bring it up to current virtual standards of verification ASAP.

 

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Therefore, it is very obvious that we all have our favorite kinds of caches. All I can say is, "ROCK ON WORLD OF GEOCACHING". It's the greatest sport in the world.


Very true. But again, just because I happen to enjoy something, doesn't mean it HAS to be considered a geocache too. I love geocaching, and I think this is the best website about geocaching out there by far. I spent part of my last 2 trips to Florida working on what I think is a truly interesting virtual cache. The recent changes in the guidelines mean the virtual I worked so hard on shouldn't be approved. Yea, I could submit it anyway, and hope maybe the approver that reviews it decides to let it slide. Or I can submit it and then whine in the forums when its declined. I read the guidelines, it doesn't meet the current standards, so I chose door number 3; I said "oh well", moved on, and hid some physical caches that meet the guidelines and can be done with small children or handicapped people.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

As for virtuals being archived because they are clogging up the approval queue, the answer to that is simple. Get some more approvers.


As it has been said elsewhere, many approvers have been added so this problem is not that big of an issue. If someone wants to argue the merits of their cache they are free to write the approver. I have definitely been swayed by some arguments regarding virtual cache submissions. 9 out of 10 people that submit a virtual never respond to the email regarding the archiving of their virtual submission. That is what is meant by that statement. Lots of virtual submissions are just lazy caches that require no effort and the cacher doesn't care if it gets approved or not. I give GeoGryffindor a lot of credit for arguing the merits of their cache.

 

One huge problem with virtuals is the fact that people submit them and then the cacher drops out. Once the virtual cache is submitted it blocks that area pretty much forever. I created a virtual in a historic location and two days later someone else posted one about 150 feet from mine. That one was approved too. I return emails to everyone that visits my virtual cache. I visited their cache when I went back to the location and logged it (I waited even though the answer is easily found on the Internet). I did not get a reply. I wrote them again (how many of you do THAT). I wrote for a third time and finally got a reply. Frankly, I think that cache should be archived. The last visit for them to the site was 3/2/03 and the last cache they found was 11/3/01. I have watched their profile, for obvious reasons, and this is a common thing. They have two caches and I visited both. The other cache is indeed a gem, but they don't maintain the caches. I have been thinking and thinking about it and I think I am going to approach them and take the one cache over if they will let me and suggest that they archive the one that is 150' away from mine. It will be interesting to see what happens. Based on the guidelines for the site that is exactly what should happen.

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

I recently took one of the admins from GA caching up here in NJ. I picked out some easy ones 10 miles from my house I hadn't logged yet. When we got there, he thought the place seemed familiar. Yup, he had already logged those caches last year!


Yep, that was me. I travel a good bit (Denver this weekend, Houston the next, maybe KY the weekend after that?). I have been to OK but not since geocaching has come along. As I have said elsewhere I am a bit of a geography nut anyway. It is funny how you begin to think in coordinates. I see these commercials with the coordinates on them and I kind of have an idea of where the location is. It was funny when we figured out why those caches did not come in on my Pocket Query... I had already been there. It was fun to watch them look for the caches all the same.

 

Submit your virtual caches but please know the guidelines. I like virtuals but I know the rules and abide by them and I ask other cachers to do the same. If you don't then it may get archived. "The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane." "Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate."

quote:
Originally posted by beatnik:

I have found plenty of lame virtuals. Of course, I have also found plenty of lame physical caches.


One big difference between the two is that you usually cannot see the lame physical cache from over a tenth of a mile away (or more) like you can with lots of the lame virtuals. At least you still have to hunt a little bit to find a physical cache most of the time. That is not an all-inclusive statement, but is generally true.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

As it has been said elsewhere, many approvers have been added so this problem is not that big of an issue. If someone wants to argue the merits of their cache they are free to write the approver. I have definitely been swayed by some arguments regarding virtual cache submissions. 9 out of 10 people that submit a virtual never respond to the email regarding the archiving of their virtual submission. That is what is meant by that statement. Lots of virtual submissions are just lazy caches that require no effort and the cacher doesn't care if it gets approved or not. I give GeoGryffindor a lot of credit for arguing the merits of their cache.


Thanks for such a reasoned reply mtn-man.

 

I have to say that my experience of having virtuals approved has shown that it is possible to sway the mind of an approver who turns your cache down first time. I had a cache turned down on the basis that it could have been a traditional cache. Thing was, the location was 60ft from a UN patrolled peace keeping zone and I didn't think that the presence there of an ammo box would have been appropriate. Of course the cache approver didn't know about the UN zone as it wasn't described in the cache description (getting people there to look was the idea of the cache in the first place so I didn't want to spoil the surprise).

 

On explaining the circumstances, the cache was approved and the approver (erik) pointed out that I could have included an explanation with the submission so the approver knew what the cache was about and then he would have deleted that from the cache page on approval.

 

So how about this? On the cache submission page, for a virtual could we have a box that can contain a message to the approver where the cache owner explains the thinking behind the cache. That would stop most of the problems associated with the approval or non approval ar source. Wouldn't it???

 

Cheers

Alex.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Share this post


Link to post

One thing I did that got my virtual approved, I included a sentence "Since this virtual is at the southwest corner of Freedom Park, it would be quite easy for a regular cache to be placed further than the .1 mile requirement separating them" and it worked. One of my most popular virtuals.

 

BSM-MSN

Share this post


Link to post

Well, Mtn-Man is kind enough to still be considering my cache. We have emailed each other back and he has gave me further suggestions, basically like BSM-MSN and Paul have done. I have explained that the .6 miles is as the crow flies because it actually is about 4 miles from my other cache due to the way the streets are laid out and there being bluffs and a very large creek that does not dry up and a park that does not allow geocaching (what a shame huh?). So, thank you Mtn-Man.

 

Also, it is great that some people are able to take their infants out into the woods while geocaching. I can guarantee you that you would not be doing that here in Oklahoma. There is extreme poison ivy and ticks in our woods. Ask anyone that has cached in Oklahoma woods and they will say the same. I can also guarantee you that you would not be able to push a stroller through our woods. You should come visit Oklahoma during this time of year and the months to come. We would be more than willing to show you what Oklahoma is all about. Just make sure that you have something to put on your poison ivy and that you have tweezers for the ticks that you will get on you even though you use 100% Deet.

 

Also, I wish we could get off this waypoint.org thing. Geocaching.com offers virtuals. As I have said before, if you don't like virtuals or are not interested in virtuals, don't do them. But, let the rest of us who do enjoy them have them.

 

And Mopar, if you complained about the virtual back then, why not go ahead and archive it. Seems like you offer one opinion and then eat your words.

 

And in closing, just because we have posted our opinions in the forum doesn't mean we are whining. We are giving our opinion, which is what is recommended. Boy, there wouldn't be many posts in the forums if we couldn't post our opinions, would there!

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

 

Also, I wish we could get off this waypoint.org thing. Geocaching.com offers virtuals. As I have said before, if you don't like virtuals or are not interested in virtuals, don't do them. But, let the rest of us who do enjoy them have them.


 

And just because geocaching.com approved one type of cache before, doen't mean they always will. Geocaching is an always evolving thing. And if they try something like virts and it gets out of hand (like placing them instead of a regular cache or posting a rotting animal) then they have to add restrictions or get rid of them and try something else. Can we get off of this, they did it in the past so we should always be able to do it? Maybe they will always be offered and maybe someday they will be spun off, but lets not forget what type of cache geocaching.com was set-up for.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Share this post


Link to post

I just can't figure out why so many people are against virtuals. I agree there should be standards. I will admit that some virtuals have gotten out of hand, but people don't have to be so darn insistant upon there shouldn't be virtuals.

 

It seems like people are getting sour regarding this topic, so maybe we should just stop posting on it.

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

Who said I was against virts? I've done a bunch of them. I just said that this site is always evolving and people can't point to the past when asking to get their caches approved and shouldn't get upset when it does change.

 

It is also interesting when people argue for their caches in the forums that they understand that there should be guidelines, but theirs is ok or should be the exception. It's always the other guy who needs to make their virt part of a multi.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Well, Mtn-Man is kind enough to still be considering my cache. We have emailed each other back and he has gave me further suggestions, basically like BSM-MSN and Paul have done. I have explained that the .6 miles is as the crow flies because it actually is about 4 miles from my other cache due to the way the streets are laid out and there being bluffs and a very large creek that does not dry up and a park that does not allow geocaching (what a shame huh?). So, thank you Mtn-Man.


See? Thats why they are called guidelines and not rules. Great!

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Also, it is great that some people are able to take their infants out into the woods while geocaching. I can guarantee you that you would not be doing that here in Oklahoma. There is extreme poison ivy and ticks in our woods. Ask anyone that has cached in Oklahoma woods and they will say the same. I can also guarantee you that you would not be able to push a stroller through our woods. You should come visit Oklahoma during this time of year and the months to come. We would be more than willing to show you what Oklahoma is all about. Just make sure that you have something to put on your poison ivy and that you have tweezers for the ticks that you will get on you even though you use 100% Deet.


You totally missed my points here. First off, I'm sure OK has it's fair share, but maybe you should check out NJ before you comment. We have among the highest reported cases of Lyme per 1000 people in the nation here. There are counties in NJ where 40% of the deer ticks carry Lyme, and 10% of the population has been treated for it. West Nile started out here. My point was that it is possible to find physical caches that dont require you to hike off-trail. It is possible to find physical caches that you can easily push a stroller to. There are physical caches that handicapped people can do. Those arent valid excuses for virtuals, in my book.

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Also, I wish we could get off this waypoint.org thing. Geocaching.com offers virtuals. As I have said before, if you don't like virtuals or are not interested in virtuals, don't do them. But, let the rest of us who do enjoy them have them.


waypoint.org is one site where they list the GPS coordinates of interesting places. That site accepts all those locations that geocaching.com doesn't. Again, we arent talking about virtuals that are listed on gc.com. As long as the TPTB deem some locations worthy of being listed on the website they own, you will have virtual caches to hunt, if that's what you enjoy. If they chose NOT to list something here that you feel is worthy, you have alternatives like waypoint.org.

Why does everyone have such a hard time with the concept that you are still just using someone's personal website here? This isn't some govt run website. You don't have any "rights" at all. People hate to hear it, but geocaching.com is one man's private sandbox. If you don't like him or the toys he has in it for you to play with, go play in someone elses, or build your own. It's pretty simple.

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

And Mopar, if you complained about the virtual back then, why not go ahead and archive it. Seems like you offer one opinion and then eat your words.


I'm starting to think either you aren't reading my replies at all, or just trying really hard to read something else into it.

I LIKE WELL DONE CACHES, INCLUDING VIRTUALS

I would have much rather seen the virtual I adopted made into a multicache or otherwise not posted in the form it was, when it was. That was back in 2001. After almost 50 finds, it has a history. I would rather adopt it and try to bring it as close to the guidelines as I can, without loosing that history. If it had zero logs, I probably would archive it.

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

And in closing, just because we have posted our opinions in the forum doesn't mean we are whining. We are giving our opinion, which is what is recommended. Boy, there wouldn't be many posts in the forums if we couldn't post our opinions, would there!


Agreed! I enjoy a well thought out debate better then most. It's just 90% of what I see in the forums isnt debating, it's whining.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, now that so many people have put in their opinion, I believe the debate is finished. It has been very interesting to read everyone's points. Guess it goes to show we all have our own views.

 

I do understand the guidelines and will totally comply with them. Just had to try to see if I could get another chance at my virtual. Didn't know this post would become so popular.

 

Everyone has been wonderful and we have received so many great responses. Thank you geocaching.com for giving us this opportunity and such an awesome website. I have said it before and I will say it again. I love the world of geocaching. It is an awesome sport. I have met some wonderful people and am going to meet more tomorrow at the Tulsa Geocacher's Meeting.

 

If any of you end up in Oklahoma, look us up, it would be great to meet you in person.

 

Thanks for the debate!

 

Happy Geocaching! icon_biggrin.gif

 

GeoGryffindor

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

 

So how about this? On the cache submission page, for a virtual could we have a box that can contain a message to the approver where the cache owner explains the thinking behind the cache. That would stop most of the problems associated with the approval or non approval ar source. Wouldn't it???


 

Actually you can just log a note on the cache page after you make it. If you put (approver please delete this after approval) in the message they can IIRC. The approver will see it, and most will reply as mtn-man does on his approvals.

 

For example I thought my UHF cache might be deemed commercial since the whole thing is based around a movie. I e-mailed Jeremey and he said it was fine. I posted his reply as a note on the cache page and it was approved without delay.

 

You can always delete the notes after approval on your own as well.

 

-beatnik-

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not crazy about virtuals. Okay, I actually dislike them quite a lot. BUT, I don't think shoehorning them into multis is the answer. If the point of this virtual is to see a local historic site where a physical cache couldn't be placed, I don't think the experience is going to be improved by proceeding to travel a quarter of a mile away to find tupperware under a bush. Don't get me wrong, I love multis with virtual components, but it's hard to do a good themed multi. It's a different project entirely.

 

In a case like this, it seems like it would be difficult to find a secondary location nearby that had anything to do with the historic value of the site. It seems like saying a potential virtual somehow ought to be made part of a multicache is just going to encourage lousy multis, where a physical cache gets chucked into the nearest green space, whether THAT location has any merit or not. If the point of the 'cache' is one particular location, and that location has no potential for a physical cache, within reason, then that location should be okay for a virtual. It's one thing if there's a path through a park on your way to the virtual site, etc -- but a cache that said, "Okay, here's the Fabulous Historical Site of 1843... and here's the final cache site, an empty lot!" would, well, suck.

 

Not addressing whether graveyard virts are good or bad (they are getting kinda old), the merits of this particular insance, etc... just saying that"make it a multi" sounds like a bit of a bandaid solution. Some virts would convert well to being a stage of a multi. Others wouldn't. d

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, thank you, thank you. We discussed this issue at our TAG meeting and that is exactly what was said about virts and multi's. Each has their own opinion about cemeteries. I'm sure that it is getting old for some, but this one is extremely awesome. If you ever get out this way, come visit it.

 

But, thank you for saying your thoughts on the multi situation. That is exactly the truth.

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

Kite & Hawkeye I agree with you. But I think the discussion turned more towards virts in general. I do agree that there may be a few places that are interesting enough to have a virt, and are remote enough not to be linked to a regular cache.

 

I think the broader point is making sure the website doesn't stray too far from hunting down a physical cache by making it too easy to label every historical sign and old building with a virtual cache. If you can link it to a physical cache then no problem because that what this site was made for, but if you can't it better be pretty special to be able to be a virt.

 

I don't believe that creating multis out of virtual caches will lead to bad caches. There are poor caches that are by themselves. It all comes down to the care the placer puts into the cache. If all someone cares about is a person reading a sign and then sends them to an empty lot to get the real cache then shame on them. It's up to the integrety and care of the hider if they are going to make their total cache worth while or not.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Kite & Hawkeye:

...but a cache that said, "Okay, here's the Fabulous Historical Site of 1843... and here's the final cache site, an empty lot!" would, well, suck.


 

You know what else sucks?

  • Lame virts because somebody was too lazy to even get coords right or produce a halfway interesting cache location.
  • Owners that say wait for email response before posting find, yet never return an email.
  • Verifications that require you to answer a dozen questions.
  • Virtuals you don't even have to stop to log.
  • Virts that actually could be enhanced with a micro. Instead of "Here's a steam engine, email me the number" could have been "here's a steam engine, now find the micro."
  • Lame virts that block a good cache in an adjacent park.

 

That list could go on and on.

 

And another thing, if you have coords take you to a spot where you have to somehow decypher or find clues to another spot, that is by definition a multi. Doesn't matter if the next or final stage is miles away or 100' away, it's still multi. The final stage could be at a clubhouse, outhouse, or the ranger station, doesn't matter, it's still a multi. So, your arguement about not trying to shoehorn virts into multis doesn't hold water.

 

There are a great deal of things that people can do to create a multi on site that people overlook. No one is saying that you have to create a lame physical to incorporate a virt. I've done some that has taken me many miles to do.

 

Plus, you're supposed to be placing caches where you can maintain them. This should indicate that you are near enough to the area that you could scout out better places that an empty lot to place a cache. There is no way you can tell me "all the good places are gone." We heard this many times before, yet hundreds of more caches have gone in.

 

HINT: at present, there is no rule limiting the final stage of a cache being within the .1 mile radius restriction.

Share this post


Link to post

Just like my virtual that is still in the approval stages. If there ever comes the opportunity to multi cache it, I certainly will. Plus, I put a message into the cache that if anyone else could incorporate it into a multi, I would archive the cache. It does seem fair to me.

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

Just a suggestion for you if your cache is denied. Go to your nearby caches and make an entry in the front of the log books giving the coordinates of the virtual and suggest they visit the site and e-mail with their opinions.

I did this with one of our caches and it seems to work pretty good at getting people to visit someplace we think is worth the effort to see.

Granted it's not a virtual cache this way but it does get the same results -- people visiting the site.

Share this post


Link to post

This bias against virtuals seems to me to be solvable at the technical level.

 

First, it should be made easy to filter (by inclusion and by exclusion) any characteristics of a cache. That will allow virtual lovers and virtual haters to coexist peacefully.

 

Second, there should be a rating/lameness system for caches. Lame caches will fall into disfavor and after some sufficiently long period of time where no one visits them, they can be archived.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

If any of you end up in Oklahoma, look us up, it would be great to meet you in person.


Might just do that, although it's a lobg way from here.

 

We are visiting Texas next month so next time maybe...

 

Alex.

 

------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

I can also guarantee you that you would not be able to push a stroller through our woods.


 

One word: backpack.

 

I've been caching with my son for a year and a half now, and we're onto our second backpack. Admittedly, I mostly use it in town when I don't want to fold a stroller on the bus, but you can take a baby or toddler anywhere with one of them.

 

(Won't help with the ticks or the poison ivy, but I guarantee you'll be fit!)

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Share this post


Link to post

Here's an idea ~

 

If your virtual is not approved, take it as a challenge to find a better location or make a better cache instead of spending hours here debating it here in this forum.

icon_rolleyes.gif

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

 

[This message was edited by 9Key on June 16, 2003 at 01:58 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I think that this is a perfect example of what a Virtual cache SHOULD be. Have you tried to write Jeremy or TPTB a note with an explanation as to why it should be approved? Honestly, a detailed, well written appeal does go a long way.

 

Personally, I would prefer a challenging, informative, interesting virtual to a grouping of three wet tupperware traditionals less than 100 yards apart.

 

After all is said and done, though, it's Jeremy's site and he has to consider all participants.

 

VF

 

---------------

burnout.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Share this post


Link to post

I cringed at the thought of a virtual cash when I first heard about them; how could they be as good as a traditional? Now one of my favorite caches every is Area 51 in SC, a virtual.I have also gone to a traditional about 100 ft from a post office, that was probably about as interesting as the telephone pole or the carcass. There are also two virtuals still out there, about 3 mi. apart that involve getting your picture taking by a web came at the front door of a bar and another asking you to name a bust in a 10 x 10 park?

Share this post


Link to post

I also had a virtual cache turned down within the last week. There are no other caches within about 20 miles of this one. The place is of historical valvue according to the State historical society signs posted there. Its in a small Oklahoma town that is not on the interstate, so everybody has'nt driven by it. The volunteer that reviewed it was from Texas and probally was not familiar with the significance of the site to Oklahomans. It probally could'nt be found in a book on your coffee table but most virtual caches I have been to would not be in there either. I guess I will just have to try again.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
I also had a virtual cache turned down within the last week. There are no other caches within about 20 miles of this one. The place is of historical valvue according to the State historical society signs posted there. Its in a small Oklahoma town that is not on the interstate, so everybody has'nt driven by it. The volunteer that reviewed it was from Texas and probally was not familiar with the significance of the site to Oklahomans. It probally could'nt be found in a book on your coffee table but most virtual caches I have been to would not be in there either. I guess I will just have to try again.

 

Find a way to make it a real cache. Perhaps a log only micro, carefully hidden, or use something on an historic sign, or monument to derive offset coordinates to a real cache hidden nearby.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like Oklahoma is being overlooked. We need to get someone in here that is familiar with our territory.

 

I have volunteered to become an approver, but they say they have someone lined up. There are so many caches to be approved from our state as well as other, so why turn down a volunteer????

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

Keep trying to get it approved!! Don't give up. Bug them to death if you have to. We need to get the point across to these people that Oklahoma needs someone.

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Well, Mtn-Man is kind enough to still be considering my cache. We have emailed each other back and he has gave me further suggestions, basically like BSM-MSN and Paul have done. I have explained that the .6 miles is as the crow flies because it actually is about 4 miles from my other cache due to the way the streets are laid out and there being bluffs and a very large creek that does not dry up and a park that does not allow geocaching (what a shame huh?). So, thank you Mtn-Man.

 

Also, it is great that some people are able to take their infants out into the woods while geocaching. I can guarantee you that you would not be doing that here in Oklahoma. There is extreme poison ivy and ticks in our woods. Ask anyone that has cached in Oklahoma woods and they will say the same. I can also guarantee you that you would not be able to push a stroller through our woods. You should come visit Oklahoma during this time of year and the months to come. We would be more than willing to show you what Oklahoma is all about. Just make sure that you have something to put on your poison ivy and that you have tweezers for the ticks that you will get on you even though you use 100% Deet.

 

Also, I wish we could get off this waypoint.org thing. Geocaching.com offers virtuals. As I have said before, if you don't like virtuals or are not interested in virtuals, don't do them. But, let the rest of us who do enjoy them have them.

 

And Mopar, if you complained about the virtual back then, why not go ahead and archive it. Seems like you offer one opinion and then eat your words.

 

And in closing, just because we have posted our opinions in the forum doesn't mean we are whining. We are giving our opinion, which is what is recommended. Boy, there wouldn't be many posts in the forums if we couldn't post our opinions, would there!

 

"Nice find! I must go tell Harry, Ron and Hermione."


Share this post


Link to post

If people don't care for virtual caches....don't go to them. To suggest making a virtual a traditional or micro sometimes is not practical. If you see something you feel that would make a good cache but you live fifty miles away and there have been no caches located within twenty miles of this cache, you can't maintain it properly and there is nobody in the area who would make it a cache. Most metropolitan areas have plenty of caches and geocachers but get off the beaten path and in some states there is notta. Virtuals are good for this. Even in medium size towns such as Amarillo Texas there are only about five caches in town. And the thing about virtuals is almost all geocachers log them and accept them as a "find", even those who profess a dislike for them.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GeoGryffindor:

Who is the Oklahoma approver?


A fellow Geocacher. icon_biggrin.gif

 

Most new approvers have elected to be anonymous because of past "witch-hunt" topics in these forums. It also helps them to approve caches in an impartial way so they do not upset fellow cachers if there are problems with a submission. I was an approver for a long time before anyone knew I was doing it. My name was listed on the site as an approver for some time (and still is), but who reads all those informational pages anyway! Not many people do because there were interesting reactions when it was finally figured out. Quite a few people in the geocache chat were surprised! ("Hey, mtn-man approved my cache!" You can see who approved your cache by looking at the bottom of caches you have created.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...