Jump to content

Strange Virtual cache placement rejection....?


Vacman
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I just had an interesting thing happen. On my trip back east a few weeks ago I discovered a cool statue outside the U.N. building that I wanted to make into a virtual cache. I did all the research - no other caches of any kind were within .5 miles, met all the usual requirements, etc. Here is the kicker. It was rejected because the approver felt that if he allowed it, that no one else would be able to put any other caches within .1 miles of it. And because of the U.N.'s high profile significance, that would not be fair to everyone else..... go figure?

 

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

If you're ever stuck in some thick undergrowth, in your underwear, don't stop and think of what other words have "under"; in them, because that's probably the first sign of jungle madness.

Link to comment

Vacman, I have to agree with the approver on this one. I think the timing is wrong to have any type of cache published in such a high profile place. I'm sure the cache is very worthy but the place and time is wrong. Don't feel bad, the approvers have a hard time sorting out all the variables and this time the approver is making a close judgment call and we need to support that.

 

_________________________________________________________

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

15777_2200.gif

Link to comment

What I find "strange" is not the rejection, but the fact that you're placing virtual caches in New York when you live in California. Are the New York geocachers not capable of finding appropriate locations? Can I visit California and place a bunch of virtuals in your stomping grounds?

 

What would you do by way of cache maintenance if the object of your proposed virtual were to be moved or removed? Don't laugh, I spent the better part of an hour searching for a virtual on the Vegas strip, placed by a tourist. The permanent object was no longer there.

 

Thanks anyways, but I can sightsee at the U.N. building without having to log a geocache.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Some mornings, it just doesn't pay to chew through the leather straps. - Emo Phillips

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:

What I find "strange" is not the rejection, but the fact that you're placing virtual caches in New York when you live in California. Are the New York geocachers not capable of finding appropriate locations? Can I visit California and place a bunch of virtuals in your stomping grounds?


 

Absolutely - You might find something interesting that I would not have discovered here in my own neighborhood on my own! This certainly has happened before. In fact with the whole concept of locationless (I know - they are no longer being accepted) caches, this would be an even greater problem.... mainenance-wise...

 

I will concede you the point on the maintenance issue... I had not really taken that into account, but in my opinion if the approver listed that as a reason for rejection, I wouldn't have started this little thread. I just thought it was note-worthy to bring up.

 

I realize that anyone can go visit the U.N. on their own. The point was to pay attention to a piece of art that I felt was interesting. To make the visitor see something that they might not have really examined too closely before.

 

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

If you're ever stuck in some thick undergrowth, in your underwear, don't stop and think of what other words have "under"; in them, because that's probably the first sign of jungle madness.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Vacman:

It was rejected because the approver felt that if he allowed it, that no one else would be able to put any other caches within .1 miles of it. And because of the U.N.'s high profile significance, that would not be fair to everyone else..... go figure?


IF the only reason it was not approved is because it would block out traditional caches, I'd tend to disagree with the approver. Being a "high-security" location would make it very difficult to place and maintain even a micro cache.

 

However, "vacation caches" (including virtuals) no longer meet the guidelines:

quote:
Placing caches on vacation is unacceptable and these caches will not be approved on the web site. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. Please be responsible.

 

Therefore, this one should NOT be approved.

 

web-lingbutton.gif ntga_button.gif

Link to comment

This is just bad precident. Come on. You place a cache and the reviewer rejects because your's it just 'too lame' and might stop a better one from coming along someday.

 

Someday never comes. You deal with Today. In reality, today is all there is.

 

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

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

Renegade - You summed it up perfectly. The reality is that this wasn't rejected because it was a vacation cache, it was rejected because someone, someday, "might" want to place a micro there....

 

Here is the jist of what he said "Generally virtual caches are placed in locations where a traditional cache would not be allowed or would be inappropriate, since the virtual prevents a later physical cache being placed within a .1-mile radius of that spot.

 

Often a micro cache can be readily placed at or near the same spot submitted as a virtual cache. In places where a physical cache would be inappropriate other sources for numbers for the coordinates to an offset physical cache outside the park can be used to bring people to your special spot and forward them on to a physical cache."

 

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

If you're ever stuck in some thick undergrowth, in your underwear, don't stop and think of what other words have "under"; in them, because that's probably the first sign of jungle madness.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...