Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 I recently submitted a virtual cache for approval, and was denied - based on a few reasons which were mentioned in the archiving log. I've made several changes to the cache, and explained the changes in a note to the log as well. I believe I meet all the requirements for a Virtual Cache now - and I'm asking that it be reconsidered. I want to post it here for discussion and opinions first - if none of the 'powers that be' come here and give it a 'yay' or a 'nay' then I will probably e-mail them with the request in a few days. The Virtual Cache in question: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=29170 The Virtual Cache in question Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 I realize that removing the puzzle and bonus locations from this virtual cache would be the easiest way to make it conform to the rules... but that would be my last resort. It kinda adds some appeal to it, imho. Toe. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 I realize that removing the puzzle and bonus locations from this virtual cache would be the easiest way to make it conform to the rules... but that would be my last resort. It kinda adds some appeal to it, imho. Toe. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
+Team StitchesOnQuilts Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 I'm not an expert on this kind of cache. However, I'd enjoy it more if it was a multi-stage cache, where the first location is the decoding location, the second has some clue, and the third contains the final clue, both clues of which are required in order to log the cache. On the other hand, this would change the spirit of the cache, since the final two destinations would no longer be optional. I also think that unless it's really obvious when one gets to the destinations how to view them without going onto private property, it's best to say something like "View from the road running alongside the destination on the east side" or something. I hope this is helpful. Shannah Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 The page devotes many more words to the optional "secret locations" than it does to the virtual cache one would claim as a find ... to put it another way, the virtual cache appears to be only incidental to the "extras." I think the page needs to be re-focused. Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:The page devotes many more words to the optional "secret locations" than it does to the virtual cache one would claim as a find I think the page needs to be re-focused. Well, I had to make it that way to explain in good enough detail that the bonus locations shouldn't be reasons to disallow the cache. But yes, the extra stuff is a big part of the cache - since it requires all the puzzle solving and stuff. The reviewer had the impression that the secondary locations would require tresspassing, since the actual items at those sites are on private property. As you can see at the bottom of the cache discription, I even apologize for the length of the description - explaining why I had to do it. It's kinda comical I'm having problems leading people to neat places like this that lots of people visit every day. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:The page devotes many more words to the optional "secret locations" than it does to the virtual cache one would claim as a find I think the page needs to be re-focused. Well, I had to make it that way to explain in good enough detail that the bonus locations shouldn't be reasons to disallow the cache. But yes, the extra stuff is a big part of the cache - since it requires all the puzzle solving and stuff. The reviewer had the impression that the secondary locations would require tresspassing, since the actual items at those sites are on private property. As you can see at the bottom of the cache discription, I even apologize for the length of the description - explaining why I had to do it. It's kinda comical I'm having problems leading people to neat places like this that lots of people visit every day. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Why not make it two separate caches, one for the 'easy' virtual cache and the other for the puzzle? You can change the text of the virtual cache to indicate a pointer to the puzzle cache and have the puzzle cache point back to the virtual cache. Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 Well, I changed it as much as I'm willing to - and asked that erik reconsider it. I've seen other virtual caches directing people to look at something on private property, so hopefully everything else will be in order and the cache will be listed. If not, I won't whine about it anymore. I'm gonna just forget the idea of my puzzle / virtual cache... I'll probably just start leaving those "bonus location" coordinates in written form in caches around here. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 Well, I changed it as much as I'm willing to - and asked that erik reconsider it. I've seen other virtual caches directing people to look at something on private property, so hopefully everything else will be in order and the cache will be listed. If not, I won't whine about it anymore. I'm gonna just forget the idea of my puzzle / virtual cache... I'll probably just start leaving those "bonus location" coordinates in written form in caches around here. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
+seneca Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 It meets the guidelines for a virtual cache and should be approved. I don't think Rubbertoe is asking us to give a subjective critique of his particular cache style, so I won't. You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!) Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by seneca: I don't think Rubbertoe is asking us to give a subjective critique of his particular cache style, so I won't. Thank you very much... you are right. When I asked for opinions, I meant - if the virtual cache is within the rules, and what I could change if it wasn't. A person would be hard pressed to create a cache that everyone thought was "good" - I don't need that kind of approval. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by seneca: I don't think Rubbertoe is asking us to give a subjective critique of his particular cache style, so I won't. Thank you very much... you are right. When I asked for opinions, I meant - if the virtual cache is within the rules, and what I could change if it wasn't. A person would be hard pressed to create a cache that everyone thought was "good" - I don't need that kind of approval. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
+erik88l-r Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 The cache description looks fine after the edits and I've posted it. Cheers! erik - geocaching.com admin lackey Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 18, 2002 Author Share Posted July 18, 2002 quote:Originally posted by ~erik~:The cache description looks fine after the edits and I've posted it. Cheers! erik - geocaching.com admin lackey Very much appreciated... I was really hoping I didn't go through all that trouble for nothing - finding the locations, making the little puzzle for the extras, etc. Thanks. Hopefully the folks in Lancaster (and other areas) who didn't know this little park was here will be pleasantly surprised. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
Rubbertoe Posted July 18, 2002 Author Share Posted July 18, 2002 quote:Originally posted by ~erik~:The cache description looks fine after the edits and I've posted it. Cheers! erik - geocaching.com admin lackey Very much appreciated... I was really hoping I didn't go through all that trouble for nothing - finding the locations, making the little puzzle for the extras, etc. Thanks. Hopefully the folks in Lancaster (and other areas) who didn't know this little park was here will be pleasantly surprised. Rubbertoe - Webcam - Image Archives --== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==-- Link to comment
Recommended Posts