Cache Aproval Woes, Redux

[+LooneyTunes]

So, I am still having trouble getting this potential virtual cache approved by Hemlock. I have taken a close look at the virtual cache guidelines and don't see any points on which my cache would be unacceptable...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=90773

 

"1. A virtual cache must be of a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates."

 

Not to spoil the cache, but it is a giant, 50-foot statue of an animal. There is no apparent reason why it is here and it is very sureal.

 

"2. 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."

 

See above. The cache is very interesting and unique.

 

"3. Virtual caches are not commercial"

 

Nothing remotely commercial about this cache.

 

"4. Virtual caches should be geographically dispersed."

 

No other caches within .10 miles

 

"5. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer."

 

Cache seekers are required to email us the identity of the object before they log their find.

 

"6. An original photo can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions."

 

See above...

 

"7. Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries."

 

We have many virutal caches and "maintian" them with much diligence!

 

So, if our cache meets all these requirements, very clearly, why can't it be approved?

[+retphoto]

I agree on all your points....but there's one or two points you're missing....

 

From my Understandings....is

 

1 Virtual caches can only be placed where it's Impossible to put a physical cache. I have learned there are a ton of places to hide a physical cache....you just need to use your imagination(and maybe a micro container)

 

2 I thought Virtual Caches were still ON-HOLD until they finish a seperate section for them like "Benchmarks".

 

but...that's just my understanding

 

I am working on my "moving" cache...

 

He prayeth best, who loveth best All things both great and small; For the dear God who loveth us, He made and loveth all.

 

S. T. Coleridge

[+Doc-Dean]

I could not view your cache page... it just takes me to the Hide and seek page.

 

It does not sound like you virtual is an inappropriate one, but perhaps you need to state to the approver why putting a micro there would not be a good idea...

 

I have a very very similar one see here and the reason a micro could not do there was:

a. the base was infested with fire ants (like everything around here)

b. its in very public view and people poking around the base would appear very suspesious and the police would be all over them right away.

 

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

[+Doc-Dean]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geo-Packrat:

2 I thought Virtual Caches were still ON-HOLD until they finish a seperate section for them like "Benchmarks".

---

 

Virtual caches are still being accepted if they meet the guidelines... I believe you were thinking of "Locationless" caches.

 

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow

[umc]

I don't understand why you needed to start a new thread for this instead of continuing to use the other one. Since we are just adding on from the other thread I will copy and paste my response from there.

 

So, why couldn't your virtual be a micro?

 

I just did a micro in the middle of a parking lot yesterday. I also did a multi cache that had a virt as one of the stages. Those were both really nice caches.

 

I think people miss the point with virts and don't understand that they aren't the only option.

 

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

[+LooneyTunes]

I guess it could be a micro, you're all right. I do hide micros and have no doubt that I could find places there to hide one.

 

I did tell the cache approver that I thought the area was a little too industrial and remote for some cache hunters to feel comfortable searching there, but that is pretty subjective. There is nothing there (no fire ants, nothing) to absolutely rule out a micro.

 

Generally speaking, though, I think a micro would decrease not increase the "fun-ness" of this particular cache. This is always my overall goal -- to make a cache I think people will really enjoy finding. It's a surprising, neat place and just seeing it is enough. Having to get out and search for a film canister attached to the back of a chain link fencepost won't make it more fun! It is definately a 1/1 cache, and some serious cache hunters might consider it too easy a find (as a virt, or even as a micro), but there are few other caches in the immediate area, it is near a freeway where lots of people might pass by on the way to more worthy cache hunting experiences, and I think it adds to the overall cache experience in the Bay Area.

[+LooneyTunes]

Yes, this one is very similar. Nice cache. Next time I'm in Florida...

 

Originally posted by Doc-Dean:

I have a very very similar one http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=85195 and the reason a micro could not do there was:

[Team Misguided]

Let me chime in with my .02 worth.

 

If I wouldn't feel comfortable hunting a physical at this location why would I feel comfortable hunting a virtual?? I'm still wandering around in an industrial area with a silly electronic device in my hand looking for something.

 

I would imagine that a 50' animal in the middle of an industrial area could be seen from my car. If I can log this cache with out having to get out of my car then it isn't a cache.

 

TMJ--Admin.

 

___________________________________________________________

Don't mind us, we're just looking for tupperware in this bush.

[+Harrald]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LooneyTunes:

I guess it could be a micro, you're all right. <<SNIP>>

---

 

You answered your own question. It's time to move on.

_________________________________________________________________________

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

[+Runaround]

I remember a thread some time ago about lame virtual caches that got this whole new set of requirements off the ground. As one who has come across my fair share of lame virts, I'm happy with the new requirements. A lot of virts were placed initially with little thought. Unless a physical cache is absolutely impossible to hide or is banned in the area, hide the micro.

 

Slightly OT, but I'm not sure that a 50' animal fits the definition of surreal. Maybe unusual, strange, or curious? Now if it was day-glo pink, was wearing a fez and a kilt, and was reinacting Khrushchev pounding his shoe, that would be surreal.

 

Now where did I park my car???????

[+showbizkid]

I am going to jump in here having not read all of the posts, but I had a virtual shot down two weeks ago. The suggestion was made that I turn it into a traditional cache but as an off-set cache. In other words, use a clue at the proposed virtual site to lead geocachers to an actual cache somewhere nearby where it IS possible to hide a cache.

 

I did this and was able to use a alphanumeric clue at the proposed virtual cache to create coordinates for a real geocache nearby.

 

The example the Southern California approver gave me was a location in a cemetery (where a real cache wouldn't be proper) where a geocacher could get a clue (like the year of death on a gravestone) then add that to a number to get a coordinate. Made sense to me, so I did something similar.