Please Help Me Understand The Guidelines....

1.4k · January 12, 2003

First of all let me state that I love Geocaching and geocaching.com and let me also state that I sometimes have mixed feelings about virtual caches. I have no problem with virtual caches, provided they help me learn something I never knew about and in an area in which I did not know existed.

During my travels, and within the beat I work, I found an place that I never knew existed. I found the site by locating a historical marker. Here in the South there are many Civil War buffs, myself included. When I found this location, I thought, "Wow! I can't believe this was here and now it is surrounded by $200K houses and an industrial area." What I also found interesting and educational is the fact that this location is so near downtown Birmingham, AL and the fact that so many people that live in this area are not aware of the important history of this site.

This site is the location of the Oxmoor Furnaces that existed during the Civil War and made iron for the Confederacy. The site was a sister foundry to the Tannehill Ironworks (http://www.tannehill.org) which is a State park. I attempted to post a virtual cache of this location, due to the fact that it is very educational and I thought that other people who live in the Central Alabama area would appreciate learning of this historic site. I used the following text in my cache description:

I have literally driven past this location thousands of times and never realized the importance that this spot had for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Although the actual site is no longer standing, it is still a very historical location that deserves to be remembered. It is very interesting to me to think what this location must have been like during the Civil War and especially in 1865. Although I prefer tradition caches, I am always interested in the history of the Civil War and felt this location was interesting enough to make a virtual cache of it. In order to claim this cache, simply visit the location and read the marker that tells the history of this location, then email me and tell me what happed here in 1865 during the Civil War. If you are a Civil War buff you will enjoy learning of this historic location.

My cache was not approved and was archived with the following note:

Please review the guidelines at http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp. There are historical markers all over our great land, north, south, east, and west. They do not qualify as virtual caches, especially a historical marker identifying where something used to be. A virtual cache should be something extraordinary, something compelling, something likely to be featured in a coffee table book.

Well, this area is featured in a coffee table book (http://www.tannehill.org/tspbook.html) This site is an important part of our history here in Central Alabama and was a very important part of the Civil War. It is also a somewhat forgotten area and visiting and learning of this site is educational and would be appreciated by those that enjoy learning about the Civil War.

I am respectfully asking Jeremey et al how I can rewrite this virtual cache description to make it acceptable so that others may visit this somewhat unique and educational site in order that we may remember our past and that those of us that take interest in the Civil War may learn of this site that we may not have known that existed.

I guess one thing that confuses me is how I can visit and log a virtual cache, such as this:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=35271

yet the one which I attempted to list was not approved. The virtual cache that I made reference to was also very educational to those of us that live in Alabama but the actual site that is memorialized no longer exists, yet that cache was approved.

Please, Jeremy and others, tell me what I need to do to make my virtual cache acceptable for the geocaching.com web site. I am not wanting to start a debate over virtual/traditional caches, I am merely asking for help and advice. I appreciate your comments and suggestions.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

1.1k · January 12, 2003

First, I would suggest posting the description next time so we know the cache description and can adequately respond to it in the forums. Even the waypoint name (GCXXX) can help, though no one else will be able to read it until I can.

In many situations there has to be some email to the person who logs your cache and archives it to explain in more detail what the virtual cache is, especially if there is some confusion. "Wow. I drove by this every day and ...." comment is interesting, but what is it? And what are the coordinates specifically of? It has to be an object you can answer a question about.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.4k · January 12, 2003

First, I would suggest posting the description next time so we know the cache description and can adequately respond to it in the forums. Even the waypoint name (GCXXX) can help, though no one else will be able to read it until I can.

Uh... I posted the entire text of the cache description in my post... did you read my post? The Geocaching.com ID is GCC2CF but it's the same description as what I posted.

In many situations there has to be some email to the person who logs your cache and archives it to explain in more detail what the virtual cache is, especially if there is some confusion. "Wow. I drove by this every day and ...." comment is interesting, but what is it? And what are the coordinates specifically of? It has to be an object you can answer a question about.

Uh... all this information is included in the text of the cache that I posted.... including the question that I asked... and the fact that there is a marker at the location that someone will have to read to be able to email me the answer... Now I really am confused... the two above things you posted (in italics) were clearly listed in my original post. I know it's late and I did work a full eight hours today... but the answers to the questions in the response to my post were listed in the original post/question (except for the GC ID number).

I'm not trying to be difficult and genuinely do appreciate all of your hard work Jeremy and that's why I became a charter member. I guess it's just your response to my post that has left me a bit puzzled

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

6.4k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
_I have literally driven past this location thousands of times and never realized the importance that this spot had for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Although the actual site is no longer standing, it is still a very historical location that deserves to be remembered. It is very interesting to me to think what this location must have been like during the Civil War and especially in 1865. Although I prefer tradition caches, I am always interested in the history of the Civil War and felt this location was interesting enough to make a virtual cache of it. In order to claim this cache, simply visit the location and read the marker that tells the history of this location, then email me and tell me what happed here in 1865 during the Civil War. If you are a Civil War buff you will enjoy learning of this historic location._

I don't know if this would help approve this exact cache, but the verification you have to log the virtual is way too vague. Give me that cache discription and the long/lat, and I log that cache in 30 seconds from here in NJ. Just look up the info on the internet.

With a virtual, you need some very exact verification info to prove the person really went there. Something that you can't find out from a book, or the internet. Otherwise, people can and will cheat.

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

1.4k · January 13, 2003

Hi Mopar! Yes, what you said is true, but all the virtual caches that I have seen/done involving a marker give the coordinates of the marker, then ask for someone to email the cache owner with info. Here is another one that I have logged that is no more easy or difficult, yet was approved:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=36191

Why should that one and the other virtual post that I have logged and mentioned in my original post be approved and mine not be? I truly do appreciate your input and welcome input from others.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

5k · January 13, 2003

Jeff, I think what Mopar was trying to point out is that the cache you referenced says this:

"All you need to do is send me, via email, the 5 digit number found on the mailbox."

A very specific way to verify the visit. Also, the 5-digit number would unlikely be found in an online seach.

Your verification question,

"...email me and tell me what happed here in 1865 during the Civil War."

Is not specific, and could probably answered with an internet search.

I'd recommend visiting the site once more, and finding something specific that can be used for verification and which can't be found online.

Jamie

1.4k · January 13, 2003

Hi Jamie! I think I understand what you are saying now.... so if I asked people to email me who did what here in 1865 and the name of the person that built the site.... that might make it specific enough? I think the site is educational enough that it bears visiting. Thanks for the input!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

1.5k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
Hi Jamie! I think I understand what you are saying now.... so if I asked people to email me who did what here in 1865 and the name of the person that built the site.... that might make it specific enough? I think the site is educational enough that it bears visiting. Thanks for the input!

The idea is to find information at the site which probably isn't available elsewhere; a box number is one item, perhaps the manufacturer of a steel pole at the site, something permanent but unlikely to be found by internet searches. This information doesn't have to be relevent to anything historic, it just has to be present at the location and easy for a person standing there to locate and report back.

5.3k · January 13, 2003

A quick internet search gave me this information:

Oxmoor Iron Furnaces 1863-1928

Fire blast furnace in Jefferson County erected near this site (1863) by Red Mountain Coal & Iron Co. Destroyed (1865) by Federal troops: rebuilt (1873) and second furnace added. Successful experimental run made in Furnace No. 2 (1876) using local coke and Red Mountain iron ore: this assured future growth of coal and iron industry in Birmingham area. Owned by a succession of companies, the furnaces were acquired by U.S. Steel Corp. (1907) and later dismantled (1928).

http://www.archives.state.al.us/markers/ijefferson.html

Most of the information on the historic marker can be researched. Mr. Snazz & Jamie have great ideas to find information not related to the history of the site to use as verification.

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

20.7k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
...I think I understand what you are saying now.... so if I asked people to email me who did what here in 1865 and the name of the person that built the site.... that might make it specific enough?

In my opinion, that changes should make it specific enough.

I disagree with the following comment:

quote:
...There are historical markers all over our great land, north, south, east, and west. They do not qualify as virtual caches, especially a historical marker identifying where something used to be...

It should be noted that, in my opinion, the majority of virts are based on these historical locations. These historical places make perfect virts. They show us all interesting historical places that we would not normally find. I especially enjoy these when I am caching away from home. I get to tour different cities in ways that I normally would not. In my opinion, showing people places that they would not normally see is the definition of geocaching.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

20.7k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:
A quick internet search gave me this information:...

You were able to find the info because you knew that you were looking for 'Oxmoor Iron Furnaces'. If this was not given on the cache page, you would have had to go to the location. From the origninal post to this thread, it is not completely clear whether it was planned for this info to be on the page. It should not be included.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

6.4k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:
A quick internet search gave me this information:...

You were able to find the info because you knew that you were looking for 'Oxmoor Iron Furnaces'. If this was not given on the cache page, you would have had to go to the location. From the origninal post to this thread, it is not completely clear whether it was planned for this info to be on the page. It should not be included.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Yes, but its easy enough to see where the location is on the map once you had the location. the name of the town/area/park/whatever can be found as simple as clicking the mapquest link on the cache page. Take that info, combine it with "civil war" and "historic marker" and bam, google spits out pages of info about "oxmoor iron furnace". The light pole id number is a good one. Another good one I've seen is the name of the fence company that installed the fence around the object. It was a little sign attached to the corner of the fence. Something close by that isn't likely to change and also isn't likely to turn up during an internet search.

Now, if this is enought to meet the current guidelines, I'm not sure. I've enjoyed the historical marker type caches I have found, but I see how it could get out of hand too. Imagine making a virtual cache out of every historical marker in Gettysburg, PA? Things could quickly get out of hand.

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

5.7k · January 13, 2003

When I do historical markers that I want people to see, I will take numbers displayed on the marker and use them to construct new coords, or project a waypoint, to a real physical cache nearby. This way, you get the people reading the marker, and there is a physical cache.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

6.4k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:
When I do historical markers that I want people to see, I will take numbers displayed on the marker and use them to construct new coords, or project a waypoint, to a real physical cache nearby. This way, you get the people reading the marker, and there is a physical cache.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Marky's idea is a good one, and I've done ones like this too. A physical cache is always preferable in my opinion. But I do understand that many historic places are unsuitable for a physical cache. Too busy, no secure hiding spot, illegal, or just plain not a good idea for that location. I like the idea that geocaching has brought me to those spots anyway.

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

1.4k · January 13, 2003

You were able to find the info because you knew that you were looking for 'Oxmoor Iron Furnaces'. If this was not given on the cache page, you would have had to go to the location. From the origninal post to this thread, it is not completely clear whether it was planned for this info to be on the page. It should not be included.

You are correct. That info was not in the cache description. I stated it here because I was trying to show that the site was in a coffee table book Without that information, you would have to drive to the site and read the marker to learn of this historic location and then email the info as to what happened here in 1865 since this info will not show-up on Mapquest or similar services.

I also prefer traditional caches and, in fact, hid 3 of 'em the weekend

So, what's the general consensus? Do I need to add more info or since I don't mention what the site is in the cache description (see the first post in this thread where I list the text in the cache) or do I petition Jeremy and the other 'cache approvers' to approve my cache since this site does exist in a coffee table book?

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

January 13, 2003

Marky makes a good point, and it's one the approvers also consider when reviewing virts.

If the virt is in a park or out in the woods where a traditional cache can readily be hidden a geocacher can have a physical cache to find, a log book to read, and McToys to trade. Plus he can learn about the historic location to boot.

So you can see that posting a virt can sometimes deprive others of the chance to put a traditional cache in the same area. I felt badly turning down an ammobox cache submission yesterday because there was already a virtual cache at the same spot. I suggested that the cache submitter ask the "owner" of the virt to archive it but I know that won't happen.

The other extreme are virts in a busy urban area where even a microcache would be stolen. I think all the cache approvers would be happy to post something like a virt in a "cache poor" city environment, assuming it meets the criteria of being unique and interesting.

The cache text does have to demonstrate to the cache reviewer that the location is "coffee table book material" or it will be archived or put on hold pending elaboration. If you want the find to be a surprise put a "Note to the cache approver, delete after reading" on the page to explain it all in detail. That helps a lot.

erik - geocaching.com admin lackey

5.7k · January 13, 2003

Mopar, I agree with you 100%. In those cases where it just isn't feasable to place a physical cache nearby (by nearby, I would put a .5 mile radius as reasonable), then I would agree that such virtuals are worthwhile and I too have been to many that I really enjoyed.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

1.4k · January 13, 2003

By the way, here's the url for the Mapquest page for my archived virtual cache:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=decimal&latitude=33.42932&longitude=-86.84933

Please note that it does not show the historic point of interest. That was going to be my surprise when the cache seeker found the location

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

1.4k · January 13, 2003

The cache text does have to demonstrate to the cache reviewer that the location is "coffee table book material" or it will be archived or put on hold pending elaboration. If you want the find to be a surprise put a "Note to the cache approver, delete after reading" on the page to explain it all in detail. That helps a lot.

So erik since I have demonstrated that this virtual cache is in a coffee table book can you suggest what else I need to do to get this one approved? Thanks for the help, by the way, the GC number is GCC2CF.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

6.4k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
By the way, here's the url for the Mapquest page for my archived virtual cache:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=decimal&latitude=33.42932&longitude=-86.84933

Please note that it does not show the historic point of interest. That was going to be my surprise when the cache seeker found the location

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

No, but it does show the town and the road it is on. I did a quick Google search on "Civil War Oxmoor Alabama historical marker 1865", based upon your cache description and the mapquest url. As you can see there are plenty of links that answer your question of what happened there. Find something at the location that isn't google-able, or hide a real cache nearby. Just not too close to that RR track, m'kay?

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

1.4k · January 13, 2003

Hi Mopar! Yes, if you go to that kind of trouble, I guess you could figure it out, but what about this one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=38125

Do a search on Google for Birmingham Alabama Temptations and you will get the answer If someone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat and they are really only cheating themselves, since we receive no monetary gain for finding caches. I bet using Google, I could figure out a lot of virtual caches. My whole point is that why is mine being archived, when so many in my area (and other places) are allowed to be listed.... after all mine actually is in a coffee table book Happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

6.4k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
Hi Mopar! Yes, if you go to that kind of trouble, I guess you could figure it out, but what about this one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=38125

Do a search on Google for Birmingham Alabama Temptations and you will get the answer If someone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat and they are really only cheating themselves, since we receive no monetary gain for finding caches. I bet using Google, I could figure out a lot of virtual caches. My whole point is that why is mine being archived, when so many in my area (and other places) are allowed to be listed.... after all mine actually is in a coffee table book Happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

Well, yours wasn't much trouble at all! Now, to use the search from your example, I came up with 1,980 results. Trying to narrow that down by adding "historical marker" did not give me a definitive answer. The answer might very well be hidden in those 1,980 webpages somewhere, but at least there is a little work involved. The area of your virtual also looks undeveloped, at least according to the topos and aerial photos of the area. Is it possible to hide a physical cache here?

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

20.7k · January 13, 2003

In my opinion, the 'google' argument is not valid. You will be hard pressed to find a virt that cannot be solved by an internet search.

When this came up in the forums last year, it made me curious. To satisfy my own curiosity, I set up an experiment. I found, at random, four virts in other parts of the country. I did internet research to find the answers to the verification questions. I sent emails to the owners which simply stated that 'the answer to the verification questions are...'. I did not claim to visit the locations.

Three owners emailed me back, congratulating mwe on my find and advising to log it. I received no response from the other owner. Obviously, I did not post my 'finds'.

My point is that there will always be the potential for scamming the system. This is not a good enough reason to deny approval of a good cache.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
My whole point is that why is mine being archived, when so many in my area (and other places) are allowed to be listed

You seem to be hung on this but in the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines it says:

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.

So most likely these other caches were allowed before the rules were tightened. Therefore you need to make a case as to why yours should be allowed, without saying XYZ is similar and was allowed.

1.4k · January 13, 2003

The area is abreast with apartment buildings that have been built within the past couple of years, as well as, $200K houses on the hill which overlook the site. Sitting on the site now is somewhat of an industrial park and next door to it is a county landfill. Also, some of the surrounding property is marked with No Tresspassing signs.

I do understand the point that you are trying to make and I hope you also understand the point that I am making. I feel quite confident that by using search engines such as Google and using coordinates and Mapquest that I could cheat and log numerous virtual caches. Mine is meant to be informative and educational. It's in an area that most people that live here never travel. I seriously doubt that very many people would go to the trouble of researching my virtual cache on Google and not actually going there. After all, they would only be cheating themselves out of a very educational experience.

Here is a cache with a marker that I logged:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=36191

Should I just add "tell me the address on the nearest mailbox" to the marker? Would that solve the whole dilemna? See, I thought of that from the beginning, but I really wanted people to read the sign, not just drive past it and find an address number on a mailbox.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
Hi Mopar! Yes, if you go to that kind of trouble, I guess you could figure it out, but what about this one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=38125

Do a search on Google for Birmingham Alabama Temptations and you will get the answer If someone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat and they are really only cheating themselves, since we receive no monetary gain for finding caches. I bet using Google, I could figure out a lot of virtual caches. My whole point is that why is mine being archived, when so many in my area (and other places) are allowed to be listed.... after all mine actually is in a coffee table book Happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

Maybe you should look to the guidelines for the answer:

quote:
Some earlier postings do not meet these clarified guidelines, although they will be allowed to stand as grandfathered. They will not be considered as justification or as precedents for future submissions.

Now, the part of the guidelines that you don't seem to have addressed seems to me to be "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."

1.4k · January 13, 2003

Therefore you need to make a case as to why yours should be allowed

I have made this case... my virtual cache is in a coffee table book which was the requirement listed in the note sent when the cache was archived. Since it meets that requirment, it should be made active.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

6.4k · January 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
The area is abreast with apartment buildings that have been built within the past couple of years, as well as, $200K houses on the hill which overlook the site. Sitting on the site now is somewhat of an industrial park and next door to it is a county landfill. Also, some of the surrounding property is marked with No Tresspassing signs.

I do understand the point that you are trying to make and I hope you also understand the point that I am making. I feel quite confident that by using search engines such as Google and using coordinates and Mapquest that I could cheat and log numerous virtual caches. Mine is meant to be informative and educational. It's in an area that most people that live here never travel. I seriously doubt that very many people would go to the trouble of researching my virtual cache on Google and not actually going there. After all, they would only be cheating themselves out of a very educational experience.

Here is a cache with a marker that I logged:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=36191

Should I just add "tell me the address on the nearest mailbox" to the marker? Would that solve the whole dilemna? See, I thought of that from the beginning, but I really wanted people to read the sign, not just drive past it and find an address number on a mailbox.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

Well, then it sounds to me(and remember, I'm a nobody!) lie a good place for a virtual. Rather then "email me the box number" surely you can find something a bit more detailed related to the actual marker area. Scope it out again. Maybe the company that made the marker stamped it? There has to be something. It's sad to say, but if you do a search of the forums, you will find plenty of threads complaining about people who DO cheat at caching. I don't know why, but it seems to be common with virtuals.

Given you description of the cache, and the area, if you could make it a little harder to answer from my chair, you would have my vote to allow it as a virtual.

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

January 13, 2003

Either add to this thread or Start a new one and have a poll similar to

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=7970989764&r=8750952864

or

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=4960938035

Then if the majority of cachers answering the poll say yes, then I think you have good chance that cache will be unarchived, if not then you might as well forget it.

1.4k · January 13, 2003

An interesting sidenote to this location is the fact that where some of the apartments and buildings are now was most recently the county landfill The area was reclaimed and covered with dirt. Just think if the archeologists ever try to dig to find the furnace site of all the trash they will encounter

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

3.1k · January 13, 2003

I like how umc handled verification with his third cache.

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut

1.4k · January 13, 2003

Now that's a great idea!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

January 13, 2003

IMHO and FWIW, before trying to bring in the opinion of the masses, try emailing the reviewer with your reply to his denial. When I placed my virtual cache, I was ready to respond with a more detailed explantation and pictures should my cache not be approved. However, I didn't have to. I didn't think of adding a "reviewer please read and delete" note as suggested by Erik earlier.

Also, this cache has a unique verification system. Something similar with your cache may help some of the armchair-find questions that have been raised.

-Craig/TeamCNJC

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took off through the thorns, chest high, ...

January 13, 2003

Jeff35080 wrote:

quote:
So erik since I have demonstrated that this virtual cache is in a coffee table book can you suggest what else I need to do to get this one approved? Thanks for the help, by the way, the GC number is GCC2CF.

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread above, but did you say there was no way to put a traditional cache within .1 mile of your virtual spot?

Keep in mind that the cache approvers have reviewed 20,000 caches in the last five months so we do appreciate having all the info available the first time we view a cache.

As far as "internet finds" only cheating the cheaters that do it; that's not entirely true. It cheapens the sport and cheapens the honest finds that others have made. Some have gone so far as to post "No Internet Finds" on their virtual cache pages just so there are no misunderstandings.

Personally, I think it's a fun challenge to try to "solve" some of the verification questions on virtual caches that are submitted, but unless the answer pops up pretty quickly on google there just isn't time to ensure that it can't be logged that way. So some do get posted that can be "found" on the internet. Can't do that with traditional caches can you?

~erik~

1.4k · January 13, 2003

erik, There's not really a good area to do a traditional. I am going to take a close look at the sign and use one of the verification methods suggested i.e. the word-counting method. That should then make the cache acceptable if I add that info, right? Happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

January 13, 2003

quote:
That should then make the cache acceptable if I add that info, right?

It would probably be best to correspond directly with the person who initially declined to post your cache. I've asked the other cache approvers to read this thread so he or she should be aware.

My parole officer won't let me approve out of state caches so I don't know if I can help you.

~erik~

1.4k · January 13, 2003

My parole officer won't let me approve out of state caches so I don't know if I can help you

ROTFL Thanks for the help erik! Like I said, I wasn't meaning to be difficult just trying to gain an understanding of how to get it approved. Happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

January 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:
erik, There's not really a good area to do a traditional.

Not even a micro? Not even a micro using one of the Bison Belt capsules?

I've seen micro caches hidden, quite literally, in the middle of parking lots. Think creatively - could you suspend the capsule inside the hollow post of a sign? Stick a magnetic key holder to the base of the support for the historical sign?

Under a bench? Surely there are SOME features that could be used to hide a microcache.

I'm sure there are places where microcaches can't be hidden but I think they are awfully, awfully rare.

1.5k · January 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:
Not even a micro? Not even a micro using one of the http://www.bisonbelts.com/aluminum/keycaddies/capsule.htm?

If we hold jeff35080 to this standard ("no virtuals unless you are absolutely certain that you couldn't cram a paper and pencil into something at the site"), let's make sure that we hold all other new virtuals to this standard as well, not just the ones that are denied for whatever reason by the approver.

1.4k · January 14, 2003

let's make sure that we hold all other new virtuals to this standard as well, not just the ones that are denied for whatever reason by the approver

I agree. I have no problem that my cache was not approved as I have learned from it and will change it so that it is approved, but I have also learned this whole approval process can be very arbitrary, depending on who happens to approve your cache. I felt I met the guidlines since it was in a coffee table book and felt it was a much better (historically and educational) cache than some other local virtuals. I have posted other virtuals in this thread as examples, in an attempt to show that other virtuals could be solved using internet search engines. I do prefer traditional caches and have placed 5 of them so far, but this area does not lend itself well to a traditional, so I opted for a virtual in order to get people to the area to learn about our local history. Anyways, I do appreciate everyone's help, suggestions and input. Happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

January 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:
Not even a micro? Not even a micro using one of the http://www.bisonbelts.com/aluminum/keycaddies/capsule.htm?

If we hold jeff35080 to this standard ("no virtuals unless you are absolutely certain that you couldn't cram a paper and pencil into _something_ at the site"), let's make sure that we hold all other new virtuals to this standard as well, not just the ones that are denied for whatever reason by the approver.

Yes, I absolutely agree. No virtuals unless hiding a microcache is completely impossible - e.g. hiding ANYTHING is forbidden in NPS controlled areas.

Heck, I'd be fine with asking people who have posted virtuals go back and hide micros there, to convert them to conventional/traditional caches.

Call it 'cache maintenance for virtuals' if you like.

January 14, 2003

whoops, clicked the wrong place. Sheesh.

1.5k · January 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:
Yes, I absolutely agree. No virtuals unless hiding a microcache is completely impossible - e.g. hiding ANYTHING is forbidden in NPS controlled areas.

Just wanted to note that my post was not intended as an endorsement nor a rejection of the policy that I indicated - I did not actually state my opinion either way - I merely think that, if we (rather, the approvers) hold this cache to a particular standard, we ought to be making sure that other caches are also held to this standard.

January 14, 2003

I personally question every single virtual I review as to why a physical, even a micro, could not be placed at the site. I then further question if necessary as to why some clue or offset at the site could not be used as a stage of a multi that leads to a physical somewhere nearby. I do not play favorites, I personally hold every virtual to the same requirement. Only after I have been satisfied that no physical cache is possible, even in a nearby area, do I start to review the other aspects of the Virtual such as the verification etc.

As of the posting of the new guidelines, the bottom line is that preference is now always being given to physical caches over virtual. Many times we receive submissions where the cacher states that the location is a really neat place, worth of people going to. Yet they don't want to put an actual cache at that spot for whatever reason. Well, I always point out that this is after all geocaching, and the priority is to have a cache.

If its just an interesting place you want to send people to, then perhaps you should post it over on www.waypoint.org instead, since your purpose is to post a point-of-interest (POI) rather than posting a cache. POI sites have as their primary goal to create a database of interesting places. I belive that geocaching.com has as its primary goal a database of geocaches.

__________________

-Alan

1.4k · January 14, 2003

So... will we seeing less virtual caches in the future and some of the current ones archived? I also prefer the real thing but thanks to virtual ones have seen some interesting places and learned a lot.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

January 14, 2003

The old ones are grandfathered. I doubt you will see any taken down unless a problem develops with them.

As the overall rate of new caches keeps increasing, I doubt that you will see fewer new virtuals than you did say a year ago, but I do believe that you will indeed see the ratio of virtuals to traditionals drop. In my home area, the ration or virtuals to traditionals has already dropped.

__________________

-Alan

1.4k · January 14, 2003

Okay Alan, I can understand.... I will have to figure out a way to make my proposed virtual part of a traditional. What may help for future for other patrons to the site is to post somewhere that virtual caches may be scrutinized a bit harder than in the past so they don't run into the same problems I have had. Once again, thanks for the help and happy caching!

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

5k · January 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wicacher:
I do believe that you will indeed see the ratio of virtuals to traditionals drop. In my home area, the ration or virtuals to traditionals has already dropped.

Not around here! Just six months ago, I had zero virtuals within 100 miles of me, now I have probably a dozen or more. The entire state of Mississippi, when I did PaterQuest in August had only two virtuals (I went to both, but logged a find on neither) but now the state is home to quite a few.

Since I haven't visited all the virtual locations in my area, I can't be sure, but I have a strong suspicion that a cache could be hidden at most of them. Not all of the approvers have the same criteria as you, WICacher.

Jamie

January 15, 2003

quote:
Not all of the approvers have the same criteria as you, WICacher.

Yeah we do. It's posted here:

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

We are required to recite it from memory daily before punching in to approve caches.

Seriously, we do all try to adhere to those guidelines and question any caches that aren't clear, regardless of cache type.

Every so often someone will e-mail me and ask why a particularly lame virtual cache was posted whereas their's was questioned. In a lot of cases I remember the submission and the string of e-mails that were sent defending it so it would be posted. At times like that I wish people would spend half as much time putting together a physical cache as they do defending a lame virtual at the same spot.

erik - geocaching.com adminion

8.9k · January 15, 2003

There are several "unwritten" guidelines. The requirements page does not specifically deal with the proximity regulation: barring some detailed explanation, a cache will probably not be approved if it is within 500 feet of another cache.

I was also denied a virtual cache at a civil war confederate cemetery because (quoting the approver) "we already have enough virtuals concerning dead people and cemeteries." I have no problem with that, but that's not stated on the requirements page either.

Also there are NUMEROUS locationless and/or virtual caches that were requested and denied, and yet we as the caching proletariat cannot view these. If I could see that a cache was denied because of A, B or C, I might not submit a similar cache.

Maybe what needs to be started is a "case law" type page, like I had to do here, where I had to start detailing my rulings for the Photographer's Caches to cover my own gluteous gigantus. If we knew why cache approvers rule out caches, we might not submit as many lame ones.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Please Help Me Understand The Guidelines....

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment