Just wondering...Is the approver on vacation?

[+-=(GEO)=-]

I've had a cache waiting in the queue for a few days now which is not usual. Does anyone know what's going on?

 

[+King of Pennsylvania]

Oh he's not on vacation. I just got this from the approver...

Greetings from Geocaching.com.

 

This is an automated message letting you know that the cache has been archived. In case you plan to unarchive the cache in the future, keep this link for your records:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=82102

 

Message:

Hello,

 

I am a volunteer Admin with Geocaching.com, and I reviewed your York Historical Tour series of virtual cache submissions. I am *temporarily* archiving these caches so that they do not block the approval queue while we are working with them. This archive note applies to all of your submissions.

 

Unfortunately, the standards for approval of virtual caches today are quite different than at the time when most of the virtual caches you've visited were approved, including the Harrisburg and Carlisle tour series. Those series would not be approved under the current rules. Please consult the requirements at this web site and ensure that the details on your cache page address all the parameters of a virtual geocache:

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

 

Some of the important guidelines to keep in mind are that a traditional cache could not be placed at or near that spot, the location should be a specific one that requires a GPS to locate it - not MapQuest or a google search, and the location should also be unique and compelling (otherwise it would be more suited to posting at www.waypoint.org).

Generally virtual caches are placed in locations where a traditional cache would not be allowed or would be inappropriate, such as National Parks, 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 at another location can be used to bring people to your special spot and forward them on to a physical cache. If you would like to re-do any of your submissions as physical or offset caches, I am confident that they can be approved.

 

If you wish for any of your virtual caches to be evaluated on its own merits, I will carefully review the cache. It would help greatly if you could describe for me (in a private note) what the subject of the virtual cache is, why it is a compelling spot, and why a traditional cache cannot be placed nearby.

 

As a final alternative, you can string together several interesting virtual locations into a 'multivirtual' cache, preferably one that ends with a traditional container. But well-planned multivirtual caches can be approved on their own merits: see 'Stop and Smell the Churches' recently approved in Chambersburg, PA as an example. If you were to take all or some of your locations and resubmit them as a multicache, I would likely approve that.

 

Please don't hesitate to respond with an explanation of how you would like to proceed with these cache submissions or if you have any questions. To write back to me, go to your cache page and email me via the link to my profile on the archive log.

 

Sincerely,

Keystone Approver

Geocaching.com

 

NOTE: Do not reply to this email directly. The communication will not be received. To ensure a prompt response, please follow the method of contact described above.

 

If you did not archive this cache, please refer to the cache listing to read the log as to why it was archived and to contact the administrator. Responding directly to this message will not be answered.

 

Cheers,

Geocaching.com Team

 

I responded:

 

You know your explanation is really lame. This game is only improved and perpetuated by having the people who play it create caches. I decided to give back to the game and spent a good deal of time and energy figuring out caches that other people would enjoy and learn something from, and you shot them down. Now it seems that Geocaching wants to remove or at least not approve any of the traditional virtual caches, because they only want traditional caches. What will you do when all of your local parks have five caches in them? Exciting hunt when you are literally tripping over caches.

I find the other types of caches boring. I mean with a GPSr you will find the cache sooner or later. Nevermind the junk that people put in these caches. Maybe the slogan should be "trash in cache out." At least with virtual caches the person learns something. People from other places could have done my York caches and really learn something about the city.

By keeping the Carlisle and Harrisburg V-caches and not allowing other cities like York and Lancaster to set up caches you are hurting, granted in a small way, the local economy. You are also making it seem that York and Lancaster have nothing important for people to visit. What about little known facts about small towns like Dover and Weigelstown that have interesting facts that will never get out because you guys don't think virtual caches is what geocaching is all about.

I will not modify my caches. I set them up according to the way I wanted. I set them up like other virtual caches that I completed and enjoyed the most. Now you're telling me that's not good enough. It is these kind of dictates from those on high that will ruin the game.

I am a volunteer for Geocaching too, and with your decision on not allowing me to create my caches you have made me not want to do anything to help geocaching, including hiding caches. I can't believe that you turn down anybody who is trying to help out the game of Geocaching. Since you don't like the way I set up my caches please come to York and set up caches the way you want them. What do you mean you don't have enough time? If you can turn away peoples' attempts at creating caches, you obviously have enough time to create virtual caches that point out all of the little known historical facts in Pennsylvania.

Reconsider your decision and I will continue to help build geocaching into a great game. Please forward my caches and your response and my response to the higher ups so that they can begin to understand that a policy like the one you are espousing is ruining a great game.

 

This is one of the few times that I have had a real negative feeling about geocaching.

[+-=(GEO)=-]

Well, in your case things are a bit different. Your cache -has been- reviewed and archived because it's a virtual. Mine is a micro.

 

So far, NJ-Admin has been the approver for NY, not Keystone Approver.

 

So, the question remains: NJAdmin, are you there?

 

[Keystone]

GEO, I am sorry that your thread got hijacked. You are right, of course... the NJ Admin has primary responsibility for cache approvals in New York. The NJ Admin has had an unusually busy workload lately, so I went to the queue to take a look at your cache, since we know you to be a good hider.

 

I was saddened to read of your upcoming move to the Pacific Northwest. New York's loss will be their gain, and you'll be in cache heaven there! I would suggest, however, that before placing a "farewell to NY" cache, that you post the prearranged plan on who is going to maintain your cache after your departure. I think that this would expedite your cache's approval.

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

[Keystone]

Verrine,

 

I guess I'll never understand some folks' need to publicize their denied caches in the forums before we've even had a chance to work through them. I've responded to you privately via e-mail and I will be re-evaluating your caches on their own merits.

 

For those of you reading along, this was a series of ten virtual caches throughout the City of York, Pennsylvania, highlighting things like historic homes, the courthouse and various historic signs. Oh well, since it's public now, I'd be curious to hear what other readers think of the note that I sent to Verrine. I thought I pretty clearly spelled out three different ways to get the caches approved, and that I also clearly explained that the series of caches on which this one was modeled wouldn't have been approved under the current rules (the other series date back to summer of 2002).

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

[+NJ Admin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by -=(GEO)=-:

I've had a cache waiting in the queue for a few days now which is not usual. Does anyone know what's going on?

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/82972_1100.jpg

---

Sorry, it was smack in the middle of 11 NY caches on hold until monday and I guess I missed it. Thank's Keystone for alerting me.

[+Frolickin]

I am reminded of the adage, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

[+-=(GEO)=-]

The plan is fairly straight forward: a number of local cachers have already expressed that they would like to adopt some if not most of my caches. By creating a 'Farewell To NY' cache, I wanted to make the fact that I'm relocating known to all local fellow cachers maximizing the chances that my existing caches (including the farewell one) will get adopted. Whatever remains unadopted will move to WA with me and will be recycled. I'm planning on posting an 'adoption offer' in a new thread too.

 

[+gnbrotz]

My opinions:

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verrine:

Now it seems that Geocaching wants to remove or at least not approve any of the traditional virtual caches, because they only want traditional caches. What will you do when all of your local parks have five caches in them? Exciting hunt when you are literally tripping over caches.

---

 

Personally, there are some virtuals that I wish were not covered by the grandfathering policy. It was the wide proliferation of virtual caches which brought the new guidelines into being. What will happen when I come up with a clever new way to disguise a cache, but have nowhere to place it because there are virtuals everywhere I turn?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verrine:

I find the other types of caches boring. I mean with a GPSr you will find the cache sooner or later. Nevermind the junk that people put in these caches. Maybe the slogan should be "trash in cache out." At least with virtual caches the person learns something.

---

 

Everyone has their own preferences. While I agree with you that it's not 'about the stuff', and usually don't trade anything myself, to some folks it's as important as having the coordinates. While I'm not questioning your caches being educational, inferring that virtuals are more educational than traditional caches is flawed. The 'neat factor' of the cache is based upon where it is placed, not what type of cache it is. I try to find cool places and use a geocache as a tool to get other people there who would not normally go. I try not to do 'another cache along the trail' type caches. That being said, it takes all kinds, and I realize I'm a small part of an ever-growing community.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Verrine:

I will not modify my caches. I set them up according to the way I wanted. I set them up like other virtual caches that I completed and enjoyed the most. Now you're telling me that's not good enough. It is these kind of dictates from those on high that will ruin the game.

---

 

Absolutely your prerogative. No one is required to limit their geocache placement to the guidlines listed on this site. They are free to list them on other caching sites, or even create their own. I know that I can hide all the caches I want in state forests and parks, but if I want them posted on THIS site, I need to complete the proper registration process the state requires.

 

Let me also just say that I have had my own experiences with Keystone Approver, and while not always agreeing with her, I believe she does her job fairly. I respect her for that in spite of any disagreements I may have with her on specific issues. This time, I'm with her.

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

[+lostinjersey]

I placed a virtual last saturday called It Happened Here? At PC Richards. I havent placed a virtual lately, but know that the rules are different. you can't palce a micro here, and it's a very important site, historically, that you'd have no way of knowing about otherwise. So I submitting it, and it took i think 5 days to be approved. I was wondering about the delay, but chalked it up to it being under discussion. I did make it clear that a micro wouldnt work, it was an important site, etc. now i'm wondering what really was behind the delay?

 

<<<shrug>>>

 

william

 

 

 

An arundo donax is a reed, often confused with bamboo which is used in the making of musical instruments. In others words it lets hot air create a lot of noise. Who knew?

[+Dekaner]

Maybe NY should have it's own approver.

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

[+edscott]

RE Verrine's post...I recently went through a similar exercise and have some mixed feelings on how the new virtual rules are being applied. It seems like if the standards are being changed then there should be no grand fathering of virtuals that no longer comply, or at the very least, if a physical cache is placed within 525 feet of a virtual, the virtual should automatically be archived. Not saying I agree totally with the new philosophy, just that it should be applied universally or not at all.

 

On the up side.... My particular submission was enhanced by working with the approver. A virtual was fused to a normal cache I had already planned to place nearby to make a virtual/physical hybrid.