Your opinion please - approval for a virtual

[+GroundClutter]

I have started this thread in the Canadian forums. I'm trying to get a virtual in Oregon approved. It was denied as it is a vacation cache. My argument is that it is a virtual, at a historical site, and needs no maintenance.

 

Please have a look at the thread, and offer your opinion. I've informed the cache approver of it and that I am trying to garner support.

 

Thanks!

 

"You are cleared for geocaching."

[+bazzle]

There are actually many cache around this basic area. Plus the area is very supportive of a traditional cache. I would have to support Misguided's postition in not approving this vacation virtual.

 

*********************************************

* Remember... Only you can pervert forest faeries... *

*********************************************

 

**Namaste**

 

[+runhills]

Upon reading the following rules, I support Misguided.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.

 

Maybe the best course is to get the rules changed??

[+Zzzoey & illDRIVEuNav]

Here's a markwell to a situation we had that was far more of a conflict.... But much the same....

 

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=31160905&r=40360905#40360905

 

In the end we are at the mercy of the admins.... Because they're willing to do the work... I'd take the job but I'm not sure I meet the requirements...

 

For the record... Oregon allows state park caches if they're not in a sensitive area, and I'll bet you could place a cache on the trail to the top of the falls if you wanted... Just my two cents...

 

illDRIVE

 

WARNING: I cannot be responsible for the above, as apparently my cats have learned how to type.

[+GroundClutter]

Thanks for your opinions. I did search for close-by caches before submitting this one. I didn't find anything in the immediate area. Yes, there is one .9 miles away. You can see how far away my cache is by looking at the other cache page. You'll see Vista House far in the distance. There was another one .9 miles away that had not been visited in over a year, and has since disappeared. Won't happen with a virtual.

 

I'm surprised that no one has placed a cache here by now. I didn't feel a regular cache was appropriate or even allowed in a site like this. All I wanted to do was have a nice cache memory from our trip, and have people learn a bit of history from the plaque.

 

No worries. If they don't want it, then they don't want it. Seems like an awfully stiff rule to me though.

 

"You are cleared for geocaching."

[+yumitori]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GroundClutter:

 

No worries. If they don't want it, then they don't want it. Seems like an awfully stiff rule to me though.

 

---

 

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating.

 

Virtual caches do require maintenance. there's a virtual in Montana that is now in an area closed to the public. (I am granting the owner the benefit of the doubt and assuming it wasn't so when he created the cache.) The owner, who placed it on vacation, has never bothered to make the necessary changes to make the cache legal. Of course, he is unable to do so directly, since he lives across the country.

 

That's one reason why virtuals are also covered by the ban on vacation caches.

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

[+bazzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by runhills:

Upon reading the following rules, I support Misguided.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.

 

Maybe the best course is to get the rules changed??

---

 

Perhaps the best course is to abide by the rules. Place caches in your local areas where you can properly maintain them and leave the vacation areas for the locals who can maintain physical caches. If we change the rules when we do not like them, why bother having them at all?

 

*********************************************

* Remember... Only you can pervert forest faeries... *

*********************************************

 

**Namaste**

 

[+runhills]

Change the Rules was Tougue In Cheek! Kind of like Solving World Hunger? If one must act, this approach is better than trying to beat the administer down!

[+GroundClutter]

Here is the same post that I left on the Canadian forum. I reproduce it here to close this discussion too...

 

Once again, thanks for your support everyone. It's interesting that the Canadian cachers supported it, and the US cachers didn't. And for petes sake, lets not turn that into a whole new discussion.

 

I'm not discouraged. I'm disappointed. But as I said before. No worries. If they don't want it, they won't get it. I guess it's not that great of a place anyway, if there is not a cache there yet, in such a "Cache dense area"

 

Seriously folks. I tried. I took it to an open forum for people to express their opinions and was denied still. It's done.

 

"You are cleared for geocaching."

[+bazzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by runhills:

Change the Rules was Tougue In Cheek! Kind of like Solving World Hunger? If one must act, this approach is better than trying to beat the administer down!

---

 

Sorry... I missed the sarcasm in that...

 

*********************************************

* Remember... Only you can pervert forest faeries... *

*********************************************

 

**Namaste**

 

[+oregone]

If it were me visiting the Vista House (or, for the sake of discussion, someplace cool that was 300 miles from my house) for the first time, I wouldn't want to designate a plaque as a virtual because said plaque (or anywhere within .1 of it) might be the final location of a multi-cache.

I can think of a couple virtual caches I've visited in the past that turned out to be the final location of an older, and usually more difficult, geocache.

I like sassquatch's point: He said something along the lines of the Vista House being no big deal to us locals.

Virtual caches like this are probably great for those visiting from other areas, however, so maybe you could make it a multi-waypoint cache. The first waypoint being, of course, somewhere in British Columbia.

 

By the way, i wasn't being sarcastic with that last paragraph. When I was in San Francisco, California last summer, I found the coolest plaque near the bottom of a swimming pool in an historic hotel commemorating a visit by marilyn monroe. I thought it was totally the bee's knees, but i didn't want to step on the toes of the local cachers. So i SERIOUSLY considered making it a multi-cache with the first waypoint being the Andy Warhol suite at the Heathman Hotel here in Portland. Probably woulda stayed at the top of people's 'not found' lists for a little too long, though. I mean, it was a pretty cheesy hotel.

 

But hey, next time you come to the Columbia River Gorge, you should do that 'Mosier Tunnels' or 'Snowbound' cache, or whatever it's called now. That's got the REAL history...

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+team safari]

Hey, I had the same problem getting a virtual in CO approved. The rules are too vague.

What if I am a resident of TX for tax purposes, but I summer in CO and winter in AZ? Am I restricted to placing caches in TX, and within what perimeter? 25 miles of my PO address, 50 or what?

 

3/4 of the really cool caches we found in Co this summer(on vacation!) were placed by out-of-state cachers. Since Admin started flexing this rule, out of the last four hundred caches placed, only 2 were in CO. Cache seekers will be cheated out of a lot of new caches if this rule persists. Virtuals in particular need to be exempted from the "vacation" rules.

[+bazzle]

I recently placed a physical cache while visiting family in Az. I arranged to have it maintained by locals between my semi-yearly visits to the area and it was easily approved. Also I know of a couple others that have been placed recently and fall in the same situation, so it can be done and it does not require a virtual. Think the rule is fine...

 

*********************************************

* Remember... Only you can pervert forest faeries... *

*********************************************

 

**Namaste**