Jump to content

Your opinion please - approval for virtual


GroundClutter

Recommended Posts

I would like to 'place' this virtual. I have been denied because it is a vacation cache, and not enough information was given.

 

I have done an edit to include that you will be looking for a large plaque on the side of the building. I have also stated that I realize it is a vacation cache, but as a virtual, no maintenance is needed. The plaque is on a heritage building, so it's not going anywhere. If I need to verify that the plaque is indeed still there, I can call the visitor centre.

 

There are no other caches in the immediate area. I feel this one is important because the cacher will learn about the history of the area, and will be at the beginning of the Old Scenic Highway, which will take them along some of the most beautiful waterfalls I have ever seen.

 

May I please have your support for this cache?

Waterfall Trail

 

"You are cleared for geocaching."

Link to comment

I don't know the particulars of your cache but I know I have 'placed' virtuals that are in locations I may not be able to visit more than once or twice a year.(That's one reason why I made them virtuals). As it turns out they are my most popular caches. There is nothing that requires maintenance and in the event the object of interest is destroyed I would simply archive it. It's pretty amazing sometimes what does get approved and what doesn't. Being an approver is a difficult job I guess.

Link to comment

Sorry.. Didn't realize you can't see the page. Here is the text that I submitted...

 

I wanted to make a cache in honour of our terrific driving trip down the Pacific Coast Highway and through Oregon. We stopped at this location on our last day. This was the starting point of our "waterfall day". We took in the terrific view here before continuing on along the Old Scenic Highway to Multnomah Falls - the 5th largest falls in the US. {You will be looking for a large plaque on Vista House.} To log this cache, please e-mail the following information; 1) Who was he? 2) What did he replace? 3) With what did he replace it? DO NOT post your answers in your log. Such logs will be deleted. Please continue along the Scenic Highway and take in the number of gorgeous waterfall areas. Thank you Oregon, for some terrific memories!! (the stuff in the brackets was added after I read the reply about not being specific enough)

 

And here is the reply...

 

I'm sorry I cannot approve this cache. There is not enough information on the cache page to determine what the subject of this cache is. It is also a vacation cache. Even though it is a virtual the vacation rules still apply.

 

Please feel free to email me at teammisguided@yahoo.com if you have any questions.

 

TMJ--Admin.

 

Here is the appeal I sent to TMJ:

Re Waterfall Trail.

 

I have done an edit to included that the cacher is looking for a large plaque on Vista House.(That's the large building in the picture submitted on the cache page) The coordinates listed take the cacher right to the plaque.

 

I realize that this is a vacation cache, but this is a permanent building and is part of the State Park system (therefore no regular cache can be placed). There is no maintenance required, so no need to be at the site. If I need to occasionally verify the plaque is still on the side of the building, I can simply call the visitor centre that is part of the Vista House.

 

There are no other caches in the immediate area, and I feel that this virtual is important to allow people to learn about the important history behind the construction of the scenic highway.

 

Please reconsider allowing this cache.

 

I have not had a reply to that yet. What do you all think? icon_confused.gif

 

"You are cleared for geocaching."

Link to comment

I think it should be approved and I would certainly do it if I was in the area, but I know that they always come up with the same line as to why they won't approve it. What part of Canada is it in anyways? I think a good mix of regular and virtual caches and others is necessary to keep it interesting.

 

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by res2100:

What part of Canada is it in anyways? I think a good mix of regular and virtual caches and others is necessary to keep it interesting.

 

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

 

Thanks! It's actually in Oregon, outside of Troutdale (which is east of Portland) I grabbed my first benchmark in the same spot!

 

"You are cleared for geocaching."

Link to comment

A virtual cache blocks the area for a traditional cache in a .1 mile circle around the 'cache'area. This prevents a physical from being placed in that area by a local cacher.

 

There are 14 active caches in a 5 mile radius around this virtual. This is also one of the most cache dense areas on the west coast. If this cache were in a cache poor area it would be a different story. I might consider allowing a vacation virtual if it met the guidelines. But this cache does not meet the guidelines for a virtual cache even if it had been posted by a local.

 

From the guidelines:

quote:
Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines:

 

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. Items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. A flagpole, manhole cover, tree, etc., are poor examples (with a possible exception: A flagpole at a memorial or a particularly novel flagpole would be ok, or an especially unique tree would count). Conversely, a scavenger hunt posted as a virtual cache would not be ok. If you don't know what is appropriate, post a question to the forums first.


 

I'm sorry but a plaque on the side of a building is not unique.

 

TMJ-Admin.

 

smile.gif Errand boy for the chick that works for the frog smile.gif

__________________________________________________________

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

Link to comment

Ok, I guess that's the final word on that.

I have to say I am very disappointed though, as are others it seems, at the arbitrary application of virtual guidelines. On my trip, I did 26 caches, of which 10 were virtuals (all were signs except Aunt Helen- which didn't require anything!) :

Shifting Sands - a sign of a quote

Are you a keen observer - a sign in a park

Journey's End - a sign on the highway

Firmly Anchored - a piece of metal

Visit Aunt Helen - a view (coast is full of them)in a large park

Historic Fish Wrapper - a stone with a name and no other info as to why.

Collision Course - a sign

Watching for Wizardry - a sign in a park

Waterfall - sign

Real Heros - memorial in a park

 

Not to take anything away from those ones, but I really fail to see the difference. If memory serves, there were ample places for regular caches at those sites, and nothing too unique about any of them. I guess I'll just be left shaking my head. I didn't imply that my plaque was unique. But the information on it is. At least as unique, if not more so than the 10 caches listed.

 

I tried, I appealed, I was denied. Whatever.

Thanks everyone, for your opinions, as unnoticed as they went.

 

"You are cleared for geocaching."

Link to comment

I have reviewed your cache submission and also looked at the caches you mentioned above. Only 2 were submitted this year, and 1 of the other virtual caches (Waterfall) was a traditional cache turned virtual after it went missing, so it bypassed the admin. The guidelines on virtual caches were tightened up and the approvers are being consistant with these guidelines. I also would not have approved your cache on the vacation rule, as well as a plaque not being unique enough in this area. Sorry.

I alse enjoy logging a good virtual and have visited the area your cache was submitted, Multnomah Falls is beautiful.

 

Cache-tech

Geocaching.com Admin

Link to comment

This doesn't make sense to me. Everyone that's posted here does not have a problem with the virtual, except the high-and-mighty Admins.

 

I thought that was the whole point of posting a denied cache to a public forum.

 

Seems the GC.com Admins play by their own set of rules. icon_frown.gif

 

I suppose I'm going to have a hard time getting my caches approved from now on seeing that I've spoken negatively of them.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by RobertM:

This doesn't make sense to me. Everyone that's posted here does not have a problem with the virtual, except the high-and-mighty Admins.


Everyone... both of you that is.

 

quote:
I thought that was the whole point of posting a denied cache to a public forum.

 

Seems the GC.com Admins play by their own set of rules. icon_frown.gif

 

I suppose I'm going to have a hard time getting my caches approved from now on seeing that I've spoken negatively of them.


Actually, GC.com Admins "play" by the set of rules that govern this site. I think TMJ clearly shows that someone who could properly maintain a cache could put a traditional in that location as several other cachers have done nearby.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team Misguided:

A virtual cache blocks the area for a traditional cache in a .1 mile circle around the 'cache'area. This prevents a physical from being placed in that area by a local cacher.

 

There are 14 active caches in a 5 mile radius around this virtual. This is also one of the most cache dense areas on the west coast. If this cache were in a cache poor area it would be a different story. I might consider allowing a vacation virtual if it met the guidelines. But this cache does not meet the guidelines for a virtual cache even if it had been posted by a local.


 

14 caches in a 5 mile radius (78.5 square miles) does not sound too cache dense to me. As for preventing a physical cache from being placed, I disagree...there must be a problem with a cache placer if the only place that they can find to place a cache would be within 160 meters of this cache.

 

I think the problem is that we are seeing so many virtuals denied and frustrated cache placers is that the guidelines are still vague...the guidelines are too open to interpretation...what may be considered unique to one person may not to another. Time to make some concise and specific rules for virtuals...I know you guys are working on it.

 

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

Link to comment

Don't feel discouraged GroundClutter. Keep playing and hide a few physical caches, and I think you'll find things will pass.

 

It's tough to make sure everyone knows about the tightened guidelines for Virtual Caches. It has been well documented and discussed at great lengths. Had you been aware of the tighter guidelines, you wouldn't be disappointed today I'll bet.

 

I would really like to go caching in Oregon sometime. I'll have to look at where you went as possible inspiration.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by res2100:

 

...the guidelines are too open to interpretation...what may be considered unique to one person may not to another. Time to make some concise and specific rules for virtuals...I know you guys are working on it.

 


 

The Canadian Forum has seen little debate and discussion about virtuals. There have been a great number of threads in the General Forum and elsewhere about the topic.

 

The Guidelines are quite clear. The owners of the site have also stated their current position very recently. (I will dig up some Markwells if asked)

 

Bottom line is that Virtuals are an extreme last resort, and aren't likely to be approved unless they clearly fit the guidelines.

 

I am just rehashing this: gc.com has ostensibly defined themselves and their core strength, which is physical caches.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by McKenzie Clan:

Isn't there a moritorium (sp?) on virtuals right now??

 

Maybe that is the reason...


 

There is no moratorium, however GC.com has chosen to allow them only when there is no other option for a cache at that location.


 

You're right, my bad. Got virtual confused with locationless.

 

Bad newbie!! icon_smile.gif

 

Scott

Link to comment

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" icon_wink.gif

 

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."

Link to comment

You do have a good attitude about it. I appreciate that GroundClutter. No worries... good attitude. A little jab in there... no worries. icon_wink.gif

 

Someone will place a cache there eventually. I like the idea of giving a local cacher the chance to get a cache there. It might give a new geocacher their first hide someday. In the meantime, maybe you can get a cache or two out for some of your local geocachers to find. I'm sure they would appreciate it too.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason 19490_2600.gif

Link to comment

Looks like I get to beat the horse. I know the place you're talking about. I've taken family, girlfriends, wife, and kids to the Columbia River Gorge all my life. We've been to all the sites at least a hundred times. I know that the building you mention is pretty cool, although it's always closed when I go. But for us locals, it's just Vista House, no big deal. If a cache was placed there, virtual or not it would be only to pad my stats which I don't do. I suppose visiters would be more inclined to go there but oh well at least your attide sounds great. Glad you had a good time in Oregon and better luck next time.

 

That doesn't smell like mud Chucko

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...