What is my recourse??

April 11, 2003

Well folks here's another dilemma offered up by geocaching. And it involves a few pointed questions...

1st... Has anyone here ever had a virtual cache denied upon submission, only to see it admitted later in much the same format, but placed by someone else?

2nd... Has anyone here ever noticed a discrepency between the standards of acceptance for different admins, particularly concerning virtuals?

We tried to place a virtual on the south rim of the Grand Canyon a few weeks back and it was denied by Eric the Admin... Today we noticed a cache called Peace on the Rim (GCF17A) that showed up in the exact same spot and, no offense to the owner, exhibited much less commitment, particularly in the aesthetic beauty of the page itself. We take a lot of effort to decorate our pages with background and photos... We don't expect this from others but we do think it enhances the value of a cache, although we suspect it is given little creedence by some admins, if not all of them.

At any rate, we were denied, according to Eric, because our verification emphasized the view, and we all know "a view can't be a cache". We had asked cachers to either take a photo of themselves and their gpsr at the spot our cover photo was taken at OR they could tell us the two names that were written in the concrete at the base of the hand rail where the coords were taken. Eric suggested that the cache was invalid because a view can't be a cache, and the point a cache takes you to should have some cultural or historical value.

If you take the time to look at Peace on the Rim you will find that the validation makes it sound like this is practically a historical monument, but it's the exact same verification we asked for, only we made the mistake of giving a more realistic description of the feature. Out of purest ironic poignance we are considering a retroactive log of Peace on the Rim as we have the verifying information and we need to make something positive from this.

So has placing a virtual become a game of fooling the admin into thinking it's a valid spot on the Earth "in the spirit of geocaching"? We hope this is not the case...

We had another virtual denied by Eric that was submitted the same day. It has historical merit but he claimed it was too close to the road and "not in the spirit of geocaching" because it wouldn't be a cache you would take a newspaper reporter to in an attempt to explain to them what geocaching is... Sigh... If I was taking a reporter geocaching, which I would never do because I want to keep geocaching out of the public eye as much as possible, I imagine I would look at the icon next to the title and avoid any virtuals altogether. This seemed like odd justification to me.

Once again we had taken the time to create a unique page with spectacular photos and background as well as historical research. In all honesty we are thinking about resubmitting this cache and hoping for a more liberal admin to be the approver. Having looked at Eric's background a bit he doesn't create or seek virtual caches... Which is fine, for him, but we question whether his preferences have affected his judgement in the approval of virtuals, some of which are all the way across the country from his home in Georgia.

It is quite possible we are just taking our first rejections personally and over-reacting childishly... But we didn't say a thing until we saw this new cache pop up and we had to share our concern. So let us know what you think. We hope Eric might have some input as well.

April 12, 2003

Well, there are ceratainly issues that need to be addressed by the administration. Not having seen the actual submission or having previous knowledge or experience with Eric the question that needs to be addressed first is Who or What is the problem in this instance?

It sounds as though Eric is being a little hard on your cache's but why? Is it personal, is it a communicatiion problem, a misunderstanding of the criteria by one or both of you or one of many other possible problems?

I suggest contacting Groundspeak and having an open discussion between all parties. This may be a simple solution that can be rectified without further incident or hard feelings.

You sound open minded and willing to understand and/or make whatever changes needed to bring this matter to a close. If Eric is reasonable there shouldn't be a problem finding a solution.

Wish I could tell you more about the avenues of of arbitration but I do not know them well enough to speculate. You will have to do some research and contacting Groundspeak would be your first step.

1.3k · April 12, 2003

Is there no way to hide a micro at the coordinates? A simple film cannister would turn it into a physical cache, and still provide for verification via logbook. I'm not partial to micros myself, but the view you describe would be a real incentive to hunt the cache. There has been so much talk of diffuculty getting virtuals approved, I begin to wonder if there isn't a bit of a rebellion of virt placers going on. If there is any way to squeeze in a film cannister out there, I'd do it. You might get approved in a snap. If it didn't get approved like it is, chances are it never will unless you change it.

I wonder how many caches that were initially denied approval were later approved with no changes?

"I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!"

38.2k · April 12, 2003

quote:
1st... Has anyone here ever had a virtual cache denied upon submission, only to see it admitted later in much the same format, but placed by someone else?

2nd... Has anyone here ever noticed a discrepency between the standards of acceptance for different admins, particularly concerning virtuals?

Yes and yes. The admins are individuals and as such, will interpret rules and guidelines differently. It's a fact of life. Live with it and move on.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world, by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free if I am" -Clarence Darrow

April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:
Is there no way to hide a micro at the coordinates? A simple film cannister would turn it into a physical cache, and still provide for verification via logbook. I'm not partial to micros myself, but the view you describe would be a real incentive to hunt the cache. There has been so much talk of diffuculty getting virtuals approved, I begin to wonder if there isn't a bit of a rebellion of virt placers going on. If there is any way to squeeze in a film cannister out there, I'd do it. You might get approved in a snap. If it didn't get approved like it is, chances are it never will unless you change it.

I wonder how many caches that were initially denied approval were later approved with no changes?

"I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!"

I believe the area is NPS property. Physical caches would not be allowed.

Brian has it right. It's a bad situation, but moving on is the best thing.

I do wish that any cache that is not approved would be given a "second opinion".

1.3k · April 12, 2003

Ahh... The Dreaded NPS. Good luck with the cache.

"I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!"

April 12, 2003

This is slightly off the topic, but since you mentioned it...

You said that you would never take a reporter out geocaching because you are trying to keep geocaching out of the public eye. I have been interviewed by newspaper and television reporters with good results. And, when the Sunday magazine of the local paper had an article on geocaching the membership of our local club doubled. Add to that the Earth Day/CITO programs and you seem to be the only one trying to keep geocaching a secret. I think we need more positive publicity to overcome the extremely vocal negative publicity.

RichardMoore

www.geocities.com/richardsrunaway

3k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zzzoey:
Well folks here's another dilemma offered up by geocaching. And it involves a few pointed questions...

1st... Has anyone here ever had a virtual cache denied upon submission, only to see it admitted later in much the same format, but placed by someone else?

2nd... Has anyone here ever noticed a discrepency between the standards of acceptance for different admins, particularly concerning virtuals?

#1. No, I have never had a cache denied, but an Admin. did approve a (second) virtual cache at the precise spot/for the exact object as an active virtual cache I had. Oops. Accidents happen; the Admin. archived the second virtual as soon as it was brought to his attention.

#2. Yes, and despite the fact that Admins. are human and view rules and guidelines differently, those disparities have been excessively wide at times. I'll repeat what I've said in other threads: Guidelines are not rules, and rules are not guidelines. One is entirely subjective, the other objective. It would appear the cache approval process, at least to the eyes of those denied approval, would benefit greatly from a higher standard of objectivity.

To address the opening question of this thread, you have no recourse ... a cache already exists at that location. Try again, and better luck next time.

In your original post, you also suggest that you believe "cache page enhancements" add to the value of a cache. I agree that some people do a really nice job dressing up their cache pages, but I disagree that "eye candy" adds anything (at least for me) to the caching experience.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 12, 2003 at 06:32 AM.]

1.6k · April 12, 2003

Some of us really don't like virtuals when they should have been physical caches. It doesn't have anything to do with trading. It's verification, but most importantly, precedence in the eyes of land managers.

Say you were trying to get a land owner's permission to place a physical cache and in the process he looks on GC.com and sees a lot of virtuals. He could easily assume that virtuals are enjoyed equally as much as physicals and tell you, you must make your cache virtual, as well. As more and more land owners only allow virts, the hobby declines.

You must place a physical cache unless it is impossible it place a cache on-site or create a nearby multi with the spot as a stop. If you're not willing to take the time to place a physical, then maybe that spot isn't worthy of being a cache.

Now, on to the spot being prohibited to placing a physical cache. From your description it sounds like the spot was pretty much just a view and a handrail, neither of which is worthy of being approved as a virtual cache. The approved cache does seem to give significance to a physical object.

Yes, Eric is most of the way across the continent, that's why you should give a good description and follow the guidelines. It's not like he can go visit every submitted cache. He can only go by your description and the guidelines.

I'm really concerned as it seems that if someone has a cache shot down by Eric they want to bring it here and complain. Yet, I don't recall an instance where the forums have ultimately agreed with the owner. Markwell me if I'm wrong.

I say, move on and next time you get shot down take a good long hard look at your cache, the guidelines, and the approver's notes. Then fix the problems and re-submit.

CR

2.8k · April 12, 2003

Do any of you who suggested she place a physical cache at the Grand Canyon remember the policy on vacation caches?

I don't know Zzzoey, but my expectation is that a Central Oregon cacher isn't going to be regularly visiting (i.e. maintaining) a cache site in Arizona.

Regarding the obvious silliness in approving a cache where one was recently denied, maybe all virtual caches should get reviewed by the same admin. Or maybe reviewed by more than one admin to be sure there is more than just one individual's particularly strict interpretations keeping them from being approved.

re: fancy pages. I like seeing nice pages - but they don't necessarily encourage me to hunt the cache. Although the one-liner caches are kinda depressing

April 12, 2003

Wow folks thanks for your replies, interesting points of view one and all. Having received a reply from Eric we now know that he would've denied both submissions, given the opportunity. This comes as little surprise to us. Judging from his comments it seems the one virtual of ours that he did approve was in essence to throw us a bone, because he denied the two others the same day. The cache he accepted could've easily been an offset, or even a film cannister, but why quibble, we were happy to get 1 out of 3.

This conversation has done a lot to show us how regionalized this virtual vs. micro argument is. Sissy seems to be quite adamently against virts because she wants to convince people to let her place caches on their property and she's afraid they'll find out about the option. This is totally foreign to us here in Oregon. We have lots of space for more caches on public lands where they are accepted and understood.

As for Sissy's insistence that we give a good description and follow the guidelines, our mistake was making the description TOO good. Here's how the accepted cache described what we called the base of a handrail:

At the coordinates listed you will find a manmade structure signed and dated by two dedicated young men who worked for the National Park Service during the era of the 1st Manned Moon Landing and the Woodstock Music & Art Fair.

Our mistake... The point we're trying to make is that it seems to pay dividends to be more vague and ambiguous when describing what's being looked for, because then no one asks questions.

As for the title of this thread, it's misleading. We don't hope to change any of this, we just had to get it off our collective chests. We've been in touch with the cache owner and he was very kind. He offered to let us take over the cache which we have no intentions of doing. We do plan to log it as a find because we were able to answer his verifying questions. After all, we had intended to ak the exact same question.

But to those who would say, "Live with it and move on" because admins are all different people with different interpretations, that's a complete contradiction. Because of the individuality of admins we now know that we probably could continue to resubmit a rejected cache until it's approved by a more liberal admin. We were fully prepared to "live with it and move on" until this basic inconsistency was revealed to us.

Finally, we must speak to Richard and his love of the media. We did not say that publicizing caching is evil, we just believe that oversaturation is becoming a problem. We have had zero negative publicity in our area so we are not sensitive to that issue. But we've had articles in the local paper and a feature on local tv and the cachers are coming out of the wood work. In the last week we've been beaten to two hiding spots where we had been developing complicated cache concepts by newer cachers with more energy than us. More than anything our hope to keep the sport out of the public eye is based largely on greed... There, I said it... We want to keep this thing all for ourselves

Thanks again for all of the input and don't take this summative response to be a closing of the topic.

3.1k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Do any of you who suggested she place a physical cache at the Grand Canyon remember the policy on vacation caches

I agree that virtuals make a lot more sense for tourist caches but Jeremy himself said that a "tourist" cache would be ok as long as the tourist visits the area at least yearly. So tourist caches aren't off limits entirely.

Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful

9.4k · April 12, 2003

Don't put words in my mouth. Read the guidelines. I didn't say a year was acceptable for leaving a cache unattended.

----from the guidelines

Placing caches on vacation is unacceptable and these caches will not be approved on the web site. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. Please be responsible.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

3.1k · April 12, 2003

Sorry about that Jeremy. On another thread here someone mentioned that you said a yearly visit was fine. I didn't see you say that myself. Just quoting someone else.

So might I ask then if my friend on Maui, who isn't a cacher is enough? When there was a flood there last year he went out to check on my cache and sure enough it had been swept away. So I archived it. The other cache has had some no finds, so when this happens I ask him to recheck and he always does. Is this responsible enough?

Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful

April 12, 2003

So were we correct to place only virtuals while in the SW? We thought that was the case but we've been chided for not stashing film cannisters. It is doubtful that we will attempt any more tourist caches... But we find them to be a great way to commemorate our experiences.

3k · April 12, 2003

quote:
---from the guidelines ... As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches ...

Oh, and if only people actually subscribed to that guideline ... but sadly, very, very few do. [EDIT] On second thought, I suppose the preceding sentence might not be true ... they may very well "be in a position to manage their caches," but they simply choose not "to manage their caches." [/EDIT]

Say Jeremy, this looks like a good time to bring up the topic of "cache expiration dates/renewals" again.

But I won't.

But then again, now that TPTB have become concerned about "cache saturation," it's inevitable that such a system will eventually be implemented ... especially if the turnover rate of cachers continues as it has over the past year or two. So many of them hid (and subsequently abandoned) a few caches while active ... what's going to happen when these folk who have placed hundreds of caches pack it in?

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 12, 2003 at 12:33 PM.]

1.3k · April 12, 2003

I guess the thing about tourist caches comes down to two things. Maintenance, and turf. If you wish to place a cache where you cant maintain it (on vacation) a virt is in order. However, local cachers would probably be upset if the location went to a virt when a physical cache could have been placed there. If you go by the suggestion that you should never place a virt where a physical could be placed, this would not be a problem. Another way of saying this is "Do I live close?" No physical. "Can a physical be placed at my selected coords?" No virtual. End result is a paradox that causes the universe to implode. (Not really, but vacations are for taking pictures, and finding caches.)

"I'm not moving my car 'till you get my food right!"

1.6k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zzzoey:
Sissy seems to be quite adamently against virts because she wants to convince people to let her place caches on their property and she's afraid they'll find out about the option. This is totally foreign to us here in Oregon. We have lots of space for more caches on public lands where they are accepted and understood.

First, Sissy didn't sign the post, I did. I'm a "he" as evidenced by our stamp image. So what if our image and name isn't on the same side. Now that we've established my gender...

Second, your space statement is contradicted here:

quote:
... we just believe that oversaturation is becoming a problem.

I'm not totally against virts. I am against virts where a physical could have easily been placed. That is in reference to your denied marker virt.

As for detail, it's not that your detail was too good, you were selling the wrong thing. You even made mention in your own post that Eric told you that you were emphasizing the view and a view can not be a cache. Plus, Eric can't help it that another approver has lower standards than he does.

I still say, just move on.

CR

2.8k · April 12, 2003

quote:
Plus, Eric can't help it that another approver has lower standards than he does.

Yes. He can. Eric can be designated as the initial reviewer of ALL virtuals.

24.7k · April 13, 2003

The expiration date on my caches should be either when I hit "Archive this cache" or when I expire. Whatever happens first.

And yes, you probably had a valid virtual cache. You can't place a physical one there. It's a matter of working out with Eric what acceptable verification would be. ie Post photo's please but to claim your find, email the name etched into the concrete at the doorway of the historic building by the world renowned Grand Canyon architect..."

..."

==============================

Wherever you go there you are.

2.3k · April 13, 2003

Deleted. Just like all the rest.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on April 13, 2003 at 09:04 PM.]

6.4k · April 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Just post a thread that says Geocaching hates handicapped children that live in the Grand Canyon area.

Wow, are you trying to make light of another geocacher's valid concern? After a reply like that, I think Zzzoey's reply to you should be:

"No wonder the first Geocacher went all-out against this sport. I am out of here. Have fun on this board."

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

April 13, 2003

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is there to maintain with a virtual cache? If it's not maintenance, why forbid a non-local cacher from 'placing' it solely for that reason?

On another vaguely-related note...why not be consistent about the intent of the vacation rule?

Although I do wish the "locals only" rule was enforced a bit more for cache-postings. "Vacation" is the wrong word. "If you live too far away from the cache to maintain it within a day's notice of a problem" might be better-wording. We have caches that are hidden in our area -- very popular with visitors -- that tend from the poorly-selected to the outright wretchedly-concieved. Some of these have been hidden by very experienced cachers who live a few hours away who do the hiding on cache-sprees, not on "vacation". I don't blame people for wanting to share the magic of the area and plant a few, but the problem is not vacationers as much as day-trippers.

On the third hand, we'd have utterly no caches in some remote spots were they not put there by visitors. Caches can't always be maintained by one person, but they can be maintained serially (we frequently find ourselves replacing pens, ziplocs, even whole containers for caches that are in great spots but which are on hard times and where the original cache-placer is not in evidence.

There, that's a completely different can of worms I probably am going to wish I hadn't put the can opener to.

== Alt Dot Air ==

7.2k · April 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by AltDotAir:
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is there to maintain with a virtual cache? If it's not maintenance, why forbid a non-local cacher from 'placing' it solely for that reason?

Well, for example, I have a virtual cache close to me that requires a cacher to go to three spots and gather information off of signs. These clues lead you to a location where you get the piece of information that you send to me for verification. One of the first three signs was removed for trail maintenance. I had to disable my cache. If the cache was not near me then I would have never known when it was ready to go again and I would have had to archive it. Instead I was able to go and look at the area every few weeks and about three months later the sign was replaced and I re-activated my cache again. That sign was my favorite of the three and the information on it was some unbelievable history, so I did not want to leave it out of the cache.

There you go.

9.1k · April 14, 2003

I've been on 67 cache hunts thus far in 2003. Of those, 66 resulted in smiley faces. What was the source of my ONLY frownie face? Was it one of the caches in the Allegheny foothills, or the multicache set out by my local buddies as revenge for my last multicache? No, it was a virtual cache I hunted during my trip to Las Vegas in January. Placed by a tourist, the cache required finding a sticker attached to the bottom of an advertising sign. But, the sign had been removed! I arrived in Vegas and wasted a half hour looking for a bumper sticker that wasn't there.

Several "not founds" were logged prior to my visit. Had this virtual cache been placed by a responsible local cacher, the first two not-found reports would have triggered a maintenance visit, and I would not have wasted my time.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

.sdrawkcab dootsrednu tub sdrawrof devil si efiL

5.7k · April 14, 2003

I think the best advice so far has been to 'move on'. Be glad that your fellow geocachers will be visiting the cool site, even though your cache page won't be the one that brought them there. Claim your find (you found it fair and square) and get out and find (and hide) some more! The approvers have a very tough job to do, and I appreciate the extra effort some take to try and keep all the caches within certain guidelines. This is a very difficult thing to do remotely.

Most of us won't be able to visit this cache location. By any chance do you have any pictures you took so that we can see the view?

--Marky

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

April 14, 2003

We've moved on folks, but thanks for the repeated advice. As for the cache, we logged it and posted our original cover page photo. Marky if you really want to see our view check the log at GCF17A. As a side note, one of the virtuals previously turned down by Eric, the other one mentioned in our original post, has been accepted upon our second submission. Thanks ncflyers! If you are interested it is called Goldfield: Duel in the Desert (GCF70E). Maybe someone from the SE would like to look it over and tell us why ncflyers have such "low standards". Anyway folks... Thanks for all the differing opinions. It never ceases to amaze us how conversations in the forums can get so far off track at times, but that doesn't hurt the entertainment value one iota. Time to work now... Sigh!

April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by AltDotAir:
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is there to maintain with a virtual cache? If it's not maintenance, why forbid a non-local cacher from 'placing' it solely for that reason?

There's a virtual in Great Falls, Montana that requires searchers to enter an area clearly marked as off-limits (it's downstream of a dam and in the flood channel).

Giving the cacher owner the benefit of the doubt, I assume they set it up before the area was closed. But even though I and other geocachers have mentioned the problem and even suggested reasonable options to keep the spirit of the cache, there's been no changes on the webpage. Recent geocachers have either resorted to binoculars and the like, or simply trespassed.

While I do not know why the owner hasn't addressed the issue, a local could at least confirm our reports themselves, and adjust the cache accordingly.

Ron/yumitori

April 15, 2003

Gee... seems like a good reason to use the "Cache should be archived" checkbox then. *sigh*

6.4k · April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zzzoey:
Gee... seems like a good reason to use the "Cache should be archived" checkbox then. *sigh*

Agreed

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

6.5k · April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by pdxmarathonman:

quote:
Plus, Eric can't help it that another approver has lower standards than he does.

Yes. He can. Eric can be designated as the initial reviewer of ALL virtuals.

Yes he could.... And then we can ALL wait how many weeks for new virtuals to reviewed?

Having multiply approvers does cause some problems with uniformity, But IMO is preferred to your suggestion. If Eric is unavailable, approval comes to a complete stop. And even if he is available, I would guess that he would be over run with reports. And what happens if Eric can not understand a report (like a language foreign to Eric)?

2.8k · April 15, 2003

I completely agree with you Welch. Especially after this past weekend. Seems Erik is the designated approver for Oregon. There were no caches approved over the weekend in either Oregon or his home state of Georgia. When I bugged Jeremy on Monday he approved 4 Oregon caches (2 were mine). It gets frustrating when the admins let their lives interfere with geocaching.

There was so much pent-up demand for a new cache that 3 geocachers all met at 1 of mine while trying to be first - on a Monday!

I suggested letting orphaned states (those without local admins) have their caches float to whoever is available rather than sitting in the queue while over 200 other caches get reviewed/approved.

In any case, this is waayyyy off the original topic.

Maybe I'll get to log Zzzoey's virtual-virtual in late August!

1.6k · April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by pdxmarathonman:
It gets frustrating when the admins let their lives interfere with geocaching.

Never mind the admins, I hate when my life interferes with cachin'!

My boss just doesn't understand.

CR

April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zzzoey:
Gee... seems like a good reason to use the "Cache should be archived" checkbox then. *sigh*

Yep, but I was trying to avoid doing so for a couple of reasons, including that the problem could be easily fixed if the owner chose to.

Ron/yumitori

2.8k · April 15, 2003

I've hit the Should Be Archived button on a cache that ended up getting fixed instead of archived after the owner seemed unresponsive to requests from multiple cachers.

Maybe this cache owner needs a similar nudge...

April 15, 2003

quote:
Yep, but I was trying to avoid doing so for a couple of reasons, including that the problem could be easily fixed if the owner chose to.

I understand but I also know that when there are a few no finds, and then I can't find it... it makes sense to hit that little button. If the cache owner is alive and breathing, he/she will get the message. If not, after (how many is it anyway?)should be archiveds the cache will go the way of Sadaam (adios or something like that!)

April 15, 2003

I can see it now.

RIP Jim - a truly great cacher

but dadgum him...Selfish for not archiving his caches before keeling over

Stuff happens. Whether you are *local* to your cache or not.

2.8k · April 15, 2003

The below quote is from a cache that is not a virtual, but I can't beleive it was approved - just 5 days ago!

quote:
so I probably won't be back out to the Grand Canyon too often to check up on it!

It included a plea for maintenance support and indicated that it is tupperware.

Oh well.

April 15, 2003

blah blah blah...

I got about 3/8 of the way through reading this thread before i got sick of it and hit the 'post' button.

zzzoey, you have so many quality caches in your area--some of which i've found; why do you even care about a virtual in AZ? More importantly, why are you even placing virtuals in AZ? Is redmond getting boring?

I ask this with lots of emoticons, but seriously: who cares?

you put a lot of effort into your real caches, and we all enjoy and appreciate them. So who cares about some random virt 1100 miles SE of here?

and did i mention the emoticon?

April 16, 2003

Well to kick the dead horse one more time...

Yes, it is silly, childish, stupid, petty and perhaps even moronic... to complain about not having this virtual cache approved in Arizona. Yes we have plenty of "real" caches that people have enjoyed finding and we enjoyed placing.

Our problem was with the inconsistency of the approval process.

Oh and why do (or did) we even care about a virtual in AZ? I would have to say it was this:

What is my recourse??

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

Join the conversation