150 mile multi-virtual?

[+Belleterre]

I’m looking for some input from people who like virtual caches, or at least accept their existence. I placed the following 6 virtual caches in Yellowstone NP.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16351

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16352

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16350

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16348

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16347

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16346

 

They are easy, ‘1’ difficulty and ‘1’ or ‘1.5’ terrain, caches. They simply ask for the subject of a sign at the given location. The signs are informative about the area and should not be able to be figured out with an internet search. It appears that they won’t be approved unless I combine them into a single multi-cache. I don’t think that’s practical because it would involve over 150 miles of driving. Maybe it would be okay for a ‘5’ difficulty killer cache, but not for these simple ones.

[+pizzachef]

I don't understand...the caches are listed but not available right now it seems. Is that because the cache approvers won't approve them? Why not? Is it because of the National Park thing? I thought vits were allowed there...anyway, I like virtuals that offer a view of a nice area, historical area, etc. I don't think they have to be really hard if you don't want them to be. Maybe you can just modify them a little if you want to keep them as 6 seperate caches. Work with the approvers and see what they're looking for.

-pizzachef

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pizzachef:

I don't understand...the caches are listed but not available right now it seems. Is that because the cache approvers won't approve them? Why not? Is it because of the National Park thing?

---

The last cache in the list explains why they were disallowed. It was requested that they be converted into a single multi-cache, instead of 6 separate caches.

 

[skydiver]

I easily fall into the "accept their existance" category, but am much more willing to accept VC's that involve national parks (where real caches aren't allowed) and require the finder actually go to some specific coordinates within the park. (In fact, come to think of it, it's a pretty good idea.)

However, I think what the approvers are trying to say is that 6 virtual Yellowstone caches that are essentially identical, is excessive. I have to agree. Why not just one cache at some central location? Old Faithful for instance, and require the finder to provide some piece of information or picture that proves they were there.

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

 

The last cache in the list explains why they were disallowed. It was requested that they be converted into a single multi-cache, instead of 6 separate caches.

 

---

 

Yes, but WHY? What's wrong with 6 virtuals? Why should they be combined, especially given that it would require 150 miles of driving? Unless there's some specific reason they should be combined, that's just plain goofy.

 

[+Silver Horde]

I think you could combine them. Anyone who is at Yellowstone on vacation could do them at their own pace. You could allow people a minimum of say 4 out of the 6 to get a smiley face if you think that they would not attempt to do your multicache in the time they have. Or maybe the moderators would allow you to make it into 2 multicaches of 3 each. Try to find a compromise. After all the number of finds should'nt be the driving force.

 

Peregrinus

[Atilla the Pun]

My vote was for six individual caches. This is assuming that they are about diverse subjects, different types of senic outlooks, etc. I don't want to drive 150 miles to see 6 different gysers.

 

AtP

[+KD7MXI]

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD CHALLENGE

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

[+KD7MXI]

SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD CHALLENGE

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

[+Salvelinus]

2 years ago I visited Yellowstone for the first time. The only ones of the six places I didn't visit the day we drove from the north gate to Old Faithful were the 2 canyon ones. We were going to go visit the canyons but we decided to go fishing instead. These are all definately possible in a day or two. In fact, I believe its quite common to visit all these areas in any one trip to the park. If you don't see all of them...you missed something truly awsome! Besides, one thing I learned about the West...to get anywhere requires long travel times.

 

Actually, I voted to scrap the whole idea only because I don't like virtuals. But, I feel if it should be accepted, it would be more appropriate as "The Yellowstone" multi-cache.

 

And I may even consider doing it when I get back there this summer!

 

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[+Slytherin]

I can't see what is wrong with these caches. What gives a cache approver the right to dictate to you where you choose to set caches up?

 

There are places in the US with over 50 caches within 3 miles of each other. What is wrong with six virtuals on a 150 miles tour. Nothing.

 

The thing with virtuals is that you either like them or you don't. If you don't like them, then leave them alone.

 

Now we see people being dictated to by others. This is the thin end of the wedge.

 

Watch out, the geocache police are about.

[+Slytherin]

Do cache approvers have guidelines of what can and cannot be approved?

 

If so, they should be published so we can all know them before we set up new caches. If not, then on what criteria have these caches been rejected and why.

 

We should be told.

[+seneca]

Hopefully the "approvers" were just making a suggestion that these individual virtuals be combined into a multi, and are withholding approval until this suggestion has been considered. It would be very dissappointing if after Belleterre rejects the suggestion, approval is still withheld.

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

[+sbell111]

I agree with Belleterre. If the locations were closer to one another, it would be appropriate to combine them. As it is, they should be allowed 'as is'.

[+Belleterre]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seneca:

Hopefully the "approvers" were just making a suggestion that these individual virtuals be combined into a multi, and are withholding approval until this suggestion has been considered. It would be very dissappointing if after Belleterre rejects the suggestion, approval is still withheld.

 

---

I can understand the initial disapproval because the person didn't know that it was 150 miles and they expressed the concern of answers being found on the internet. However, I immediately sent a polite e-mail saying that I didn't think combining was a good idea because of the 150 miles. I also told him some of the answers so he could see that it's very unlikely that they would come off the net. I have sent several follow-up e-mails over the past two months and have gotten no response. I take that as making the combining a requirement, not a suggestion. I think Yellowstone is more than big enough to handle 6 individual caches. As they are now, 3 are accessable to people in wheelchairs and 3 are not. Making it all-in-one eliminates these people and also the many people who do not drive the loops, but only pass through a portion of the park. My intent was to make something available for families with young children, handicapped people and anyone who simply doesn't have time or desire to drive all over between these.

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by belleterre:

 

As they are now, 3 are accessable to people in wheelchairs and 3 are not. Making it all-in-one eliminates these people and also the many people who do not drive the loops, but only pass through a portion of the park.

---

 

I would suggest splitting them into two three-leg virtuals, putting the three handicap accessible ones together as one of the two, and the more challenging trio as the other.

 

I would think the approvers would be willing to consider the compromise, especially if you pointed out your desire not to exclude the disabled from the entire string of caches.

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+seneca]

This is completely baffling to me. I must be missing something. It seems so uncharacteristic of the managementof this site to apply such levels of petty censure. Somebody has to explain why these virtuals have not been allowed! Merely stating that a multi-cache is preferred is not good enough!

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seneca:

 

Somebody has to explain why these virtuals have not been allowed! Merely stating that a multi-cache is preferred is not good enough!

---

Yes, it would definitely be nice to hear the staff's take on this. It really could be a groundbreaker for setting precedent. (Personally, I'd much rather have seen some of the recent lame Locationless caches be denied than ones like these.)

[+Belleterre]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

I would suggest splitting them into two three-leg virtuals, putting the three handicap accessible ones together as one of the two, and the more challenging trio as the other.

---

I'd thought of trying something like that, but the same problem of distance comes up. The best split, distance wise, would be to group two into a westside cache and 4 into an eastside cache. The two on the west would be about 24 miles apart and include 1 handicap accessible. From them, it would be at least a 40 mile drive to the nearest cache on the east side where there are 2 handicap accessable. The farthest east cache is about 30 miles from the next nearest one. All those distances add up to why I think the caches are more appropriate separately.

[Shel]

Okay, I've been to Yellowstone bunches of times and have seen a few of the things people don't see when they make the trip in a weekend. I love the waterfalls and have seen the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (although without a GPS, so I don't know if that makes up your canyon caches or not.)

 

I haven't seen the Madison River.

I haven't seen Yellowstone Lake.

I probably know a fair amount about the caldera, but I don't know if I've visited the lookout your cache refers to.

And, I don't care if I never see Old Faithful again.

 

These should definitely be separate caches.

 

Not everyone is going to want to see the same things in the park, especially if time is short or the roads are crowded and navigating them seems less than a vacation.

 

I think you've done a good job of including a few highlights that not everyone would normally stop to see. To me, that's one of the points of geocaching -- helping others find point of beauty or interest they would otherwise miss.

 

So, the kids (big and little) can't log the cache on their vacation because they ran out of time to do all six legs?

 

Nope, definitely separate caches.

 

I can't think this is the NPS saying we can't have that many caches, virtual or otherwise, in a park. They have their own junior ranger programs that prompt visitors to see and do much more than this cache asks of its seekers.

 

Hopefully, somewhere, SOMEday, the NPS will realize that geocaching -- especially in its virtual form -- is part of what they do anyway ... they just get to put in boardwalks, too.

 

Shel

[Charter Member]

This seems to have been going on for over two months now.

 

Email Jeremy and ask him to approve the caches now, or provide an explanation as to what is wrong with them.

[+martinp13]

Although I see nothing wrong with 6 separate ones, you might combine into two groups as stated above. If you want to see an obscene number of individual virtuals, check out the DC monument area.

 

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

[+martinp13]

Although I see nothing wrong with 6 separate ones, you might combine into two groups as stated above. If you want to see an obscene number of individual virtuals, check out the DC monument area.

 

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

[Shel]

whatever happened with getting these caches approved? any news?

[+Belleterre]

No luck yet. I sent Jeremy another e-mail on the 8th asking for an explanation on why he won't approve them and still haven't heard anything. Maybe it's going to take e-mails from a few other people to get them listed.

[+Alan2]

Why don't you post them on Nav!cache site.

 

Alan

[+Belleterre]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

Why don't you post them on Nav!cache site.

 

Alan

---

 

Good idea! It's been done successfully. Thanks for the idea. I'm still holding out for approval here.

[+Allen_L]

Boy, what a difference between approvers. Here in the east, I just did three virtuals, "created" by the same person. I parked close to one and walked to the other two they were separated by less than 0.1 miles. At the time I did it, I thought it might be more appropriate to be one multi-stage virtual, but they were approved as individual caches. Then in Yellowstone, a separation of 150 is not enough?

[+seneca]

Well I too e-mailed Jeremy on this one - the e-mail went out last week and no response. Does anybody have any guesses as to why he is being so conspicously silent on this issue? I know he is busy but he is usually very good at responding to concerns raised on this forum - particularly when the concern is fairly broadbased (as the case appears from the responses to this thread).

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!

[Quackerbacker]

To have those 6 caches into a 150 mile virtual is ridiculous and i doubt very many would even bother with it.

 

It appears that you submitted them all in a row. My suggestion is this:

Change the wording a little, perhaps a little more in the description and experiences of each cache location. Then submit them one at a time, every couple of days. I bet you'd get at least a couple of them approved.

 

BTW, you need to get on this ASAP as I'm headed to yellowstone in 3 weeks

 

good luck

[Quackerbacker]

To have those 6 caches into a 150 mile virtual is ridiculous and i doubt very many would even bother with it.

 

It appears that you submitted them all in a row. My suggestion is this:

Change the wording a little, perhaps a little more in the description and experiences of each cache location. Then submit them one at a time, every couple of days. I bet you'd get at least a couple of them approved.

 

BTW, you need to get on this ASAP as I'm headed to yellowstone in 3 weeks

 

good luck

[Shel]

Any news on these caches? I might be going to Yellowstone over the Memorial Day weekend ...

 

I had emailed the main geocaching dudes and haven't heard back or seen updates posted on this thread, so I was kinda wondering ...

[+Alan2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shel:

Any news on these caches? I might be going to Yellowstone over the Memorial Day weekend ...

 

I had emailed the main geocaching dudes and haven't heard back or seen updates posted on this thread, so I was kinda wondering ...

---

 

Shel" Why don't you load up the cordinates anyway so you can visit them while you're in Yellowstone? Even though you won't be able to post a "find" you still can enjoy finding the view and still email the hider about you getting there.

 

Alan

[+Belleterre]

Check out this thread.

 

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=4380972164&r=5300992164#5300992164

[+Belleterre]

Please just let this thread die. Happy caching.