Jump to content

Virtual Rules Too Strict


Recommended Posts

quote:
The unfortunate thing is the area geocachers seemed to enjoy all oh my caches and they all saw weekly visits. I for one will be looking into alternate "listing services" as its been put to maintian my freedom to evolve in this sport.


 

I only hope these alternate listing services are half as responsible as geocaching.com and don't adopt anything goes policies simply to woo people away from this site. This would ultimately ruin the sport for all of us, no matter which listing service we use.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

Virtuals are dead here at geocaching.com. Haven't you noticed the new icon for them, the ghost? I think that is a statement without saying anything.

 

As far as other listing sites popping up. Well, they will be successful or unsuccessful depending on what they offer and what the public wants. How can you blame them from starting? If someone shows some disinterest in the way that the way things are handled here, they are told to go elsewhere or start their own. More power to those that go elsewhere and/or start their own. Why you can't give everything to everyone in the spirit of the game, there are more tactful ways of handling things. The rules are not going to be the demise, the willful neglect of peoples concerns and distasteful way of dealing with unhappy customers will be.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

My Stats

Found: 70

Hidden: 2

Link to comment

If virtuals are not acceptable then by definition neither are their finds.

Therefore should not virtuals be removed from individuals cache counts.

I for one am in favour of vituals even if they be under their own heading like Benchmarks, which by the way, we foreigners can't participate. Does this preclusion come under the heading of prejudice?

Link to comment

I don't know where this "virtuals are dead" stuff is coming from. I often see new virtuals popping up.

 

Are they discouraged? Yeah. Do you have to do some convincing to get one approved. You bet. Will you be able to list a flagpole in a park donated by the Springfield chapter of the D.A.R. and dedicated on July 4th, 1996 anymore? Probably not.

 

But if you come up with an interesting virtual and prove that a real cache won't work there, it will be approved. It happens all the time.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

 

As far as other listing sites popping up. Well, they will be successful or unsuccessful depending on what they offer and what the public wants.


 

I disagree in part. The real thing that keeps compatition from starting is US! We are mostly too lazy to bother cross posting all our caches and thereby all our finds since you cant log a find for a non listed cache.

 

The first startup to figure out how to transfer a states caches through 4-5 GPX queries to provide the base, then we download our finds into them the same way will clean up.

 

Compatition is good. Maby even more so with websites.

 

 

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

Link to comment

quote:

Are they discouraged? Yeah. Do you have to do some convincing to get one approved. You bet. Will you be able to list a flagpole in a park donated by the Springfield chapter of the D.A.R. and dedicated on July 4th, 1996 anymore? Probably not.

 

But if you come up with an interesting virtual and prove that a real cache won't work there, it will be approved. It happens all the time.

 


 

Oh really?

 

Well as a fellow area geocacher shared with me, he was blatently told that Virtuals can be things like Niagara Falls, The CN Tower, the Pyramids, otherwise nothing is spectacular enough to warrant a virtual.

 

He had found several very historic, very unique places where traditional caches are not allowed. Places like the burial spot of Laura Secord ( big name in Canadian-American history during the war of 1812 ). The place is a monument and the burial with a lot of historical and interest value. But denied and told find something else like Niagara Falls.

 

Its absolutely ludicrous, at least it is the way our approvers (Cache-Advance and Cache-Tech) are approving or disapproving caches in our area.

 

Strange things are also happening, while I'm on that subject, like a multi was posted and the approver demanded the final coordinates. Funny thing too, before the cache showed up online a geocoin put in the cache by the cache placer was taken and then the cache approved.

 

Interesting stories like that are abundant in our area (Southern Ontario)

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Strange things are also happening, while I'm on that subject, like a multi was posted and the approver demanded the final coordinates. Funny thing too, before the cache showed up online a geocoin put in the cache by the cache placer was taken and then the cache approved.

 

If you are accusing a specific approver of abusing his position, be sure to bring it to the attention of TPTB. The last thing they want are approvers who are dishonest.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

Strange things are also happening, while I'm on that subject, like a multi was posted and the approver demanded the final coordinates. Funny thing too, before the cache showed up online a geocoin put in the cache by the cache placer was taken and then the cache approved.


 

I'm of course not familiar with your area and approvers, but:

They do need the coords of ALL legs of multis now to verify they meet the .1/mile rule, AND

TBs can be seen in caches that are not yet approved via the TB page. You can't click to the cache page directly since it's not approved yet, but I'm sure that it wouldn't take much for someone to figure out how to view it before it went live.

 

Food for thought. That being said, if you do have concerns, make them known to TPTB so they can be addressed accordingly.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kealia:

I'm of course not familiar with your area and approvers, but:

They do need the coords of ALL legs of multis now to verify they meet the .1/mile rule,


 

How new is now?

August this year? I was at 2 caches today that were 180.32' apart. One Named Nez Perce http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4b71f74b-f732-4c14-8c91-c1f67846666e (traditional)Planted 8/4/03 and the other Altapas Creek Trail http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6281fa38-d637-45ad-9dda-c79b22d1156d (Multi)Planted 7/23/03. Both in Washington.

Does anyone know if 65 days is "Grandfathered"?

 

 

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

If you are accusing a specific approver of abusing his position, be sure to bring it to the attention of TPTB. The last thing they want are approvers who are dishonest.


 

It wasn't my cache to make that call for. I don't know if the person ever did bring it up, but it was also mid week and all the regular cachers that hit first missed the geocoin... So I'd be darn pestimistic that it was anyone but the approver.

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kealia:

 

I'm of course not familiar with your area and approvers, but:

They do need the coords of ALL legs of multis now to verify they meet the .1/mile rule, AND

TBs can be seen in caches that are not yet approved via the TB page.


 

I agree on this policy if the cacher in question was new ( double digit or single digit finds or first through 5th cache placement) But there reaches a point where they should realize the experienced geocacher is not out there to plant caches beside other ones.

quote:

Food for thought. That being said, if you do have concerns, make them known to TPTB so they can be addressed accordingly.


 

Again not mine to notify about, but the end result has almost made it policy for some cachers to lie about final coordinates simply to satisfy this rule.

 

I'm not naming caches or names....those are kept to the pub nights and event gatherings when we all have a drink and tell stories of the woes with geocaching.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

In one paragraph you criticize the approval process for not trusting an experienced cache hider to follow the rules. In the next paragraph you admit how cachers in your area lie about the final cache coordinates. An interesting juxtaposition.

 

I do wish that all cache hiders followed all the rules but it is simply not the case. Even inadvertently, a stage in a multicache is regularly placed too close to a railroad track, too close to another geocache, or on property where a permit is required or where geocaches are prohibited.

 

If someone would like to discuss the multicache rules further, please start a separate thread. This is a thread about virtual caches.

 

|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|

Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin

"Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

In one paragraph you criticize the approval process for not trusting an experienced cache hider to follow the rules. In the next paragraph you admit how cachers in your area lie about the final cache coordinates. An interesting juxtaposition.


 

Yes in one section of geocaching.com you read about how Jeremy hopes this sport would continue to take off and be an ever evolving game.

 

In another you see the reality a strict and slowly ever stricter game.

 

This site is full of contradictions in some way or another, its a shame geocachers have to lie just to offer their cachers since it seems the only way to get them approved, and yes I 'm talking about caches that are safe, not on private land, not near railroad tracks, family orientated and great geocaches. The problem is not the policy its the lack of trust in the community to do the right thing, its the idea that some distant cache approver is going to know better than local cachers if the area is safe or public accessible.

 

I wont start another thread because unless someone wants to debate this further I'm not debating multicache policies here, were discussing how the rules have become strict, specifically with virtuals.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
This site is full of contradictions in some way or another, its a shame geocachers have to lie just to offer their cachers since it seems the only way to get them approved, and yes I 'm talking about caches that are safe, not on private land, not near railroad tracks, family orientated and great geocaches. The problem is not the policy its the lack of trust in the community to do the right thing, its the idea that some distant cache approver is going to know better than local cachers if the area is safe or public accessible.

 

Hmmmm, I've had almost 60 caches approved (none denied) and didn't have to lie on a single one.

Apparently things are quite different in your area. Dishonest approvers and lying cache owners. Is this a Canadian thing?

 

By the way, how do you expect the approvers there to trust the geocaching community if they admit that they lie?

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
BrainSnat wrote:

Is this a Canadian thing?


Actually, it's something that has been learned from Americans.

 

quote:
By the way, how do you expect the approvers there to trust the geocaching community if they admit that they lie?
Seems to me that while it's important for approvers to trust cachers, the reverse is even more important.

 

*****

Link to comment

I am not convinced that accusing the admins of dishonesty is going to do much to advance the cause of virtuals. The admins do a tremendous amount of work, unpaid, and get a lot of flak for it.

 

Personally, my concern is with the policy itself (and its communication), not with how it's applied by the approvers. I'm actually very grateful to the approvers for the hard work they do on this site, and for the way they make geocaching possible.

 

I'm sure there are some admins who feel that rank hath its priveledges. I'm also sure that there are cachers who are economical with the truth. These things happen in any community, but letting them distract from what we're talking about is not productive. It's as useless as name-calling. Can we not do it, please?

 

evilrooster

http://www.bookweb.sunpig.com

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

Hmmmm, I've had almost 60 caches approved (none denied) and didn't have to lie on a single one.

Apparently things are quite different in your area. Dishonest approvers and lying cache owners. Is this a Canadian thing?


I don't know, maybe it is a canadian thing, but I tell you what, its only been a problem in the last year as these new anonymous cache approvers we have (Cache-Advance and Cache-Tech) took over approving caches. Before then we'd have cachers with 4 digit finds and there was rarely a problem with any cache ideas getting approved.

 

The newbie approvers seem to have helped lead people down that path.

 

quote:

By the way, how do you expect the approvers there to trust the geocaching community if they admit that they lie?


 

Ahh well you see thats why I personally just gave in and archived all my caches... I refuse to lie simply to get new caches approved that would never have been a problem in the past (and I see similiar ones get approved still)

 

So I have not and will not lie but instead will not support geocaching with caches, some people just don't see it that way and want to do whatever they need to in order to further the sport.

 

Keith

 

Bear & Ducky

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bear & Ducky:

...As a result I finished just this past weekend archiving all but one of my caches (because its a group shared cache) and have hence decided no longer to support geocaching with caches.

 

The unfortunate thing is the area geocachers seemed to enjoy all oh my caches and they all saw weekly visits. I for one will be looking into alternate "listing services" as its been put to maintian my freedom to evolve in this sport.

 

Keith.

 

Bear & Ducky


It's too bad you feel you need to archive all your caches, to make a point (I guess), just because things aren't going your way at Geocaching.com. (that'll show us/them/whoever). I guess the forums still hold your interest though, huh?

 

Most cache hiders have no, or few problems here, certainly not enough problems to make them take their ball and go home.

 

I just wonder how long it will be, before the alternate "listing services" start ruining geocaching for you, because they don't do things your way.

 

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

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...