Jump to content

Proposed Clarification of Virtual and Locationless Cache Guidelines


gpsfun
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Geocachers, you don't need me to tell you that there has been considerable controversy on the subject above. In an attempt at problem solving, but more likely in an act of self immolation, I have gathered input from many postings here on the forums, and from several respected persons.

 

A consistent theme has been that the current guidelines do not clearly and binarily state what's in and what's out of bounds. Well, what follows does not achieve that level of precision, but takes a step in that direction. Jeremy asked that I see what you think, so here goes...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Virtual and Reverse Virtual (or Locationless) Caches

 

These are special categories which give a task for an item to find and log. While previous guidelines for these categories were somewhat loose to encourage innovation, it is now appropriate to add clarification.

 

Some earlier postings do not meet these clarified guidelines, although they will be allowed to stand as grandfathered. They will not be considered as justification or as precedents for future submissions.

 

The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane. This statement will hopefully be clarified with some examples later on.

 

If after reading the guidelines below you believe you have a compelling reason why your potential posting should be approved, state your rationale clearly in a note to the administrators at the top of your submission.

 

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of an object at a location which was already there. Typically, the cache "hider” creates a virtual cache at a location where physical caches are not permitted. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

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.

 

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines:

 

1. A virtual cache must be of a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) do not count as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the web site (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle would be ok). If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

2. 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.

 

3. Virtual caches are not commercial. For example (but not exclusive), a coffee house, pizza parlor, ice cream shop are not acceptable.

 

4. Virtual caches should be geographically dispersed. New postings which are within 0.1 mile of an existing cache will generally not be approved, unless the poster provides a compelling rationale. Posting a virtual cache at every animal cage in a zoo is an example of something that will not be approved.

 

5. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

 

6. An original photo can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

7. Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries. You should also return to the web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" will be archived by the site.

 

Virtual Cache Maintenance Guidelines:

 

The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged “finds” for the virtual cache, and states that they will delete any “find” logs which appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines

 

Logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the poster, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the poster, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

Locationless Caches

 

A locationless cache is best defined as a "reverse virtual" cache, and gives a task for an item to find, including going to the site and logging the find with latitude and longitude coordinates obtained with their GPS receiver.

 

Locationless caches must be semi-permanent to permanent. For example, nothing that is mobile can be a locationless cache. Examples (nonexclusive) are cars, buses, helicopters, boats, etc. A local carnival cache is another example of a cache that would not be approved. If I mark coordinates at a location it should be there tomorrow.

 

Locationless caches must be novel, meaning of interest to someone else, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.

 

Locationless Cache Posting Guidelines:

 

A poster may choose a proposed topic or theme in which they are interested, and in which it is reasonable to assume other members of the geocaching community may have similar interest. The general assumption behind creating the reverse cache is that others will share similar items related to the theme.

 

In the description field, the poster outlines the topic or theme, including any boundaries for the theme. An example or an instance of the theme will be provided, including details, facts, figures, or other interesting information found by researching that instance of the theme.

 

The poster will document their guidelines for logging the reverse cache. These guidelines may include requirements for posting a photograph or other information at a level of detail comparable to the example provided. For example, if those seeking to log a “find” will be required to submit a picture including themselves and/or their GPSr, the description should include a picture with the same attributes.

 

Locationless Cache Maintenance Guidelines:

 

The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged “finds” for the reverse cache, and states that they will delete any “find” logs which appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

It is desirable for the poster to provide a method for cataloging logs so users can easily determine if a location has been logged. For example, the poster may edit the cache page and add a table or list like this:

 

09/01/02 finder name N 44°19.386 W 121°30.934 Camp Polk, OR

 

In the case of an extensive list, the poster may post a link to a file or html table of their own choosing.

 

Locationless Cache Logging Guidelines:

 

Logging a locationless cache find requires (real) coordinates. No exceptions. Logs without coordinates will be deleted.

 

Persons logging a “find” are expected to comply with the requirements stated by the poster, including remaining on topic, providing original photos if so requested, and providing a level of descriptive detail consistent with the example.

 

Locationless Cache Approval:

 

The Geocaching dot com approvers will review the compliance of proposed reverse caches to these and other site guidelines (not commercial, not in bad taste, does not involve illegal activities, etc.) In the event of questions during the approval process, the cache page will be archived while the approver contacts the poster of the proposed reverse cache. The approver will indicate why the locationless cache cannot be approved as-is, and in cases of minor issues may make suggestions in the spirit of finding a way to make it “approvable.”

 

Locationless Cache Approval checklist – locationless caches must:

 

1. Have a complete, precise description.

 

2. Provide reporting guidelines appropriate to the subject (such as photos, research, etc.).

 

3. Provide an example of an acceptable log.

 

4. Be a unique theme (not a copycat of an existing reverse cache).

 

5. Have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.

 

6. Be semi-permanent to permanent.

 

7. Be a distinct, physical object that is logged through latitude/longitude coordinates.

8. Not refer to a specific business or current product.

Link to comment

Please take my comment as one that may be shared by many members of the community - or perhaps by none. There are a LOT of words in your post. So many that I didn't finish reading it. There are probably many more who won't read it all - nor bother to tell you that they didn't. icon_smile.gif

 

You have to consider that many people aren't going to take the time to read something if it is incredibly long and detailed. It goes for posts in here, as well as suggestions and rules when placing a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

I understand the good intentions of trying to be as detailed and accurate as you can with information, to help clarify the rules - but if you get carried away, I guarantee you that some people will just skip it and try to do whatever they want anyway.

 

I'll try to read your whole post a little bit later, after I have some pizza in my belly. icon_smile.gif

 

toe.gif

Click the Toe...  and please stop confusing your opinion with fact, ok?
Link to comment

Please take my comment as one that may be shared by many members of the community - or perhaps by none. There are a LOT of words in your post. So many that I didn't finish reading it. There are probably many more who won't read it all - nor bother to tell you that they didn't. icon_smile.gif

 

You have to consider that many people aren't going to take the time to read something if it is incredibly long and detailed. It goes for posts in here, as well as suggestions and rules when placing a cache, virtual or otherwise.

 

I understand the good intentions of trying to be as detailed and accurate as you can with information, to help clarify the rules - but if you get carried away, I guarantee you that some people will just skip it and try to do whatever they want anyway.

 

I'll try to read your whole post a little bit later, after I have some pizza in my belly. icon_smile.gif

 

toe.gif

Click the Toe...  and please stop confusing your opinion with fact, ok?
Link to comment

#1: Am I understanding correctedly that VC & LC must now have a "defense" stated at the beginning?

 

i.e. "here's why i feel this cache deserves to be logged. There's this really cool BLAH BLAH BLAH"

 

#2: It's not easy to tell whats new/revised from previosuly established rules on VC & LC. Any chance you can either put changes in bold or italics? Or say NEW: or REVISED: prior to the statement. Help me sorta out what has changed. As Toe said, it's a lot to digest, and I think I'm not alone in saying that when I see the familiar, I tend to glaze over or skim till I hit something new. No offense.

 

Otherwise I'd say fine, although I reserve full comment till I verfify Q1. I'm not totally thrilled about having to defend my posting up front. It's often not easy to equate why this is unique.

 

#3: If I archive an existing VC or LC (for whatever reason I might have) will I be subject to the new rules if I ever ask to unarchive it? I recently archived the Casino LC because it was getting so many finds it was hard to keep up with verifying the logs. Plus it was much easier a log then i anticipated, so i archived. I may change my mind. Will it go thru review or just be un-archived?

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Link to comment

Thank you for clarification on virtual and locationless caches. I posted a virtual cache a couple weeks ago. One person was quite agitated because I stated if someone did not supply me with the correct answer by e-mail, I would assume their "find" was bogus and would delete it. He even deleted his log on another regular cache of mine he had found. Wanting to be peaceful, I e-mailed him back and said I would change the wording in my virtual cache and would not delete someone if they did not supply me with the obvious correct answer, proving they had actually visited the site.

 

I suppose what I will do is e-mail the suspicious "find" and ask for the correct answer to prove a real find. If they cannot do so, then I will delete it. At least it doesn't appear so offensive on the cache page itself!

Link to comment

That's funny, Toe. I didn't finish reading it either.

 

GpsFun, maybe if you do a very, very brief synopsis of the rules, let us get the gist of the rules, then go into detail. You know, kind of like a newpaper story where the first paragraph is a synopsis of the story, then it goes into detail.

 

Hope this helps.

 

CR

Link to comment

This is a good and thorough proposal. It is a bit wordy, but there's not too much unnecessary verbiage. Those who think they possess "common sense" may not bother reading it until they get a virtual or locationless cache rejected. Those who want to ensure that they've got it right the first time will likely read it. Its kind of like the instruction manual for a new sound system/ vcr etc.. - no one reads it until something isn't working right - and then it is appreciated when the instructions are found to be well written and thorough.

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

Link to comment

I wasn't put off by the length... but then again, I write "fine print" bank documents for a living.

 

With all the complaints about the existing guidelines not going into enough detail, about there being "unwritten rules", etc., is it not somewhat disingenuous to object to the length of a set of rules that attempts to capture the consensus agreement on the standards?

 

Or, put in words that brdad can understand, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

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

What would life be like if there were no hypothetical questions?

Link to comment

I didn't read it either - it looked longer then the 'what is geocaching' section of the web site.

 

I'm sure it is a very good idea and takes into account many possible circumstances but we need something short like:

 

Locationless caches should have wording in their title that most people would know what is required from just that title.

 

----(sig line)---> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave

Link to comment

"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."

 

What would it take to be classed as unusual enough to be approved?

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

 

[This message was edited by crr003 on October 07, 2002 at 11:16 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by crr003 on October 08, 2002 at 01:05 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
7. Understand that although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries. You should also return to the web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" will be archived by the site.


 

I read it all, hey, even before my coffee. But, I am not clear. Is this whole post a compilation of rules that are already in effect? Or is it a suggestion for NEW rules? Or a combination? The only one I have a question about is quoted above. I have a virtual that will be there a lot longer than I will. Does that mean that 30 days after I move on to the next world, my virtual will be removed? I know our sport is very young, but eventually, we will have caches placed by people who are no longer here. Should we think about the protocol for that situation?

 

stealyourcache.gif Serious cachers needed! www.theheavenlyhost.com/geocache

Link to comment

Gpsfun, you did a very nice job on that proposal. Additional thoughts follow this quote:

 

quote:
Originally posted by Dru Morgan:

... The only one I have a question about is quoted above. I have a virtual that will be there a lot longer than I will. ... Should we think about the protocol for that situation?


 

Yes, definitely. I suggest Jeremy should consider putting an "expiration date" on any cache ... one possibility is a cache would automatically be archived at the end of 30 days if:

 

1. The cache had received no find logs, or

2. The cache owner had not clicked a button/checkbox (not unlike the current "temporarily disable/enable this cache" feature) verifying the cache's continued viability.

 

My feeling is that since many locationless caches are frivolous or involve some sort of novelty factor, an approval for a limited period of time (perhaps 90 days) should be the standard procedure.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 08, 2002 at 10:36 AM.]

Link to comment

We're probably venturing off-topic here, but I agree that virtual caches should expire if there is no activity. With traditionals I have some reservations as some of mine are seldom found, but if I got an automatically generated e-mail warning I could live with it. Something like "Your cache will expire in 7 days unless..."

 

That would give folks a chance to act to show they are still active in the sport, and that they consider their cache active. Some locations are reaching a saturation point and it might be good to be able to get rid of a stale, orphaned, lame cache to replace it with something fresh.

 

Back to the posting that this thread started with:

It's mostly a compilation of the existing posting rules and guidelines, with some clarification to attempt to address earlier questions/concerns.

 

Compared to most forum postings it's long, but compared to the book of rules most sports have it's very, very short. icon_smile.gif

 

~erik~

Link to comment

We're probably venturing off-topic here, but I agree that virtual caches should expire if there is no activity. With traditionals I have some reservations as some of mine are seldom found, but if I got an automatically generated e-mail warning I could live with it. Something like "Your cache will expire in 7 days unless..."

 

That would give folks a chance to act to show they are still active in the sport, and that they consider their cache active. Some locations are reaching a saturation point and it might be good to be able to get rid of a stale, orphaned, lame cache to replace it with something fresh.

 

Back to the posting that this thread started with:

It's mostly a compilation of the existing posting rules and guidelines, with some clarification to attempt to address earlier questions/concerns.

 

Compared to most forum postings it's long, but compared to the book of rules most sports have it's very, very short. icon_smile.gif

 

~erik~

Link to comment

I'm against the idea of automatically expiring any cache after a set number of days. A virtual can stay there forever.Who, or what is it hurting? There are always new Geocachers joining the sport and visitors to an area. Why deny them the chance to log a cache?

 

Same goes for a real cache, however a real cache will become Geolitter if it's automatically expired and the cache owner doesn't take the time to go and get it. At least if it is still listed, even if abandoned, it will be visited periodically and someone could potentially report on its (or the areas) condition, and/or fix it up if it's in bad shape.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

Link to comment

True, there are long periods between finds sometimes, but that's no reason to trashcan the cache.

 

Plus, I know of one instance where a cache owner was a soldier who got deployed on a moment's notice to Afganistan. I'm pretty sure that his cache wasn't very high on his priority list when he left.

 

If anything, after a year of inactivity, send the cache owner an email. If it bounces, or he doesn't respond, then archive it. That'd be fairly reasonable to me.

 

3382_900.gif

Link to comment

People seem to have missed a significant portion of what I suggested a few posts back. Please note that in the suggestion, the cache would not be archived if the cache owner followed a simple procedure. I suggested:

 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

... I suggest Jeremy should consider putting an "expiration date" on any cache ... one possibility is a cache would automatically be archived at the end of 30 days if:

 

1. The cache had received no find logs, or

2. The cache owner had not clicked a button/checkbox (not unlike the current "temporarily disable/enable this cache" feature) verifying the cache's continued viability.

 

My feeling is that since many locationless caches are frivolous or involve some sort of novelty factor, an approval for a limited period of time (perhaps 90 days) should be the standard procedure.


Link to comment

Virtuals as a general rule will last a long time. They don't get plundered or get tossed by animals, they don't get water damaged. I would think IF a time limit were implemented, I would think virtuals & locationless would be exempted completely. One of mine has been logged in a while. Would I be required to say "yup it's still there!" or risk it being archived? Why? So no one has looked for it in a while? Same can be said of real caches too.

 

What might be nice is a system where if a cache gets 2 "no finds" that the owner is required to verify it's viability. theres a number of NYC caches that haven't been sought in 6+ months & the last logs were no finds, lending me to think the cache is gone. unfortunately many of these caches haven't been verified as to still being viable.

 

on second thought, it sounds nice but why bog us down with too many rules? it's a game. the more rules & requirements we generate, the more likely it will be to turn off members, both old and potentially new. time limits? bah. needless IMHO. but that's just me.

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Link to comment

To remain off topic...

 

quote:
Please note that in the suggestion, the cache would not be archived if the cache owner followed a simple procedure.

 

quote:
...but if I got an automatically generated e-mail warning I could live with it. Something like "Your cache will expire in 7 days unless..."

That would give folks a chance to act to show they are still active in the sport, and that they consider their cache active.


 

I disagree with this. Even if the cache has been abandoned by its owner, finders will often fix it up and sometimes adopt it. If the cache is automatically archived, nobody will visit it and it will simply become Geolitter. In the case of a virtual, there is no maintenance required, so what harm is there if the "owner" is no longer active.

 

There are other issues. What if someone loses the use of their PC for a period of time (this happened to a local cache owner this summer) and can't "renew" their cache.

 

Also, for those who own a lot of caches, they're going to find themselves constantly having to reply to these expiriation messages.

 

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

Virtuals as a general rule will last a long time. They don't get plundered or get tossed by animals, they don't get water damaged. I would think IF a time limit were implemented, I would think virtuals & locationless would be exempted completely. One of mine has been logged in a while. Would I be required to say "yup it's still there!" or risk it being archived?


 

No, as my suggestion states, owners would only need to re-verify caches that have not been "found" within the time frame. It is precisely because virtuals can last so long that they need to be re-verified. My belief about locationless caches is also clear: They should be approved for only a specified period of time; but if that is unacceptable to the majority, the same re-verification rules would suffice.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

What might be nice is a system where if a cache gets 2 "no finds" that the owner is required to verify it's viability. theres a number of NYC caches that haven't been sought in 6+ months & the last logs were no finds, lending me to think the cache is gone.


 

That's true, which is one reason I presented the suggestion. Actually, I've checked up on several of the more challenging/unique caches I've found in NYC that have not been found in a very long time, and most of them are still there. I don't place notes on those pages anymore, because the onus of maintenance/re-verification should be upon the cache owner. In that respect, your quote supports my suggestion.

 

quote:
on second thought, it sounds nice but why bog us down with too many rules? it's a game. the more rules & requirements we generate, the more likely it will be to turn off members

 

I would think members are more likely to be turned off by caches that were missing or in a bad state. (Or, in the case of virtuals and locationless, had been "abandoned" by an owner who no longer verified the legitimacy of finds.) Time limits might also help prevent an area from becoming too "stagnant" ... the manner in which you have recycled your caches in the Palisades Interstate Park is a positive example of how my suggestion might be implemented. BrianSnat has done similar things with a couple of his caches.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 09, 2002 at 07:57 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

I disagree with this. Even if the cache has been abandoned by its owner, finders will often fix it up and sometimes adopt it. If the cache is automatically archived, nobody will visit it and it will simply become Geolitter.


 

If one assumes that finders will fix up abandoned caches, then it's reasonable to assume that active geocachers/hikers would also check up on and remove abandoned and archived caches. And as you stated, the possibility exists that a local cacher might seek to adopt an abandoned cache.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

There are other issues. What if someone loses the use of their PC for a period of time (this happened to a local cache owner this summer) and can't "renew" their cache.


 

Yes, one can always find an issue or exception. Caches have been archived in error in the past, and more will likely be archived in error in the future. The process, while a minor inconvenience, is reversible.

 

Maybe instead of automatically archiving the cache, the procedure would be to automatically disable a cache for (30, 60, 90) days, and at the end of that period the cache would automatically be archived if the cache owner had still failed to re-verify it.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

Also, for those who own a lot of caches, they're going to find themselves constantly having to reply to these expiriation messages.


 

Perhaps; perhaps not. If the caches have been regularly found, nothing would need to be done. If they haven't been found and the owner knows them to be in good order, he would simply need to check a box/press a button/respond to an e-mail; whatever the procedure was.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 09, 2002 at 07:59 AM.]

Link to comment

I'm against any idea that would require a re-verification of a cache. There is no need for this. If it's a matter of seeing whether or not a player is still active in the sport, this can be tracked without the need for clicking more buttons.

 

The system checks to see when you last logged in. You can view this date in your profile. This will provide the proof that you are still active. Perhaps a better idea would be to send checkboxes to players who haven't logged in in 30 days or so, to verify they are still active in the game.

 

It's unnecessary to re-verify anything unless the cache receives a "should be archived" log. At that point, the hider should have some time to take action by posting their own log, or risk having the cache archived. Perhaps a timer should start at the posting of the "should be archived" log. That way it could prevent premature archival of a cache.

 

I have caches that have not been visited for long periods of time, but that does not mean that they are not there, I check one in particular almost weekly. Also, no-find logs do not mean that it's not there, after all, we are told to hide them better, aren't we? That means you may need to look harder.

 

I personally do not want to be receiving any re-verification emails when they are unnecessary, nor do I want to have to go re-verify my hides every 30 days. Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

Link to comment

Its a shame that this thread got so off-topic. We're no longer discussing the proposed VC/LC policies as we were requested to do.

 

As to their length, considering all the the gc dot com group has done, I think we can take the time to review this for all our benifit.

 

I guarentee that it takes less time to read them than it takes to put together a new cache, submit it, and have it denied because it didn't meet one of the policies icon_smile.gif

 

For my two cents, I like the new policies!

 

[This message was edited by wicacher on October 09, 2002 at 09:07 AM.]

Link to comment

Its a shame that this thread got so off-topic. We're no longer discussing the proposed VC/LC policies as we were requested to do.

 

As to their length, considering all the the gc dot com group has done, I think we can take the time to review this for all our benifit.

 

I guarentee that it takes less time to read them than it takes to put together a new cache, submit it, and have it denied because it didn't meet one of the policies icon_smile.gif

 

For my two cents, I like the new policies!

 

[This message was edited by wicacher on October 09, 2002 at 09:07 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by wicacher:

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

"In the case of a virtual, there is no maintenance required, so what harm is there if the "owner" is no longer active."


If the owner is no longer active, then how can they verify the "Found it!" logs as is currently required by existing guidelines?

 

__________________

-Alan


 

Isn't that what I said? icon_confused.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by wicacher:

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

"In the case of a virtual, there is no maintenance required, so what harm is there if the "owner" is no longer active."


If the owner is no longer active, then how can they verify the "Found it!" logs as is currently required by existing guidelines?

 

__________________

-Alan


 

Isn't that what I said? icon_confused.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Isn't that what I said? icon_confused.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum


Yep... and that's why I tried to delete my post after I saw yours, which was further down the page than I had read.

 

But since this forum doesn't allow postings to be deleted, I changed it to now be a completely differnt post. Which of course makes your quoted rebuke look confusing now icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by crr003:

Isn't that what I said? icon_confused.gif

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum


Yep... and that's why I tried to delete my post after I saw yours, which was further down the page than I had read.

 

But since this forum doesn't allow postings to be deleted, I changed it to now be a completely differnt post. Which of course makes your quoted rebuke look confusing now icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by wicacher:

Its a shame that this thread got so off-topic. We're no longer discussing the proposed VC/LC policies as we were requested to do.


 

While the current discussion of time limits and re-verification of caches has included discussion of physical caches as well as locationless and virtual caches, those items have been offered as possible inclusions to the VC/LC policies and are therefore "on topic."

 

As I stated previously, I think gpsfun did an excellent job on the proposed policy. But frankly, I'm somewhat disappointed that more ideas haven't been presented for discussion and possible inclusion.

Link to comment

OK, I finally got around to reading the whole posting.

 

Respectfully, I think this is much ado about nothing. Much that is stated (as I understand it)is merely a rehash of the current guidelines.

 

Beyond that, It appears to be unduly suppressive. I don't think it is necessary to justify the life of a virt. If there is any question, the admins can shoot the owner an email.

 

Further, by setting the limits as ridgidly as you have, you are excluding perfectly acceptable virts. An example would be a virt located on the USS Intrepid or the USS Sullivans or many other ships. Clearly these are boats and would be excluded as such according to your guidelines. However, they are certainly semi-permanent and as such should be included.

 

Related to the time limit issue. I do not believe any cache should be time limited. For some of the more difficult caches, it is a testament to the quality of the cache that there are long gaps between finds. I much prefer a rule that states that after two 'no finds', a cacher is required to give a status check, perhaps within 30 days.

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...