Cache on Hold - Best Argument in Support of Approval

July 23, 2003

So, one of my caches is on hold. It's a web cam cache. I provided off-set coordinates in the area of the webcam, and said the finder would have to find the exact location.

My question is more general than this specific case, however. My question is this:

When formulating my argument in support of my cache, do y'all think it is appropriate to cite examples of caches that have already been approved that are of the same general idea as mine? Do you think that it matters to the average approver that an off-set webcam cache very similar to mine had been previously approved?

The admin's email said that because the coordinates listed weren't the spot of the webcam, and because geocaching is really about using a GPS to find a location, it wasn't really geocaching.

I disagreed, because there is a very simple way to find the coordinates to the webcam, with a little investigation, which will lead you to the location of the "cache," and besides, many people don't use a GPS at all. Some caches can be found by the description alone!

Anyway, I was interested in some opinions on this matter. Specifically whether y'all think it would help to cite other examples of similar caches, or whether I might end up harming those who set up the similar caches.

Thanks,

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

38.2k · July 23, 2003

quote:
do y'all think it is appropriate to cite examples of caches that have already been approved that are of the same general idea as mine? Do you think that it matters to the average approver that an off-set webcam cache very similar to mine had been previously approved?

No, because precedent isn't reason for approving a cache. Many caches that were allowed in the past are no longer allowed becasue guidelines have been modified.

Why don't you just comply with the approvers request to provide correct coordinates?

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

July 23, 2003

quote:
Why don't you just comply with the approvers request to provide correct coordinates?

Well, she didn't exactly ask that I provide the correct coordinates, we're still having a discussion as to whether it should be approved as an off-set.

Plus, I thought some of the fun in this webcam cache would be in finding the actual spot of the camera, as I have seen done before.

With regards to precedent not being a reason to approve a cache, as far as I can tell, the rules in this particular area haven't changed since the last cache was approved.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

July 23, 2003

.

July 23, 2003

I can't straighten out my ACCIDENTAL QUADRUPLE POSTING!

I quit!

Forgive me my trespasses...

1.5k · July 23, 2003

[sarcasm]

I was just going to suggest only hitting 'Post Now' once instead of 4 times.

[/sarcasm]

Brian

Team A.I.

July 24, 2003

quote:
With regards to precedent not being a reason to approve a cache, as far as I can tell, the rules in this particular area haven't changed since the last cache was approved.

I can't speak for your particular web cam cache, since I'm not the approver in question. I can tell you that the approvers ask that web cams clearly show the person who logs the find. This sounds obvious, but we get a fair number of traffic cams as web cams. There designed to show traffic jams, not individuals.

When web cams were a novelty, and few and far between, some traffic cams were posted. If you use one of a year or two ago as precedent I'm afraid it may well be one that wouldn't be accepted today.

It seems obvious that a web cam should clearly show the person who logged the find, but we still get arguments from some that say if you can tell it's one person, not two, that it should be good enough.

I also see it as a basic request that you provide accurate coords to the spot where someone should stand. I guess you could make it an offset webcam cache, but I'm not sure I see the value in that.

erik - geocaching.com admin

1.6k · July 24, 2003

I agree, if the coordinates are for a location that places the cacher in the proper focal distance for the webcam, then fine. If the coordinates are for some distance away that renders the image useless, then you need to change them.

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

July 24, 2003

I completely agree with BigRedMed. I have thought about using one of my webcams as a WebCam Cache, but I can't get the focal setup to clearly make out the cachers that might would try to log the find if I use the road as the coord. In the end we have to respect what the Approver says.

---------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me Sir, but there is a Wild GeoCache in this area.

www.neurocache.com - NeuroNomad & Sublonde's Page

24.7k · July 24, 2003

My webcam, would not comply with todays rules. But since it's one of the onely ones in Boise it's about as good as it gets.

You can debate as to whether it's an offset cache or a webcam, but the logging requiremens are all webcam. My vote goes to webcam even though it has a twist.

July 24, 2003

quote:
I can't speak for your particular web cam cache, since I'm not the approver in question. I can tell you that the approvers ask that web cams clearly show the person who logs the find. This sounds obvious, but we get a fair number of traffic cams as web cams. There designed to show traffic jams, not individuals.

When you go to the spot of this web cam, you would clearly be shown.

quote:
When web cams were a novelty, and few and far between, some traffic cams were posted. If you use one of a year or two ago as precedent I'm afraid it may well be one that wouldn't be accepted today.

The example of one similar to mine was approved on 2/26/03.

quote:
It seems obvious that a web cam should clearly show the person who logged the find, but we still get arguments from some that say if you can tell it's one person, not two, that it should be good enough.

I agree the person should be shown clearly.

quote:
I also see it as a basic request that you provide accurate coords to the spot where someone should stand. I guess you could make it an offset webcam cache, but I'm not sure I see the value in that.

Well, now here's the crux of the matter. I DO see value in that. I think part of the adventure in this case would be having to find exactly where to stand for the web cam. There are clear landmarks on the web shot, so it would not be THAT difficult to find the place. I did.

Again, I think there is value in making the cache an offset, I think it makes it more of an adventure. Plus, the location of this cache is rural, and on shore line, so I think having to find the cache would increase the scenic value of the hunt too.

Lastly, one portion of your response puzzles me.

quote:
I guess you could make it an offset webcam cache, but I'm not sure I see the value in that.

Is the question whether or not the individual admin approver sees "value" in a cache I submit? Or should the admin be asking whether the geocaching community as a whole, or even some segment thereof, will appreciate the value of the cache (if any). I don't think an approver's personal likes and dislikes (or personal determinations of value) should come into play when approving a cache.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
[sarcasm]

I was just going to suggest only hitting 'Post Now' once instead of 4 times.

[/sarcasm]

Brian

Team A.I.

I didn't hit "Post Now" 4 times, I tried to edit my message, and it kept posting a new one instead. I think I hit some sort of glitch that wouldn't let me edit.

[sarcasm] But thanks for your helpful advice. [/sarcasm]

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

3.1k · July 24, 2003

Does the person have to find the camera itself or just a good spot to take the picture? I like the idea of having to locate the camera. But either way, doesn't the finder have someone watching them on the webcam who can tell them where they should be standing and who can tell immediately whether the picture is good?

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Dinoprophet:
Does the person have to find the camera itself or just a good spot to take the picture? I like the idea of having to locate the camera. But either way, doesn't the finder have someone watching them on the webcam who can tell them where they should be standing and who can tell immediately whether the picture is good?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but I'll try to answer.

There is a webcam on a shore line in a state. It shows some beach, and a bunch of water behind it. My cache provides coordinates NEAR the spot where the webcam is pointed at, your job is to find the spot you need to stand to be in the webcam picture.

So, again, the webcam is static, you just need to figure out where to go.

As an aside, there are easy ways this can be done. I think the average geocacher wouldn't have too much trouble.

And yes, if you go find this cache, you will need someone on line to (A) tell you if you're in the right place, and ( capture the webcam shot. Reception, however, on cell phones in the area may be tricky.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

1.5k · July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pantalaimon:

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
[sarcasm]

I was just going to suggest only hitting 'Post Now' once instead of 4 times.

[/sarcasm]

Brian

Team A.I.

I didn't hit "Post Now" 4 times, I tried to edit my message, and it kept posting a new one instead. I think I hit some sort of glitch that wouldn't let me edit.

[sarcasm] But thanks for your helpful advice. [/sarcasm]

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

Oh, come now. If I can't have a little fun, what's the point?

Brian

Team A.I.

July 24, 2003

quote:
Oh, come now. If I can't have a little fun, what's the point?

Brian

Team A.I.

Don't get me wrong, I knew you were teasing.

I was just funnin' you back.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pantalaimon:
And yes, if you go find this cache, you will need someone on line to (A) tell you if you're in the right place, and ( capture the webcam shot. Reception, however, on cell phones in the area may be tricky.

While this is not the focus of your question, whenever webcams are brought up, this is the issue for me.

I should not have to call someone on the telephone to be able to log the cache.

I do not use a cellphone. Yes, I am in the minority it seems these days, but that is a conscious choice my wife and I have made.

I do cache. And I seek everything in my area. That area now includes three webcam caches in a nearby state (but all three are among the closest caches now to me). How do I log these?

I have hunted and found one webcam cache. It was wonderful. I needed to get to a certain spot and have my picture taken. Within 24 hours I needed to get back on the 'Net and retrieve my photograph. It required no cellphone and no second cacher. This, to me, is how webcam caches should work. Otherwise, I really think they should not be approved.

Okay, I have said my peace. Carry on.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

July 24, 2003

I don't see too much wrong with your suggestion, in fact I like the idea of 'looking for' the web-cam in question. If you know what the camera is looking at, they you should be able to note the surroundings being captured and place yourself there. It's not as easy as it sounds/looks so that may be fun.

It certainly sounds like a web-cache to me.

There is software one can use to capture a series of timed screen shots while you are AFK if one chooses not to use a cellphone. I choose the software route myself.

Cheers!

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zartimus:
I don't see too much wrong with your suggestion, in fact I like the idea of 'looking for' the web-cam in question. If you know what the camera is looking at, they you should be able to note the surroundings being captured and place yourself there. It's not as easy as it sounds/looks so that may be fun.

It certainly sounds like a web-cache to me.

There is software one can use to capture a series of timed screen shots while you are AFK if one chooses not to use a cellphone. I choose the software route myself.

Cheers!

Zartimus,

This is one of the most helpful and civil posts I think I've seen in the forums. I thank you for replying.

Frolickin,

I hope that Zartimus' reply alters your opinion a bit on the type of cache I am attempting to create.

However, even if it doesn't, does that fact that you don't want to use a cell phone to ask someone to capture the screen shot of you at the webcam mean the cache shouldn't be approved? You can please some of the people all of the time... etc.

We're not all going to like every cache. If concensus was required to approve a cache we wouldn't have much to do.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

2.3k · July 24, 2003

Off-set caches are approvable. Web-cam caches are approvable. I don't see why they are holding this one up.

Yes, you still need a GPS to get to the general area (the coordinates), so it qualifies as geocaching.

From one of the homepages:

"Are there any variations in the game?

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it."

Sounds like an approvable idea to me.

7.2k · July 24, 2003

Pan, I can understand that Fro does not like that type of cache and that is fine. Bear in mind that many people don't like micro caches and don't do them. Many people don't like virtuals and don't do them. Not every cache pleases everyone's style of caching but if your cache can be worked out so it fits within the guidelines of the site then bring it on. There will be plenty of people who will give it a go, including me. I've found two webcams and I did like the challenge. His points are valid though, and hopefully other cachers will create webcam caches so they are easier for anyone to log even if they don't have a cell phone.

Regarding citing other caches as examples, I say no. As BrianSnat pointed out, there is a section on the requirements page regarding that. One big reason why you should not do that is because your cache should be able to stand up on its own merits. For example, I hate it when vendors come in and talk about their competition. Tell me what is good about your cache and don't compare it to something else to get it approved. Sell your cache idea and justify it on why it is a great cache. Don't dwell on other caches for justification but only use them for inspiration.

9.1k · July 24, 2003

Actually, the "Best Argument in Support of Approval" is to know mtn-man's PayPal information. Works wonders.

Seriously, I would write back with a description of how the offset works, for the approver's eyes only. (For example, "It takes a little bit of detective work to figure out that the webcam is on the second pier, and you need to walk around the edge of the trees, along the beach and then down the first pier in order to be in the foreground of the picture.") Convince the approver that your cache is cool.

Personally, so long as it's fairly obvious where the camera is once you get there, I don't have a problem with what you proposed. With webcams I would be much more annoyed if it's hard to get a good picture due to fuzzy resolution, lousy cam webpage, etc.

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

Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

8k · July 24, 2003

It seems to me given the accuracy of GPS that pantalaimon is not asking anymore that a normal webcam cache. The user still needs to figure out where to stand once getting to the listed coordinates in order to get a good picture. I would guess that if you just stood where your GPSr shows ground zero there's a good chance you won't be in the picture.

I've never done a webcam cache, but I would look at the website before I went seaching for the cache to see where I need to stand as well as to get an idea of how often the webcam updates to have some idea how long I need to stand there

東西南北

Why do I always find it in the last place I look?

July 24, 2003

Alrighty then. Since the admin who put the cache on hold is busy at work, I took a look at it.

The posted coords are:

N 43° 49.830 / W 070° 30.420

The cache text says:

quote:
The above coords are not exactly right, the camera is ... well ... somewhere in
Maine. (It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out the general location. The

difficulty reflects finding the EXACT location.)

The trick here is to find the camera. Post a picture with your log of you taken from the web cam, visiting the site, for credit.

Good luck.

This lovely photo dominates the page. There is no further text.

OK, if I were given this to approve I would also put it on hold. I'm sure we could figure out where this is using google. We could figure out where to stand by trial and error. We could then log a smilie. But what's it got to do with geocaching? Where does the GPS come into play here? I thought it was offset in some way?

Second problem - the photo shows no people. I could have posted this from Georgia. We ask that those who post webcam shots post what the shot will look like when the geocacher is there. That way the admin can judge if people are indeed visible. A great photo though.

Lastly, without coords for the cache the approver would have no way of knowing if there isn't already a webcam here.

Hope that info fills in some of the blanks. I look forward to the cache approver and cache submitter working together to get this posted. It looks like a great spot for a webcam if it can be made to "fit"

erik - geocaching.com admin

July 24, 2003

Is it fair to make someone use google to find a cache? I don't know, but it has been done before http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1A60

July 24, 2003

quote:
Is it fair to make someone use google to find a cache?

I thinks it's great.

(actually it's optional in the cache Allen referenced)

But I think it's fair to make someone use a GPS to find a cache too. (or at least make it part of the hunt)

erik - geocaching.com admin

[This message was edited by ~erik~ on July 24, 2003 at 11:41 AM.]

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:
With webcams I would be much more annoyed if it's hard to get a good picture due to fuzzy resolution, lousy cam webpage, etc.

I hear ya. Check out my 'commented (no find)' photo on the Wave the Flag webcam cache.

It was dark, and I was dressed as batman, so.. Oh well, Maybe during daylight hours. It was kinda fun trying to guess where the camera was and where it would take a good pic. I got the positioning right, but there were not enough photons<grin>... So I could not log a find.

July 24, 2003

I meant to mention, that the result of using google for cache GC1A60 is a set of coordinates which you can feed in to a GPS. Where as I don't see that in this Web Cam cache.

July 24, 2003

Okay, first, just so we're all clear here, I wasn't trying to change this thread into a let's-review-the-cache-and-see-if-the-admin-who-put-ity-on-hold-got-it-right. I want everyone here to recognize this, and I want the admin who orginially "held" my cache to know this. This thread was originally created to ask people's opinions on how to formulate an argument in support of my cache.

So, in closing to my opening, I have no problem with the cache being held subject to further conversations, again, I just wanted some ideas on how to formulate my arguments.

But, since I've been asked, I've forwarded my reply to ~erik~.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pantalaimon:
However, even if it doesn't, does that fact that _you_ don't want to use a cell phone to ask someone to capture the screen shot of you at the webcam mean the cache shouldn't be approved? You can please some of the people all of the time... etc.

A couple of things . . . it's not that I do not want to use a cellphone. I have no cellphone. I cannot justify the expense.

How can I ask someone to capture an image w/o it? Are you willing to sit behind a system ready to save an image if I tell you I'll be there?

Thirdly, I believe I made it clear, but if I didn't, my rant is not about your webcam in particular, but about all webcam caches that require assistance.

The problem is not that I won't seek your cache . . . it is that I cannot seek this cache. Where I live, that means I have three caches on my nearest to find list that I cannot seek, whether or not I want to. It's akin to having MO caches nearby for those who do not financially support the site.

Based on how this site has operated, your cache can be approved (although later posts indicate different issues). My suggestion is that no webcams that have to be logged in this manner should be approved. That, most certainly, is a different issue than what you brought to the table. I also recognize that adds another level of rules and that is not particularly pleasing to me either. And I suppose one can argue that a scuba cache would exclude others who are not certified, etc. I admit that I am in the minority. I admit that it is unlikely many will agree. I just think that to place a cache that excludes some from even attempting it is a poor choice.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

5.3k · July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zartimus:
There is software one can use to capture a series of timed screen shots while you are AFK if one chooses not to use a cellphone. I choose the software route myself.

Cheers!

I'd love to know more about the software you use (and I imagine Frolickin does, too )

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

July 24, 2003

quote:
I just think that to place a cache that excludes some from even attempting it is a poor choice.

Yeah, we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Again, if there was a rule that said you cannot place a cache that excludes "some" from even attempting it, me thinks about 95% of caches would have to be archived.

I have a cache that requires the finder to climb several trees. Should it be archived because those who can't/won't/don't climb trees can't possibly find it?

I reject your logic. There have been suggestions above that would enable you to find this cache.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Off-set caches are approvable. Web-cam caches are approvable. I don't see why they are holding this one up.

But is giving coordinates a ways off from the cache, then simply saying 'find it,' truly an offset cache? Don't offsets usually provide specific directions of some sort? Would an ordinary cache be approved if it gave rough coordinates and then a picture of the cache area? I can see arguments for and against it, but it's not clear-cut.

Or I could be wrong, and caches like that could be popping up daily. Just haven't seen one, though Hawkeye did find a cache last weekend without the GPS, just using the spoiler photo, and it *was* fun, but I'm not sure it's something hiders ought to be making people do regularly. (In this case, it was his choice, since I'd kidnapped the GPS and taken it 1800 miles away.)

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pantalaimon:
I reject your logic. There have been suggestions above that would enable you to find this cache.

I can find the cache without trouble. Geocaching requires the use of coordinates (maybe a GPS) to locate a position. That I can easily do.

What I can't do is jump through the hoops you require of me to log the find. That has nothing to do with caching.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

1.7k · July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kite & Hawkeye:
Would an ordinary cache be approved if it gave rough coordinates and then a picture of the cache area?

Well, not a picture, but see Marvelous Mathematical Maze for something like that that's been approved recently. I knew the PDOP was bad when I got the coords, so I gave a brief description of the actual cache location in addition to the coords in an attempt to discourage off-trail hiking.

(I now have better coords, and will be updating the page soon.)

pirate.cgi.gif

24.7k · July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

I should not have to call someone on the telephone to be able to log the cache.

I do not use a cellphone. Yes, I am in the minority it seems these days, but that is a conscious choice my wife and I have made.

A little coordination up front should do you. Coordinate with a friend before hand. Tell them you will be at this webcam at this time and to save your picture. True you have to trust to fate but that's why you studied the timing on the webcam and why you chose a reliable friend.

This is not an insurmountable problem.

6.4k · July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Kite & Hawkeye:
But is giving coordinates a ways off from the cache, then simply saying 'find it,' truly an offset cache? Don't offsets usually provide specific directions of some sort? Would an ordinary cache be approved if it gave rough coordinates and then a picture of the cache area? I can see arguments for and against it, but it's not clear-cut.

Or I could be wrong, and caches like that could be popping up daily. Just haven't seen one, though Hawkeye did find a cache last weekend without the GPS, just using the spoiler photo, and it *was* fun, but I'm not sure it's something hiders ought to be making people do regularly. (In this case, it was his choice, since I'd kidnapped the GPS and taken it 1800 miles away.)

I gotta agree here, it really isnt an offset cache at all. Would the approvers approve an ammo box if I posted bogus coords and said Here's a pic of the cache area, google it, the cache is somewhere in NJ"?

This seems more like a puzzle cache then an offset, and I seem to remember reading somewhere that they want the posted coords of a puzzle cache to be within a mile or so of the actual cache, preferably the parking coords. "Somewhere in maine" means your bogus coords could potentially be hours of driving away from the actual location, and will be showing up as the nearest cache for cachers who arent interested in traveling that par for a cache, while not showing in searches by people who ARE interested in caches in that area. You are also preventing any caches from being placed in the area of your bogus coords, thereby possibly depriving local people of a cache location.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

July 24, 2003

I think it's a fine idea. The cacher uses their Gps to get to the general area of the webcam (I'm assuming the coordinates get you within at least a couple hundered feet of the spot your suppsoed to stand, if not even closer). Then the cacher must engage their brain to figure out where to stand. Sounds like fun to me. I'd say it should probably posted as originally intended.

Update: Whooops, and reading more of the posts in the thread, I find my assumption was incorrect. I suppose it could still work... maybe... hmmmm.... I dunno.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

July 24, 2003

Wow - what a path this discussion has taken!

I am the approver who reviewed this cache, and here is my message to the user:

quote:
User Pantalaimon has been emailed with the following message:

Hi, Pantalaimon.

We are reviewing Maine Lake Web Cam GCxxxx for approval and have a concern to be resolved before proceeding. The coordinates appear to be on a golf course, many of which are private property. If so, we need for you to make note that you have permission to have geocachers entering the area. In any case, geocachers wandering about a golf course could be exposed to airborne golf balls, and may annoy golfers.

That said, the information on the web page suggests that the web cam is not at the coordinates anyway. So, given that geocaching invloves finding a specific location using GPS technology, asking geocachers to find the location by other means pretty much says that this is not a geocache.

The approval queue gets pretty backed up on weekends, so I will be TEMPORARILY archiving this cache pending further discussion and/or changes to the cache page.

Note: I provided you with my contact information, but have left that out of the quote above.

I now see that the coordinates on the cache page have been changed to place the web cam in Sebago Lake instead of on the golf course. I'm not sure the geocachers seeking your cache would find that particularly helpful.

The way to win approval for a questionable cache is to let the approver help you find a way to make it acceptable, if possible. Contrary to the belief of a few, that's what we are here for. But I cannot scan the forums looking for threads like this; you need to respond to me (or the admin who notifies you of an issue) to continue the discussion. Also, the admins typically do not jump into cache approval discussions or take action out of context; we don't always know the details of foregoing discussions, original cache coordinates, etc.

I'd like to thank erik for the heads-up. And I look forward to hearing directly from you.

-gpsfun

geocaching.com admin

38.2k · July 24, 2003

quote:
A couple of things . . . it's not that I do not want to use a cellphone. I have no cellphone. I cannot justify the expense.

How can I ask someone to capture an image w/o it? Are you willing to sit behind a system ready to save an image if I tell you I'll be there?

I don't have a digital camera, yet some caches require a photo for verification. I don't own scuba, or climbing equipment, but some caches require these. I don't think the requirement of a cell phone to find a cache is that much different.

As far as this particular cache, judging from what I've read from the admins, I think the owner should re-work it a little before its approved.

As an aside, a cell phone is often cheaper than a land line. We've saved about $75 a month in long distance charges since we got our cell phone. I have friends who've gotten rid of their land lines because a cell phone didn't cost as much.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

July 24, 2003

In term's of the original request of "arguments in support of approval", I'd suggest the following:

- include notes to the approver explaining anything questionable

- if it's an offset cache, the coordinates need to relate to the destination or a satisfactory explanation of why not should be provided, either way, the exact coords should be included for the approvers to do their job, which they can delete upon approval (verify 0.1 mile radius, private land issues, safety, etc.)

- I don't think you ever need to "argue" either, the approvers are seeking to approve caches, not deny them! Info that simplifies that process is good.

- anytime you are "pushing the limits", you need to be sure you are well within the limits on other issues, clearly defining that helps...

- lastly, if you seek a discussion on cache submissions, don't even include a specific example that gets picked apart--too many people have limited reading comprehension skills...

- hopefully in the future, a separate "optional notes to approver" field will be included to simplify this process (rather than manually including it in the main description and then it having to manually be extracted before public posting).

Just my thoughts on the matter,

Randy

July 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I don't have a digital camera, yet some caches require a photo for verification. I don't own scuba, or climbing equipment, but some caches require these. I don't think the requirement of a cell phone to find a cache is that much different.

As I stated, I recognize that this is similar to those situations. For me, it's frustrating for there's not much I can do. To log the cache, I have to do things that have nothing to do with locating a cache. Scuba, climbing gear, etc. are needed to get to certain caches. A cellphone is needed only to log the silly thing. Couldn't I just take a photograph of the webcam as the proof I was there?

quote:
We've saved about $75 a month in long distance charges since we got our cell phone.

I am speechless! $75 in LD charges saved/mo.!!!!! We pay $17 for local calling per mo. We canceled LD and use a calling card where we pay $.0347/minute. If we use $10/mo. in LD it would be astounding. We do not come close to the lowest of cellphone plans.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

July 24, 2003

I agree with Frolickin to an extent. My work has for years been trying to get me to carry a cell phone or pager and I alway's shoot them down. My time is MY time, I refuse to be at someone's beckon call 24/7! Leave a message on the a/m or e-mail me. I'll get back to you if I deem it's important.

On the other hand Frolickin...if you don't like caches that need a cell phone, don't do them! Just move down the page to the next cache. What's the big deal?

July 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Spzzmoose:
On the other hand Frolickin...if you don't like caches that need a cell phone, don't do them! Just move down the page to the next cache. What's the big deal?

Obviously, that is what I have to do. But after a while, one tires of seeing three caches on the first nearest to find page that won't come off.

I hunt everything: 1-1s, virts, multis, 5-5s, etc. I am unable to hunt these and it has nothing to do with caching. That is frustrating.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

38.2k · July 25, 2003

quote:
I hunt everything: 1-1s, virts, multis, 5-5s, etc. I am unable to hunt these and it has nothing to do with caching. That is frustrating.

Perhaps you can borrow a cell phone, or go with another geocacher who has one.

I have the same problem with virtuals that require a photo for verification. Since I don't have a digital camera, it's hard for me to log these caches. But what does a camera have to do with geocaching? I found the cache with my GPS. Why do I have to supply a photo? I'm sure there is something else I can use to verify that I found it.

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

July 25, 2003

quote:
I cannot scan the forums looking for threads like this; you need to respond to me (or the admin who notifies you of an issue) to continue the discussion. Also, the admins typically do not jump into cache approval discussions or take action out of context; we don't always know the details of foregoing discussions, original cache coordinates, etc.

Again, I was not looking to bring the discussion about this particular cache to the forums, this thread started simply looking for successful ways on getting my cache approved.

quote:
I'd like to thank erik for the heads-up. And I look forward to hearing _directly_ from you.

I have sent you another email. Thus far it hasn't been responded to. But I'm patient, and that wasn't the point of this thread.

quote:
I now see that the coordinates on the cache page have been changed to place the web cam in Sebago Lake instead of on the golf course. I'm not sure the geocachers seeking your cache would find that particularly helpful.

Actually, the geocachers who hunted that webcam, if any ever do, probably would find that location helpful. It's very close to the site of the cam, and if you actually went to those coordinates, you'd probably be way off in the distance on the cam picture. The trick would be to find the shoreline with the cam, and capture a closer up shot.

Pan

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

July 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I have the same problem with virtuals that require a photo for verification. Since I don't have a digital camera, it's hard for me to log these caches. But what does a camera have to do with geocaching? I found the cache with my GPS. Why do I have to supply a photo? I'm sure there is something else I can use to verify that I found it.

generally there are only two reasons why. either a) the person didn't look hard enough for something useable as verification, or the item could easily be figured out via the net, and the answer as well, making it easy to be faked, or C) there really is nothing at all useable.

I can think of two virts I did that fall into these catagories. Drive on the Parkway is a posrterchild for "driveby" as you can't stop and there is nothing around to use. i eventually asked for the clearances on the next 3 bridge overpasses. then with a piece of history, which was white manna (now archived) I didnt want to force people to inside so i asked for info on a nearby business, but that was fraught with problems too. neither really made for a good virt which is why i archived them.

we could just use the honor system but somehow that doesnt sound like a good idea.

william

An arundo donax is a reed, often confused with bamboo which is used in the making of musical instruments. In others words it lets hot air create a lot of noise. Who knew?

6.4k · July 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:
Obviously, that is what I have to do. But after a while, one tires of seeing three caches on the first nearest to find page that won't come off.

I hunt everything: 1-1s, virts, multis, 5-5s, etc. I am unable to hunt these and it has nothing to do with caching. That is frustrating.

Fro.

Fro, check out Cam Grabber. It's old, but it works, and it's free. Lets your home computer grab a webcam image every x seconds/minutes, timestamp it and save it to the hard drive. Jusat note the time when you hit the camcache, then go home and check for the image.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

1.3k · July 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

quote:
Originally posted by Pantalaimon:
However, even if it doesn't, does that fact that _you_ don't want to use a cell phone to ask someone to capture the screen shot of you at the webcam mean the cache shouldn't be approved? You can please some of the people all of the time... etc.

A couple of things . . . it's not that I do not want to use a cellphone. I have no cellphone. I cannot justify the expense.

How can I ask someone to capture an image w/o it? Are you willing to sit behind a system ready to save an image if I tell you I'll be there?

Thirdly, I believe I made it clear, but if I didn't, my rant is not about your webcam in particular, but about all webcam caches that require assistance.

The problem is not that I won't seek your cache . . . it is that I cannot seek this cache. Where I live, that means I have three caches on my nearest to find list that I cannot seek, whether or not I want to. It's akin to having MO caches nearby for those who do not financially support the site.

Based on how this site has operated, your cache can be approved (although later posts indicate different issues). My suggestion is that no webcams that have to be logged in this manner should be approved. That, most certainly, is a different issue than what you brought to the table. I also recognize that adds another level of rules and that is not particularly pleasing to me either. And I suppose one can argue that a scuba cache would exclude others who are not certified, etc. I admit that I am in the minority. I admit that it is unlikely many will agree. I just think that to place a cache that excludes some from even attempting it is a poor choice.

Fro.

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

I think this would fall under the five terrain description. A cell phone would be considered special equipment, because it isn't something everyone carries on them. Even if many people do. I don't think a cache should be disapproved because it requires a cellphone to find. I don't currently have one for the same reason, I can't justify the expense. But just because some people potentially couldn't find a cache doesn't mean it isn't worthy of approval. It might not be fair, but nothing in life really is anyway.

July 26, 2003

Pantalaimon is so desperate that he started another Thread

on this same matter. Not only that but it looks like he is creating fake accounts to have someone that agrees with him. Ha Ha, this guy is too funny.

---------------------------------------------------------

Pardon me Sir, but there is a Wild GeoCache in this area.

www.neurocache.com - NeuroNomad & Sublonde's Page

Cache on Hold - Best Argument in Support of Approval

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

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