Jump to content

Difficulty With Virtual Cache Approval! (Would like your opinion)


lexxor
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I recently tried to approve a virtual cache in Southwest Louisiana. I am not much for seeking out virtual caches but this one is very unique! It is a 1,000 year old Buddha statue that was transported from China to America in 1936. It rest in a temple among the Spanish moss and Bamboo trees. The Site hosts a wide variety of wildlife including alligators. I wish I could include tha photos I included on the cache page. The person approving the site, Key9, did not think it was worthy of posting. Key9 thought I should take it to the forum for concensus. I would like your opinion.

 

Inscription on the temple:

 

Peacefully ! Rest

Upon This Lagoon’s Bank

As Pale Green Bamboos

Sway Above My Throne.

Clouds Of Blossoms

Soften The Sifted Light

Falling Golden And Misty

Through The Boughs Above.

Long Days Of Travel

Brought Me From My Home.

Yet I Have Known

No Hour Of Calmer Rest.

My Thoughts Are Like

The Swaying Bamboos’ Crest

Waved To And Fro

Above The Rippling Stream.

Clear And Blue

As From A Glorious Dream.

 

E.A McIlhenny

 

[This message was edited by Lexxor on March 12, 2003 at 06:34 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by Lexxor on March 12, 2003 at 06:35 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by Lexxor on March 12, 2003 at 06:43 AM.]

Link to comment

Only you and the admins can see that page.

Could you please post the description and location here, and tell us why the admin didn't thint it was worthy? Then we can offer an opinion.

 

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

Link to comment

for myself, I don't like to go against the approvers.

 

#1. It is in the best interest of everyone at geocaching.com to get as many caches as possible, although I believe it is possible that some areas are flooded. I do not believe they would not approve something that was done right.

 

#2. I try to never be critical of someone who is providing a service that I cannot of would not do myself. Especially if that service is FREE!

 

#3. Did the dis-approval indicate WHY it was not approved? If so, is it something you can correct? Seems to me the easiest way to get approval is to do whatever it takes to make it acceptable. I have had one cache questioned. But once I explained it fully, it was approved. I have no beef with the approvers trying to keep quality over qunatity.

 

#4. I don't know you, I don't know your disapprover, I don't know your situation. And I don't have a horse in this race. So YMMV, but since you asked, and I cannot see your cache, I thought I would throw out the above info for your consideration. It is worth what you make of it.

 

Hope it works out well for all concerned.

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Desert_Warrior:

for myself, I don't like to go against the approvers.

 

#1. It is in the best interest of everyone at geocaching.com to get as many caches as possible, although I believe it is possible that some areas are flooded. I do not believe they would not approve something that was done right.

 

#2. I try to never be critical of someone who is providing a service that I cannot or would not do myself. Especially if that service is FREE!

 

#3. Did the dis-approval indicate WHY it was not approved? If so, is it something you can correct? Seems to me the easiest way to get approval is to do whatever it takes to make it acceptable. I have had one cache questioned. But once I explained it fully, it was approved. I have no beef with the approvers trying to keep quality over quantity.

 

#4. I don't know you, I don't know your disapprover, I don't know your situation. And I don't have a horse in this race. So YMMV, but since you asked, and I cannot see your cache, I thought I would throw out the above info for your consideration. It is worth what you make of it.

 

Hope it works out well for all concerned.

 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!


 

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

 

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

 

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

Link to comment

quote:
Found this to be a very interesting story and place. Hope you do to! There is an admission fee but it is worth it.

 

Here are the questions you will need to answer to get credit for finding this cache.

 

1. Describe the statue here.

2. How old is the statue?

 

Please e-mail me the answers.


Doesn't seem to be much to go on. From the map, there seems to be a lot of area to hide a traditional cache around and make a multi out of it.

 

Mapquest Map -- zoom in as needed

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:

Found this to be a very interesting story and place. Hope you do to! There is an admission fee but it is worth it.

 

Here are the questions you will need to answer to get credit for finding this cache.

 

1. Describe the statue here.

2. How old is the statue?

 

Please e-mail me the answers

Doesn't seem to be much to go on. From the map, there seems to be a lot of area to hide a traditional cache around and make a multi out of it.


 

You and your admin superpowers, Mtn-man!

OK, Now I see the problem.

I've never been there, but just going on what mtn-man posted, I can answer your questions about the 900yr old Avery Island Budda.

avisbuddha.jpg

Took me 10 seconds to find online. You need to make it harder for people to cheat first off. I also seem to remember something about another cache in that area too, since when I looked it up it seemed very familiar to me.

 

So, to answer the original question, in its current form (the description Mtn-man posted) I vote no it should not be approved.

 

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

Link to comment

Look around for a area that can not be described on the web. Find some numbers or letters and give a inverse compass bearing to object and post that as part of your question to prove that some one has found it.

Then you can use those numbers and maybe some more to come up with some clues and give only partial coordinates to a traditional cache.

That way you would have 2 caches close to each other thus 2 finds for the hunter.

 

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

Link to comment

I searched the forums and came up with this thread from last summer. The fact that it's privately owned sanctuary might make it hard to get permission to place a physical cache there. A vitual sounds good for this spot, but like I said it needs work.

 

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

Link to comment

I don't mind it at all. And, I agree - the fact that it's located in a sanctuary means no physical cache possibility.

 

As for its historical and artistic value, I give it a thumbs up for a virtual.

 

Just be sure to make the proof-of-visit something that can't be found on the web.

 

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

burnout.gif Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:

So long as you HAVE to get there to log it...

I don't mind it at all. And, I agree - the fact that it's located in a sanctuary means no physical cache possibility.

 

As for its historical and artistic value, I give it a thumbs up for a virtual.

 

Just be sure to make the proof-of-visit something that can't be found on the web.


In case anyone is confused, I agree totally with VF here. If the cache is changed to reflect the actual admission price ($6 person?) and a form of verification that can not be found online, I think it is indeed worthy of being a virtual.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

I was going to post something, then I realized that I'd be agreeing with Mopar, so I didn't. icon_wink.gif


Dontcha just hate when that happens? icon_biggrin.gif

 

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

Link to comment

Here is the cache page.

 

Some of my reasons for non-approval are:

$6 to log a virtual?

In a city as old as New Orleans, does a 100 year old statue stand out?

Its an easy Internet find

 

I doubt sometimes whether a quiet and unagited life would have suited me - yet I sometimes long for it.

Byron

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

Link to comment

It should also be noted that private sanctuaries (such as the Japanese Gardens here in Seattle) who charge admission are considered commercial. Public lands that charge admission are acceptable since the money goes directly into the parks, while many sanctuaries pocket profits.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by 9Key:

Here is the http://www.9key.com/Tao_of_Louisiana_by_lexxor.htm.

 

Some of my reasons for non-approval are:

 

+ $6 to log a virtual?

+ In a city as old as New Orleans, does a 100 year old statue stand out?

+ Its an easy Internet find


$6 to log a virtual, no. $6 to visit a wildlife sanctuary, a park, the first tabasco sauce factory, and a 1000 year old Bhuddist Temple? Sound like a bargain to me. Using your logic, I spent several thousand $$ to log a few virtuals in Disneyworld.

It looks like it's on Avery Island, not actually in New Orleans, and it's close to 1000 years old, not 100, so yeah, after reading about it online, the statue (and temple) DO stand out in my opinion.

THATS the killer. Found it online in under 30 seconds. Saw the mapquest link placed it on Avery Island. Searched for Avery Island + statue and found tons of pages that contained the answers needed to log it. Fix that part, and maybe include some background about the site, and I think it would be a fine virtual.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

It should also be noted that private sanctuaries (such as the Japanese Gardens here in Seattle) who charge admission are considered commercial. Public lands that charge admission are acceptable since the money goes directly into the parks, while many sanctuaries pocket profits.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location


 

Ok, I gotta ask. If this is being flagged as commercial, how did DISNEYWORLD slip by?

 

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you.

Link to comment

I'm I the only one who feels that virtuals are getting a little out of control?

 

I really think that waypoint.org could spur their growth by allowing users to log finds on the listed waypoints. Then those people who want to hide and log points of interest could do so there and leave Geocaching.com for cache listings.

 

I don't mind virtuals that involve a hunt, but most are just sightseeing excursions. Not that there is anything wrong with that; I just don't personally feel that it is what geocaching is all about.

Link to comment

The Disneyland caches are among the coolest I have done. My first attempt at geocaching was for a traditional hidden inside the magic kingdom. It has since gone missing. But one I did later, "Phone Home", is still there and getting hits all the time. Everyone who logs it remarks about how cool it is and how stealthy you have to be and how much they feel like a secret agent while logging this one right under the noses of thousands of people.

Again, I understand that there is no way to stretch the definition of commercial to exclude this type of cache, but I hold a special place in my heart for the Disney caches, and wish that they had some sort of exception. As an annual passholder with two kids, we are there almost every week and caches like this really make for a great way to add to the experience.

 

stealyourcache.gif Ever notice that anyone that caches less than you do is a moron, while anyone that caches more than you do is a maniac? -Dru Morgan

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by 9Key:

Some of my reasons for non-approval are:

+ $6 to log a virtual?


To log http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=35799

one must first pay a $7 parking fee then $12.50 for the tour to get you where you need to be. Granted, you could park a good deal away from this most likely for free, but it is Camden. Camden is where the federal courthouse is. When called for jury duty, the employees at the courthouse instruct you that parking in Camden is unwise.

 

No one has to hunt this one. It is a virtual. It was approved several months ago, so I guess it will be considered grandfathered.

 

If the guideline for approving virtuals has changed to consider the fee, then this is another example of it being confusing for those who hide to know what the current interpretations are.

 

I know nothing of the cache that was proposed to start this thread, but the size of the fee is the first I have heard that would disapprove a cache.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

I have searched for a cache that was in a pay for parking situation. I parked outside and walked.

 

The cache was missing, (duh, it is a tourist trap) but it was a cool spot and I was glad I found the spot and didn't have to pay for the experience.

 

They actually had a parking lot outside the toll booth. I guess they were only charging for the 900 meter drive.

 

I support the decision of the non-approver.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

All I want to know is, why, when I use the above link to access the archived page, am I given the options to edit, delete or permanently encrypt 9Key's log?


 

It's a copy of the webpage hosted on 9key.com, not the real thing. Clicking one of the buttons, just tosses you back at geocaching.com. (I had to try) icon_smile.gif

 

In all honesty, $6 entry for the park (I called today for updated rates but they closed at 5PM) is a steal *if* you're going to visit the park. $6 to drive-by a virtual is pretty steep, but that's up to the seeker whether it's worth it or not.

 

...

alex

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by alexm:

 

It's a copy of the webpage hosted on 9key.com, not the real thing. Clicking one of the buttons, just tosses you back at geocaching.com. (I had to try) icon_smile.gif


 

Yes; I should have looked at the properties of that link ... thanks to the several of you who pointed out the reason to me, publicly and privately.

Link to comment

I don't want to stir things up worse than they may be, but I think I have something to contribute. At first glance, I was in favor of this cache, but the $6.00 makes me say thumbs down and here's why...

 

Let's say I own a movie theatre, and I wanted to make it a virtual. After every movie I show, I'll spool a special 60 second reel of really neato footage from the first moon landing. To log the cache, you need to email me the answer to some question about the special film reel. This is a great way for me to sell a lot more tickets - Woo hoo! icon_biggrin.gif I think we can all agree this is not the kind of cache we want, and I'll proceed under that assumption....

 

The exact same arguments that I've heard to defend the Buddha cache and a couple of other caches could be used to defend my virtual movie theatre cache. For example:

 

1. It's up to you as to whether you find this cache... No one is forcing you to pay $6.00 for a movie ticket.

 

2. Lots and lots of people normally go to my theatre at least once a month anyway, and it won't cost them any extra to log it. All they have to do is sit through the credits at the end and watch the special reel on their next visit.

 

3. Other commercial caches are out there. If you don't approve my movie theatre cache, this is an inconsistent ruling.

 

4. $6.00 is a bargain to escape the stress of your every-day life and live out your dreams while sharing your experience with your closest friends in my plushly appointed movie theatre.

 

There may be other reasons, but I think I got the highlights. So...... why aren't these reasons good enough?

 

1. Of course you're not forced to find any cache, but that doesn't mean there can't be some guidelines and standards for approving caches.

 

2. Well that's fine for those cachers, but what about the rest of the cachers?

 

3. This reason is beaten to death with the infamous Yellow Jeep locationless. It's been posted elsewhere that some caches were approved before certain rules were made and thus they're grandfathered. In other cases, it's been admitted that the approvers are a limited resource and some caches simply slip through - that doesn't mean it was OK, just that a mistake was made. You can't simply discard the guidelines just because the system is imperfect.

 

4. It may be a bargain, but it's still commercial.

 

I guess the bottom line is if the rules regarding commercial caches are disregarded, what is to stop every creative business (like my movie theatre) from flooding Geocaching.com with thousands of new virtual caches every day. Perhaps my 60 second movie reel isn't quite "coffee table book" enough, but I'm sure I could come up with a piece of unique movie memorabilia in a display case or some such thing. Don't get me wrong, I really really like the Buddha idea, but how can you draw the line between that and my slimey movie theatre?

 

Scott

 

ICQ: 5563417

Link to comment

I sure don't envy Jeremy when it comes to the topic of "commercial Caches".

It's hard to come up with a simple rule to follow. I don't think many of us want to see Walmart sponsoring caches in the garden section, but how many caches are %100 devoid of any commercialism? Is it really any different if its a virtual of a piece of art in a major city? Sure, the "cache" is free, but I either have to drive around for 90 minutes looking for a metered parking spot, or pay the guy with the parking garage $10. Either way, someone got my money. Where do you draw the line? Jeremy mentioned that no more caches will be approved on Disney property because they are commercial. Disney owns probably 100 square miles of Central Florida. I just did a GREAT cache in a FREE park that is on Disney property. Is that more commercial then paying $1.25 to log an altoids cache in a newspaper box? Many parks require a use or parking fee, some rather high, in my opinion. Is that really different then the ultra cool micro cache hidden in Epcot? Have any of the 60 or so people that have found that cache really payed $100 to enter the park, just for that cache? I didn't go to Disney thinking "dadgum, I have to get those caches, but its gonna cost me $1000 to get them!" No, I though, "Hey, here I am on vacation, how cool is it that I can actually do some geocaches without renting a car while I'm here?". Did Disney make $1 more last year because of geocaching? I doubt it, so how is it more commercial then the watershed that charges me $12 for a hiking permit?

I don't know how to come up with a hard and fast rule for the approvers to follow, I just know that a cache that requires me to find out what a #3 combo meal is feels commercial even if its free, but a cache hidden on Tom Sawyer's Island in Disney doesn't. I wish I had some way of putting that feeling into a "rule", but I can't. I hope Jeremy can find a way, cause I would really hate to see an end to some of the very creative caches that might now be considered commercial.

 

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

Link to comment

I'm pretty upset that there are so many people demanding that there be a hard-and-fast set of "rules" for geocaches. The word guidelines, as chosen by Jeremy et al. is a good one; we need those, not rules.

 

Rules keep any caches from being placed in Disney World. That is bad. Guidelines allow those to exist, because we all know DW is a special place.

 

Rules make caches within 150 feet of active railroad tracks automatically rejected. Guidelines mean that if there is a park there with a fence, the cache may well be OK.

 

I strongly urge the admins and approvers to resist the pressure to generate inflexible rules for geocaching placement, because those could ruin the sport!

 

On the other hand, I get just as annoyed by people who think that the guidelines shouldn't apply to them because they are so "creative". Give me a break! Most of the so-called "creative" ideas I've seen bandied about are (a) not original, and (:) lame. True creativity is about working within guidelines to do something entirely original.

 

So, at the same time, I strongly urge the admins and approvers to resist the pressure to make exceptions to the guidelines for lame caches, because those would ruin the sport, too.

 

I'm glad I'm not an approver, and I am very grateful to those who are. Their jobs aren't getting any easier, and they have to take way too much flak.

 

Well, I, for one, think they are doing a superb job. But please let a few caches in Disney World/Land, please? icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

...Is that really different then the ultra cool micro cache hidden in Epcot? Have any of the 60 or so people that have found that cache really payed $100 to enter the park, just for that cache? I didn't go to Disney thinking "dadgum, I have to get those caches, but its gonna cost me $1000 to get them!" No, I though, "Hey, here I am on vacation, how cool is it that I can actually do some geocaches without renting a car while I'm here?". Did Disney make $1 more last year because of geocaching? I doubt it, so how is it more commercial then the watershed that charges me $12 for a hiking permit?


Got to agree with this. I came to Florida from the UK in December with my daughter. The EPCOT micro is a true classic. Did I pay $1000 to find it. NO! We were going there anyway. Our choice.

 

Two months later I was in LA with my wife. We didn't do the caches in Disneyland because it wasn't in the plan to go there. Found plenty of other caches in the area to do anyway. Our choice.

 

What seems to be removed with the "commercial cache" guidlines is CHOICE. No one forces anyone to hunt any particular cache.

 

I'd like to see commercialism redfined as the placing of a cache that benefits the cache owner financially. Not the owner of the place that the cache had been placed. So the guy with the movie theatre would be wrong to place a cache that benefits HIS buisness, but caches on Disney property should not be viewed in the same way.

 

Just my view form the other side of the pond.

 

Alex.

Link to comment

You could then mark all current commercial caches like that and approve commercial (looking) caches.

 

And Jeremy could only approve commercial caches from members, or make a rule that any truely commercial cache also creates a nice rebate for GPS showing groups. So, if you want to have a commercial cache in your movie cinema that will be fine but you have to give everyone that shows up with a GPS or uses the word "geocaching" a 20% rebate on admission. Every time, always. Or, donate 20% of the admission fee to geocaching.com for every log. Also: admission fees should be made very clear upfront.

 

Ofcourse, no one is forced to log those caches.

 

--

Robert Elsinga =8-)

geocaching (at) elsinga.org

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Slytherin:

I'd like to see commercialism redfined as the placing of a cache that benefits the cache owner financially. Not the owner of the place that the cache had been placed. So the guy with the movie theatre would be wrong to place a cache that benefits HIS buisness, but caches on Disney property should not be viewed in the same way.


 

Do you really think people would be that honest when they submit their caches? Sure, it would be obvious in some situations, not so obvious in other situations. Say I own an Applebees (an American restaurant chain where the walls inside are covered in various items screwed to the wall). I post my virtual cache "Go to the Applebees restaurant at such and such coordinates and identify the such and such object above the bar. You don't even have to buy anything." It's still a blatent advertisement for my restaurant, and I could always lie and say something like "No, I don't own that Applebees and I'm not the manager, but I eat lunch there from time to time and I noticed this really unique whatsit behind the bar." Telling a lie is easy from a keyboard. icon_biggrin.gif

 

ICQ: 5563417

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:

I'm pretty upset that there are so many people demanding that there be a hard-and-fast set of "rules" for geocaches. The word _guidelines,_ as chosen by Jeremy _et al._ is a good one; we need those, not rules.


 

Guidelines

FM is right about "rules" versus "guidelines." I've been one of those ones advocating "rules." A much better term, and way to look at it, is "guidelines." You don't want to be so inflexible that you deny a cache because some trivial part of a rule forbids it even if the reason for the rule doesn't apply in this case.

 

I still remain firm on clear and concise guidelines so people will have a good idea of what to expect. I feel a guideline should be followed unless the placer has a good reason why it shouldn't apply in his case. Placer doesn't want to put a log? Then show why he can't. Just because he doesn't want to shouldn't be a reason to go against the guidelines.

 

Commercial Caches

Personally, I don't have a problem with commercial caches, but GC.com needs to get their due. GC.com is commercial by nature and if someone places a cache that takes them inside an Applebee's then that's okay if GC.com gets something for the advertising. If it weren't for some sort of guideline for commercial caches every Tom, Disk, and Harry would throw together a cache and put it behind the counter. Then were would the quality of cache database be?

 

Now, if Tom wanted to sponsor a cache that required someone to go to their place of business to get final coordinates to a cache--as long as they didn't charge the cacher any fee for simply requesting it--then I'd be for that, as long as GC.com got a fee to place it. (I understand you wouldn't be able to hunt it 24/7, but if the guy is going to pay, then he gets to say you have to come during business hours.)

 

As for guidelines to determine if the cache is commercial in nature, it shouldn't be too hard write down some questions that could determine if a cache is commercial in nature.

 

Is the cache, or clues to a cache,...

 

within the bounds of a business that is not:

in the business of preserving history or heritage.

in the business of perserving nature.

in the business of providing outdoor activities.

not-for-profit.

not soliciting funds.

in a area that a fee must be paid to access it, unless it's government maintained.

 

That's just for starters and just my idea of a commercial cache. I'm sure someone else could come up with something better.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

As for guidelines to determine if the cache is commercial in nature, it shouldn't be too hard write down some questions that could determine if a cache is commercial in nature.

 

Is the cache, or clues to a cache,...

 

+ within the bounds of a business that is not:

+ in the business of preserving history or heritage.

+ in the business of perserving nature.

+ in the business of providing outdoor activities.

+ not-for-profit.

+ not soliciting funds.

+ in a area that a fee must be paid to access it, unless it's government maintained.

 

That's just for starters and just my idea of a commercial cache. I'm sure someone else could come up with something better.

 


 

Nice first attempt, CR, but it doesn't work, in my eyes. Using the above, both the Disney caches and a cache placed at a private wildlife sanctuary (to pull this back on topic slightly!) would both be declined, yet a cache placed in free public parks but loaded with demo CDs and adverts for a persons GPS software company (Slytherin knows about this, I think) would be approved.

I'm sorry, but I have done all the Disneyworld caches, and some of them were among my all time fave caches, and none of them felt commercial. Placing a slew of caches to advertise your software does feel commercial, even if it's in a free park.

 

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

Link to comment

...but for the virtual cache idea specifically, I have a suggestion. I had come across something similar with an inspirational poem that I thought folks would enjoy. Instead of making it a virtual, I used the poem as clues to finding a TRADITIONAL cache. Here's the example: Harm Me Not Cache.

 

I've only placed one virtual and am currently reconsidering how I could make it into a traditional cache (since I much prefer actually having a cache at the end of the search to find). I'm finding the virtual cache idea tends to get overused and many of the caches are a bit lame - this way, you get to bring seekers to the "cool spot" you were going to use as a virtual, but there's still a physical cache nearby to actually find.

 

Of course, this wouldn't work in all places, but if there's a nearby spot to stash a physical cache (even a micro) - this might address the virtual approval issue.

 

That said, ice cream comes in many flavors so I'm sure there are folks who much prefer virts to traditionals, but I figured I'd toss in a suggestion.

 

[This message was edited by HartClimbs on March 13, 2003 at 07:03 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

Disneyworld is also commercial.

They are no longer approved if they are listed.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location


 

Ok, not to be a whiner (ok, maybe whine a little!) but while searching for a different cache, I noticed a new cache on Disneyworld property approved just a few days ago. OK, I'm just a troublemaker. icon_biggrin.gif

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

Nice first attempt, CR, but it doesn't work...


 

Yeah, I concede it's got a lot of holes.

 

The major problem I have with it is the fact that a cache within Disney is considered commercial. The more I think about the more I have trouble with that one.

 

First, no one is going to pay that kind of money to grab a cache.

 

Second, while it's been better than 20 years since I've been to either, I have a hard time equating a cache hidden somewhere in the Magic Kingdon with one behind the counter at Bubba's Tackle.

 

What about those excellent parks that are owned by something other than the government? There are a couple near here that are excellent, one is owned and run by a utility and the other is private. (The private one was used to film parts of The Patriot with Mel Gibson.) Really, except for scale, niether is much different than Disney.

 

From what I remember of Disney is it feels more like an urban area than a business per se. There are huge expanses of places to walk around and things to see. You get to pay once for all of the rides you can stand. This would be versus having to pay for each ride. In an urban area, micros are hidden outside businesses and are not considered commercial. To me Disney would be considered an urban area and the rides are the businesses.

 

(An a side note: with the talents of those that work at Disney can you imagine the craftsmanship and quality of a cache if they so choose to place some?)

 

I kind of think what makes a commercial caches is the solicitations, either within the cache itself, or it's location.

 

Are park-sanctioned caches going to the be considered commercial? They pretty much will be a draw to get people in just like everything else they have, or is it considered just another service offered?

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

The cache in question smells commercial, but there are other reasons why it shouldn't be approved. It is too close to an existing cache, and it can be "found" on the internet. It seems a bit lame. (IMHO)

 

As for commercial issues, I understand Sissy-N-CR's thinking, however once you allow one thing, it's a slippery slope towards a junky website! Geocaching.com has done a reasonably good job at keeping a quality set of caches. If you allow caches in Disney areas, something else will pop up. Eventually there will be "Bob's outdoor store".

 

I am all for creativity in caches. (Look at mine...) BUT there is plenty of room to be creative without pushing the boundaries of an acceptable cache.

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...