VirtualCacheApproval

April 22, 2003

I recently submitted a new virtual cache (GCFEE5) for approval in the District of Columbia which was archived undeservedly, IMHO.

One factor was my residency, in that I do not live in DC, and of course, there is a rule against placing caches while on vacation. I live in Atlanta but geocache in DC often (4-5x year) Washinton is my original home and where the rest of my family lives. Is this not a gray area of that guideline?

Closer to the point, I'm not on "vacation" to some place I'd probably never return to do proper cache maintenence. And the fact is, that this is a virtual cache we're talking about, where maintenence is mostly internet bound, keeping the virtual cache's web page and responding to inquiries.

Although the District area does have a high virtual geocache count, the next closest geocache is .4mi away.

The site itself is one that should be of great import to geocachers especially - National Geographic's Explorer Hall.

I've tried to make the cache hunt interesting and challenging with that special geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.

Clearly, a physical geocache would be inappropriate at this location, as would be neglecting to encourage all geocachers to visit this historic and educational place.

I've posted the details of the cache in the forums to see what our user base thinks.

Personally, of course, I'd like to have this cache approved and added to the impressive ranks of virtual geocaches in our nation's capitol. What do you think? -JB

[This message was edited by jbzhow on April 22, 2003 at 04:26 PM.]

April 22, 2003

The closest geocache is .04mi away? That's only about 210ft. That's probably why it was archived.

See this...

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp

#4 under Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines. You should email the person who denied it and explain to them why it should be approved.

38.2k · April 22, 2003

Ok, they turned it down. Now move on.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

April 22, 2003

Sorry, that should be closest cache .4mi away...

The particular administrator that archived this virtual suggested I use these forums to get other geocachers opinions.

A worthy and compelling geocache, yea? or nay?

Thanks!-JB

5.3k · April 22, 2003

OK, you have told us what the site is, but what are you using for varification? I have read many of these appeals where the information for varification can be found without going to the site - a simple Internet search will turn it up. Was that the case?

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

April 22, 2003

The verification questions are such that you must have visited the site to answer correctly.

quote:
Ok, they turned it down. Now move on.

I'll do it happily if that's the general consensus.

For the amount of time spent creating this cache I kinda figured I might have trouble getting approval, so I'll accept that too, and keep on caching on.

April 22, 2003

.. but I still think it's a cool geocache, and is deserving of approval!

9.4k · April 22, 2003

You'd need to post the details here. We can't view the page.

April 22, 2003

High Society

[Click to temporarily disable]

by JBzHOW [profile]

This cache has not been approved yet. Once it is approved, it will be listed on the site.

N 38° 54.310 W 077° 02.299 (WGS84)

UTM: 18S E 323255 N 4308228

or convert to NAD27 at Jeeep.com

also download nearest placenames.

Need help? Read about EasyGPS

In District of Columbia, United States [state map]

Hidden: 4/21/2003

Use waypoint: GCFEE5 (what's this?)

Make this page print-friendly (no logs)

Note:To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer.

(ratings out of 5 stars. 1 is easiest, 5 is hardest)

Difficulty: Terrain:

Even with the high density of virtual geocaches in this district, there's one location that shouldn't be overlooked by geocachers especially!

Answers to three simple questions can be found by doing a little homework and visiting the above coordinates-

1.) What instrument was used in 1999 to measure the land feature found at;

N27 59.169

E086 55.826 ?

2.) What material was used for the life-sized sculpture ouside the main entrance?

3.) In which direction does that sculpture face?

Email your answers via our profile link above, and please DO NOT include them in any encrypted or unencrypted logs on this page.

Explore your world!!

Additional Hints (Decrypt) Decryption Key

A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|M

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

N|O|P|Q|R|S|T|U|V|W|X|Y|Z

(letter above equals below,

and vice versa)

Fvapr 1888, sbe gur vapernfr naq qvsshfvba bs trbtencuvp xabjyrqtr bs rnegu, frn, naq fxl

April 22, 2003

Very few virtuals are being approved.

3.1k · April 22, 2003

Why just move on Brian? Aren't we supposed to bring questionable caches to the forums to get opinions?

I know they are discouraging virtuals unless it's a special extremly interesting location. Of course it's silly to deny a tourist cache that is a virtual. The idea of no tourist caches is the fear you won't maintain it.

This location seems interesting enough and now that you've cut and pasted it I believe it should qualify.

I have placed two tourist caches. I go to this area all the time and I also have friends in the area that will check on a cache whenever a concern arises. In fact they check on them whenever they take a hike.

I wonder who checks on Jeremy's tourist cache in hawaii????

Or is that topic off limits?

Don't hate me cause I'm beautiful

38.2k · April 22, 2003

There used to be a "should this cache be approved ? forum". I forget its exact name. Perhaps it should be brought back.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

38.2k · April 22, 2003

quote:
I wonder who checks on Jeremy's tourist cache in hawaii????

I believe that was placed before the rules were tightened, so it's grandfathered like everyone else's. If Jeremy were to place a tourist cache after the rules were put in place, you might have a topic for discussion.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

1.4k · April 22, 2003

Did the approver give a specific reason why it wasn't approved?

There are 25 caches within 1.2 miles of these coordinates. All but 2 are virtuals. Does Washington DC really need another virtual?

What is there about this cache that makes it truly novel, especially in the sea of unique sites around DC?

Why can't you make it a micro or a multicache?

Yes, it seems to minimally meet the letter of the posted guidelines. I'm not sure it meets the spirit of the guidelines, especially the "must be novel" criteria.

1.2k · April 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
Why just move on Brian? Aren't we supposed to bring questionable caches to the forums to get opinions?

I know they are discouraging virtuals unless it's a special extremly interesting location. Of course it's silly to deny a tourist cache that is a virtual. The idea of no tourist caches is the fear you won't maintain it.

This location seems interesting enough and now that you've cut and pasted it I believe it should qualify.

Hooookay.... I agree with the above. I'm at the point of asking if we ought to just ban any further virtuals altogether, or, quit with the lame denials of legitimate virtual caches. We are not talking here about a "historical marker" out in the middle of nowhere that is really of no great significance except to the person who thinks its "neat". This is not a fire hydrant in front of someone's old house they feel sentimental about (look it up, there was one...sheesh). If someone takes the time to do a well thought out virtual cache and the confirmation requirements are reasonable, then approve it for crying out loud.

Cachers are being alienated by what "appears" to be an unreasonable policy toward virtual caches. We've already had a crackdown on locationless, I conceed the point about them, they have a tendency to get way out of hand, but the treatment of virtuals lately seems to be willy-nilly and depend greatly on who the approver is, rather than the rules.

Consistency should be insisted on, by all.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

1.4k · April 22, 2003

One of our local cachers just got back from DC. I think he logged 25 caches in a few hours.

The area may be saturated with caches. I understand that our nations capitol has many wonderful sites. But they all don't have to be caches do they?

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

April 22, 2003

The relevance to geocaching of this particular site screams geocache to me.

3.5k · April 22, 2003

I agree with both Web-Ling and Harrald.

Not every statue and old building in DC needs to be a virtual.

The density issue certainly comes into play here as well.

Next time you're in DC take along a couple of those magnetic key-hides with a little log book in them. I bet you'll find a unique place to stash one or two.

As a heads up to my fellow Texas cachers, the downtown areas of both Austin and Fort Worth are full.

[This message was edited by 9Key on April 22, 2003 at 09:59 PM.]

April 22, 2003

Are the coordinates in your post correct?

Just remember. Getting there is half the fun...

April 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
...but the treatment of virtuals lately seems to be willy-nilly and depend greatly on who the approver is, rather than the rules.

Consistency should be insisted on, by all.

I didn't understand all of the complaints about how difficult it is to get a virt approved until we tried to get one approved ourselves several weeks ago. Ours was a potential level 5 difficulty because it required a 4x4 to reach it. It was in a gorgeous country road that crossed a creek 4 times. On either side of the road was private "research forest" with no trespassing signs (it is a public road though).

Our log didn't mention that the spot we chose was some kind of nesting area for butterflies, we saw hundreds. Not sure how LONG they are there, maybe it's only 2 weeks a year, so we left that out so as not to disappoint. There is also a house with a pet deer on the way in. The deer grazes in the front yard and wears a dog collar. Didn't mention that because I was worried some ne'er-do-well would seek it out to hurt it or something.

Anyway, since my husband accidently found the area, we have returned many times and brought appreciative friends out as well. No other caches nearby for many miles. It was rejected because it wasn't "coffee table book interesting."

As of yet, we haven't figured out a way to make it a multi so we may end up scraping it. Here's some pictures we took there:

Pictures

Anyhoo, after this experience, I won't try to place another virt. It's too time consuming with little chance of approval IMHO. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. None of you will be able to wade in the creek with us, but there's plenty of other things you could be doing

April 23, 2003

I agree that DC is too litered with virtual caches. From the description it sounds as if it's one that can be done in 5 min. I've only done a few virtuals and all of them could have held a regular cache, and I couldn't see anything amazing or out of the ordinary to them. However having said that, there are some in my area I haven't visited as a cacher yet, but I have been too before and are virtual worhty. In my opinion if your going to do a virtual, make me go out of the way for it, and make it knock my socks off.

On a side note, Dread Pirate Roberts', your virtual you attempted I would have loved. I plan on buying a Rubicon soon, how have you liked yours so far?

April 23, 2003

quote:
On a side note, Dread Pirate Roberts', your virtual you attempted I would have loved. I plan on buying a Rubicon soon, how have you liked yours so far?

Thanks for saying so

The Rubicon is awesome. It is our 4th Jeep and the best by far. I drive a '01 TJ but the Rubi is my hubby's obsession. I get all his hand-me-downs lol. There's an awesome discussion forum at www.jeepsunlimited.com dedicated solely to Rubi's. I highly recommend you check it out before you buy. Lots of tips on how to handle the dealers and what options are good, etc.

We plan to place a few 4x4 only caches this summer about half way between us and you... Seems to be a LOT of Jeepers and other off-roaders that Geocache.

April 23, 2003

We actually have an ORV/ATV trail that covers 2 state forest, and is absolutely free That I plan on placing cache @. Something like that is so hard to come by it has to be shared.

1.4k · April 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

I know they are discouraging virtuals unless it's a special extremly interesting location. Of course it's silly to deny a tourist cache that is a virtual. The idea of no tourist caches is the fear you won't maintain it.

There are times when a placer of a virtual needs to check on something they used to check for an actual visit.

I also back-up the idea that NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A CACHE! This is another touristy type building. There are already a ton of virts in D.C. for touristy type buildings. You can encourage people to go to it without making a cache out of it.

---Real men cache in shorts.

April 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

There are 25 caches within 1.2 miles of these coordinates. All but 2 are virtuals. Does Washington DC really need another virtual?

What is there about this cache that makes it truly novel, especially in the sea of unique sites around DC?

Why can't you make it a micro or a multicache?

Arguably, there's no need for any more caches anywhere. But I doubt such an position carries much weight here. Why should it do so with virtuals?

Last I heard, much of the core areas of Washington, D.C. are administered by the National Park Service, making physical caches off-limits. That makes the suggestion of a micro unworkable. Then there's the regional security fears that border on paranoia these days; do we really wish to encourage folks to poke around certain areas?

The suggestion to make it a multistage cache is likely to be workable. Are there public areas within a few miles that won't run into the same problems that a micro at the coordinates would?

Ron/yumitori

April 23, 2003

I recently went to the DC area and logged 14 caches, 13 of which were virtual.

I have also logged virtuals around my home.

I like virtuals! I used them this vacation to help make some items interesting to my 11 year old son. 11 year old boys generally do not have a well developed appreciation for history. Geocaching, on the other hand, is fun!

I would do this virtual. I would vote to allow it!

Dave_W6DPS

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

April 23, 2003

Before this thread gets too far off topic. I say, sure it should be approved. It seems like it fulfills all the requirements. No offense, but it does sound like a touristy type place (I've never been there, so I don't know for sure). But I think it follows the letter of the rules if not the entire spirit of the rules. So, I vote yea. And if I ever go to DC and happen to be going to the museum I'll probably go ahead and do it.

5.3k · April 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
There are 25 caches within 1.2 miles of these coordinates. All but 2 are virtuals. Does Washington DC really need another virtual?

Well, the approvers us a 0.1 mile "density" rule...maybe if they concider an area like this too saturated the rule should be changed to a larger distance? Maybe a different distance for virtuals than regular caches.

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

1.2k · April 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Stunod:

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
There are 25 caches within 1.2 miles of these coordinates. All but 2 are virtuals. Does Washington DC really need another virtual?

Well, the approvers us a 0.1 mile "density" rule...maybe if they concider an area like this too saturated the rule should be changed to a larger distance? Maybe a different distance for virtuals than regular caches.

http://208.55.63.109/images/homer.gif

__"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."__

My problem with this "density" rule is that it is not applied to traditional caches. I understand it is still required that each physical cache be at least .01 miles from the next, but there is no requirement that matches the "this area already has plenty of caches" requirement many posting here are applying to virtuals. If any place in the country ought to be able to have a "high density" of any kind of caches, it ought to be Washington, D.C. If you hit the cache and think it's lame, post it when you log the cache. If enough people who actually go to the cache site log it that way then maybe the individual who placed it can be convinced to archive it and make a better effort somewhere else.

Otherwise it's just the opinion of people who mostly don't even plan to go and log the cache in the first place, so what's the problem? If it is not less than .01 miles from the next cache, and it is an interesting site with reasonable log/confirmation requirements that you can only get by going there, then approve it! Whether I think there are too many caches in a particular area does not in any way carry any weight whatsoever, it's just an opinion.

An individual recently placed three or four virtuals in the area around one of mine, none of which are difficult, or even all that interesting in every case, but the motivation behind them was easy access for those too handicapped to hike and log physical cahes for the most part. I understand that, and I concur with the individual who approved them, even though I would not have created them. In other words, to each their own, hunt the caches you like to hunt, and leave the rest of us to do the same.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

April 23, 2003

quote:
The particular administrator that archived this virtual suggested I use these forums to get other geocachers opinions.

A worthy and compelling geocache, yea? or nay?

I say nay . . . for three reasons:

1.) In a city of incredibly cool places the National Geographic building is only sort of cool, IMHO . . . Hardly worth bending the rules for.

2,) Virtuals are lame. I won't hardly do them. (yeah, I know, I've got one but virtuals are still lame)

3.) It's always possible to do something more. Do a Altoids tin micro in the bushes outside the building and you'll get approved, I bet. Better yet, use something in the National Geographic building to lead you somewhere else -- make it a multi. Sakes alive man, use a little imagination. Virtuals are SO cheap . . .

I've been shot down for a virtual and in hindsight saw that the administrator was right. I could just as easily do a micro (which is what I did).

If it's important to you then put some effort into it and devise a clever micro or virtual. If you go to D.C. as often as you say you do you can maintain it. And since you have family there maybe you can enlist their help.

April 23, 2003

Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I, too, posted a couple of virtual caches that I thought were certainly more interesting than the (micro cache = a benchmark in a pasture) and some other virtual caches but they were archeived. Sent a followup email and received no response so I decided to give up on placing caches - virtual or otherwise.

1.2k · April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RuneReader:
Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I, too, posted a couple of virtual caches that I thought were certainly more interesting than the (micro cache = a benchmark in a pasture) and some other virtual caches but they were archeived. Sent a followup email and received no response so I decided to give up on placing caches - virtual or otherwise.

And there you have it, the reason some "reason" should be applied to the debate. Consistency in all things would help here. This individual has been discouraged from placing caches of any type by the process itself.

I've placed several types of caches, except for a micro, as I am just not interested in placing micros. I've hunted a few, they are just fine, but "I'm" NOT interested in makine any! Why should I be FORCED to place a micro cache just because someone cannot, or just will not, see the reasonable placement of a well thought out virtual cache?

What is the purpose of Geocaching.com? Is it to encourage participation in our activity, or to discourage it? While playing by the rules is a reasonable expectation, changing the rules from time to time to satisfy the "purists" is not fair to those who came into the sport and expected equitable treatment. It may very well be that Geocaching.com has simply become the latest victim of those who want things their way, and the rest of us can hit the highway. I don't think that is the case, despite appearances. I feel there has been some heated exchanges between the "true believers" and us heretics, and not much constructive has come of it.

If there is going to be an additional creation requirement, the "this area already has plenty" restriction, then it should be listed in the rules. If not, then this should not be a requirement unless it is also going to be applied to all types of caches. If the area already "has plenty" of caches, then why would a traditional cache be approved for the area??? It makes no sense unless there is simply a bias. If the bias exists, then say so. If the site no longer wants to have virtuals created and listed, then say so. Quit playing games and creating a bad taste in peoples mouths over the issue.

Either way, I'll keep on playing. I'll keep on hunting caches. I'll keep on placing caches of all types that interest me. I will not be forced to place a type of cache YOU think is appropriate simply because you don't like the ones I like.

And RuneReader.... don't let them get to ya.... keep on caching, keep on placing caches, and stand up for being able to do so.

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

3.5k · April 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RuneReader:
I decided to give up on placing caches - virtual or otherwise

Don't give up! Its just a game!

Go find a bunch of caches and have fun.

Folks take caching way too seriously, IMHOP.

If your cache doesn't get approved, its not the end of the world. Its happened to all of us.

Instead of spending time defending a lost cause, why not put some effort into thinking up another, more worthy cache? To me, the rules as they are posted are very flexible and allow for plenty of creativity.

April 24, 2003

quote:
I've placed several types of caches, except for a micro, as I am just not interested in placing micros. I've hunted a few, they are just fine, but "I'm" NOT interested in makine any! Why should I be FORCED to place a micro cache just because someone cannot, or just will not, see the reasonable placement of a well thought out virtual cache?

Based on my limited experience it is my impression that "well thought out virtual" caches ARE being approved. It's the barely marginal ones that are being shot down.

I had a virtual shot down. When I wrote back to the administrator with my 10-point list of reasons my virtual should be approved he agreed -- so long as I came up with a better verification scheme. His concern was that someone could find the necessary fact by merely doing a google search.

After some consideration I decided to go through proper channels, ask permission and place a micro. To be honest, the micro isn't MUCH harder than a virtual but it has the one thing a virtual lacks: a log book. Either way, it still gets people to the site, which was my aim all along.

BTW, here it is (just placed Tuesday):

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=56816

4.1k · April 24, 2003

I myself would humbly not vote for this cache to be approved. The area is saturated.

quote:
Originally posted by 9Key:
To me, the rules as they are posted are very flexible and allow for plenty of creativity.

I agree with 9key here.

You must be present to win.

VirtualCacheApproval

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

Join the conversation