Historical Marker/Monuments as Virtuals

February 25, 2003

I've found and logged several of these and like them. I've created a couple of my own that have been very popular with only good comments.

However I just created a great new one at a roadside monument and come up short on the approval. Seems the person reviewing this cache doesn't like virtuals even though he has two of his own. By his standards a high percentage of the virtuals need to go away.

I think they are great. What is the general feeling?

1.5k · February 25, 2003

Can you post the details of the cache, so that we can provide specific feedback?

Personally, I think the approvers are too uptight... if you get enough positive response on this thread, you might be able to get the cache approved.

February 25, 2003

It is a rock monument about 10 feet high, created by a statewide historical organization. It is on state property beside a paved 2 lane road. There is oiled road on all 3 sides within 100 feet. Bare gravel covers the whole area = no place to hide a cache without attaching it to the monument.

2.7k · February 25, 2003

Why do they do this is beyond my imagination.

If the hider thinks its good, then why the flak.

I have several monuments as caches and know of several more.

There should be no reason not to approve this type of Cache.

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

February 25, 2003

I noticed on the approvers profile page a link to the GREEN PARTY. That is not my party of choice but I don't think this is the place to push politics either. My profile states that I own an ATV. If he read my profile first I was dead in the water before I started. The Green Party and ATV owners don't mix well in most cases even if my ATV has never been off the legal trail or road.

February 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Drifty:
I noticed on the approvers profile page a link to the GREEN PARTY. That is not my party of choice but I don't think this is the place to push politics either. My profile states that I own an ATV. If he read my profile first I was dead in the water before I started. The Green Party and ATV owners don't mix well in most cases even if my ATV has never been off the legal trail or road.

You are making a rather significant assumption here.

Did you first contact the approver and ask why the cache was rejected before you complained about it here?

Ron/yumitori

2.4k · February 25, 2003

I've done a couple based on Markers the state put out, and think about them every time i pass a certain marker. It's located in the median strip in the middle of a 4 lane highway, 65 MPH speed limit.....always wondered what the marker said, but never felt it was a good idea to stop and read it. Now, if someone made it a cache, I'd find SOMEWHERE to stop

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

February 25, 2003

Yes, I did contact the approver, traded several e-mails then he just went quiet. Guess that is the last word.

February 25, 2003

Sounds like this would be a great cache. Far better than others I have seen/found.

Come on approvers, we can have virtuals in fast food establishments but not this one?

1.4k · February 25, 2003

Like almost any kind of cache, historical marker virtual caches can be great - or completely lame.

If it's just a marker on the side of the road that says that such-and-such happened here in 1837, but there's nothing else of interest at the site, I'd call it a lame cache.

If it's a marker on the side of an historic building where such-and-such happened in 1837, and the marker is primarily used as the method of verification, it sounds like a cool virtual.

If there is something that would make the location interesting if the sign wasn't there, great, it should be approved, but if it's just a sign like a gazillion other historical markers on the side of the road, then it probably shouldn't be. Without knowing the details of this particular cache, I really can't comment on which group it fits into.

1.6k · February 25, 2003

I like the markers that tell the whole story. The markers around here generally have a story about some significant battle either from the Revolutionary War or most likely the War of Northern Aggression.

Here's a solution. Make the marker part of a stop of a multi. There are a couple around here that are similar to what you describe. Just have the user fill in the blanks of a puzzle that leads them to a physical. You can then link several markers together to tell a greater story.

At some of these markers and monuments, I've just stood in awe at the human sacrifice because of what they've believed in. It's sobering.

"It's a hell of a thing , killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have." ~Clint Eastwood as William Munny from The Unforgiven.

CR

2.7k · February 25, 2003

I won't give the real name of the Cache but there is one here.

http://www.laramie-tourism.org/attractions/Ames%20Monument.htm

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

7.2k · February 25, 2003

I don't think there is enough information to say this is a great cache. There must be a billion roadside markers put up by the organizations across the globe. Funny how they only become interesting to some if they are a cache. Living in Atlanta we have roadside monuments everywhere that relate to some aspect of the Civil War. As has been said over and over, these things are more like targets for www.waypoint.org instead of targets for a cache. I have created some virtual caches, and I invite you to look at mine. They were all created before the new guidelines went in place but are all challenging. I may have the only 4.5/5 virtual cache on the site.

Drive-by simple monument virtuals have been approved in the past, but the rules have been changing to adapt to issues that have come up as the hobby/sport/adventure has evolved. As has been noted elsewhere, GC.com "honor(s) the posting of older caches that came in before the rule was issued." and "Some earlier postings do not meet these clarified guidelines, although they will be allowed to stand as grandfathered. They will not be considered as justification or as precedents for future submissions." Read those guidelines.

Follow the guidelines in placing caches and you will have fewer problems. I have considered some interesting places for virtual caches and have used them as multistage parts of traditional caches. This cache, this cache, and this cache all do exactly that. All were created since the guidelines have been updated around the first of October.

1.2k · February 25, 2003

Definitions:

Good Cache: All of Mine.

Lame Cache: Any cache I dont like.

Good Approver: One who approves my caches.

Lame Approver: One who doen NOT approve my caches.

Does that sound about right?

Lapaglia

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

2.7k · February 26, 2003

As to Virtual guidelines, rules there is one key phrase before you get to the rules. And this phrase is the creation of the mind set to get rid of Virtuals.

"Physical caches have priority..."

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

38.2k · February 26, 2003

I have a few virtuals out there. One is a series of telephone poles along a highway where some "artist" climbed to the top and attached various items to the top...mailboxes, carvings, large plastic toys, etc... I thought that would be interesting.

Another is a hidden roadside marker that marks the spot where a certain person was murdered in 1929 by "an unknown assassin". I thought that was cool.

The third is a home that was George Washington's headquarters for a few days and the fourth is a collection of extremely unusual items in a person's backyard (they can be seen from the road). Actually the items themselves aren't all that unusual, but the fact that they're in someone's backyard is.

Generally though, I prefer to place real caches but I thought these spots deserved a cache and a real one was not appropriate.

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

February 26, 2003

Is anyone besides me a little uncomfortable with the idea that an appointed group of approvers are essentially in full control of the shape and direction of geocaching?

It seems, from recent posts, that many of these folks aren't even on the same page with each other, let alone with what the majority of geocachers would like.

I always thought of Geocaching as a self-governing entity. If the majority of us want something, it'll probably happen, and if most of us don't want something, it'll probably go away eventually. The original set of rules worked fine for me.

I really think the approvers should stick to evaluating whether a cache is dangerous, illegal, or detrimental, and refrain from disapproving caches based on their idea of merit or other subjective factors. This is a great example -- despite the fact that this approver doesn't like virtuals, and doesn't think a highway marker is a good cache, he really shouldn't be enforcing that view on the rest of us, who might actually enjoy that sort of cache, unchallenging as it may be.

When potentially fun geocaches are disapproved based on someone else's preferences, this isn't "our" game anymore. It's theirs.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

February 26, 2003

Markers as Virtuals.

I'm sure some are neat - but a couple I've come across are more like "benchmark hunting" than caching.

I've logged some just to get them off my "nearest cache" pages but would never have set out specifically to find them. I've only "hidden" one Virtual cache and it involved something that I thought would provide a "gee whiz" for finders. I'd like "gee whiz" virtuals or educational items - but just making every marker on a highway a virtual seems a bit lame.

Personally, I prefer traditional caches - with something to actually find. The virtual cache idea can be more like sightseeing than caching.

Of course, SOME virtuals have been very nice surprises (or taken me to spots far off the beaten path). Some of my favorites to date include: Birder's Delight, Old Dude, Eternal Reward, LadyBird, and I think the most surprising one to date was Mansion in the Marshes. I guess we're pretty fortunate in this area - a good percentage of the virtuals here have been worthwhile!

1.2k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ScottJ:
Is anyone besides me a little uncomfortable with the idea that an appointed group of approvers are essentially in full control of the shape and direction of geocaching?

It seems, from recent posts, that many of these folks aren't even on the same page with each other, let alone with what the majority of geocachers would like.

I always thought of Geocaching as a self-governing entity. If the majority of us want something, it'll probably happen, and if most of us don't want something, it'll probably go away eventually. The original set of rules worked fine for me.

I really think the approvers should stick to evaluating whether a cache is _dangerous_, _illegal_, or _detrimental_, and refrain from disapproving caches based on their idea of merit or other subjective factors. This is a great example -- despite the fact that this approver doesn't like virtuals, and doesn't think a highway marker is a good cache, he really shouldn't be enforcing that view on the rest of us, who might actually enjoy that sort of cache, unchallenging as it may be.

When potentially fun geocaches are disapproved based on someone else's preferences, this isn't "our" game anymore. It's theirs.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

Then I suggest sir, that you take your GPS'r and go home. YOu are not required to play here. There are other places where you may go and play.

Lapaglia

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

February 26, 2003

quote:
Then I suggest sir, that you take your GPS'r and go home. YOu are not required to play here. There are other places where you may go and play.

What an unproductive response. There are other countries I can go live in, too. I choose, though, to stay and try and make this one a better place.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

1.2k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ScottJ:

quote:
Then I suggest sir, that you take your GPS'r and go home. YOu are not required to play here. There are other places where you may go and play.

What an unproductive response. There are other countries I can go live in, too. I choose, though, to stay and try and make this one a better place.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

Not unproductive, simply my opinion. What have you done lately to make this country a better place?

Lapaglia

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

1.5k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ScottJ:
I really think the approvers should stick to evaluating whether a cache is _dangerous_, _illegal_, or _detrimental_, and refrain from disapproving caches based on their idea of merit or other subjective factors.

Aren't dangerous and detrimental rather subjective??

Am I the only one here who was captain of a college debate team?

7.2k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ScottJ:
Is anyone besides me a little uncomfortable with the idea that an appointed group of approvers are essentially in full control of the shape and direction of geocaching?

It seems, from recent posts, that many of these folks aren't even on the same page with each other, let alone with what the majority of geocachers would like.

I always thought of Geocaching as a self-governing entity. If the majority of us want something, it'll probably happen, and if most of us don't want something, it'll probably go away eventually. The original set of rules worked fine for me.

I really think the approvers should stick to evaluating whether a cache is _dangerous_, _illegal_, or _detrimental_, and refrain from disapproving caches based on their idea of merit or other subjective factors. This is a great example -- despite the fact that this approver doesn't like virtuals, and doesn't think a highway marker is a good cache, he really shouldn't be enforcing that view on the rest of us, who might actually enjoy that sort of cache, unchallenging as it may be.

When potentially fun geocaches are disapproved based on someone else's preferences, this isn't "our" game anymore. It's theirs.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

Your missing one key point. This is a web site. One person owns it. That person is the ultimate decision maker. The admins do suggest changes to the guidelines for the site. Admins do not make the final decisions. Admins also have to comply with the guidelines for the site. I like virtuals as I said above. I have liked to create them and I like to visit them. BUT... since the rules have changed I have to comply with the rules as I approve caches. That is what I do.

Your right, it is "theirs". If you want to play, then you have to play by the assigned guidelines. Yes they do change, so you need to check them as the site evolves. All that seems pretty simple. Here in GA we got banned from caching in state parks because a few people wanted to play the game their way. The state parks have rules too, and they change the rules along the way. It took over a year to get caches allowed back in state parks and now they are heavily restricted. If the cachers that placed the caches that caused the ban would have simply read and complied with the early guidelines listed on this site then there may never have been a problem. But no, some of them wanted to play by their own rules and caches were banned. If they got placed they were confiscated. That is a hard lesson but we learned from it. Same thing with railroad tracks. You may think it is cool to place a cache under a railroad trestle, but you will go to jail if you do and it is found (and it will not get approved anyway).

Remember that an admin is not necessarily enforcing their opinions; they are just complying with the written guidelines. Cache creators should do the same.

February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Drifty:
I've found and logged several of these and like them. I've created a couple of my own that have been very popular with only good comments.

However I just created a great new one at a roadside monument and come up short on the approval. Seems the person reviewing this cache doesn't like virtuals even though he has two of his own. By his standards a high percentage of the virtuals need to go away.

I think they are great. What is the general feeling?

I'm not opposed to virtuals, but I do agree with the general guideline that if you can place a traditional physical cache, don't make it a virtual. What is it about this monument that prevents you hiding a physical cache (perhaps a micro) there?

February 26, 2003

OK, mtn-man, fair enough. I think we all agree that there need to be guidelines, that Jeremy has the right to set those of this web site, and that they're in our best interest.

This was the statement that bothered me (emphasis is mine):

quote:
Seems the person reviewing this cache doesn't like virtuals even though he has two of his own. By his standards a high percentage of the virtuals need to go away.

The guidelines for virtuals are, I'm sure you will admit, very vague with respect to merit. That leaves them pretty open to interpretation by the approver's own standards, and different interpretations result in conflicts like this one.

Guidelines that can be objectively applied would solve a great deal of this conflict.

Your example (state parks) deals with a great, objective guideline -- don't put a physical cache where you don't have permission to put one. Unfortunately, it just doesn't apply to the situation of using a historical marker as a virtual ... doing that is unlikely to get Geocaching banned anywhere, or have any other adverse effect other than this sort of thread.

You're right ... with respect to geocaching.com, it's Jeremy's game, but Jeremy has always (in my experience) been open to constructive criticism. That's all this is. I've been at this (well, off and on) since December of 2000, and I've always been really comfortable with the way the cache approval process has worked. The trend seems to be toward nitpicking, recently, and since that bugged me a bit, I decided to say something. Feedback is important to any good manager.

Thanks for offering some productive dialog.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:
Aren't _dangerous_ and _detrimental_ rather subjective??

Am I the only one here who was captain of a college debate team?

To the first question: (sigh) yes.

To the second question: God, I hope so!

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

February 26, 2003

quote:
If you want to play, then you have to play by the assigned guidelines.

wrong!

quote:
Remember that an admin is not necessarily enforcing their opinions;

as we have seen in several posts, this may not be true!

SR and dboggny.

February 26, 2003

Thanks to all for your comments. This has been good and I have adjusted my thinking and feelings somewhat on virtuals. We don't have a history marker every 100 feet like some states do, but we do have a mile marker post every mile, so one has to draw a the line someplace.

In Utah we have lots of history but roadside markers are not like fense posts and most of them do make good virtuals and some could have a traditional near by. The one in question has nothing but bare gravel to the paved roads on all sides except for a stop sign. A mirco on the monument itself doesn't sit well with me regardless of the rules.

For myself I'd rather stop and read a history sign over finding a plastic container having a come-apart out in the middle of a sagebrush flat.

Are we caching just to be caching, or can we add some value to caching? Most caches quickly degrade to a box of real cheap junk toys. We don't cache for the value of trades for sure.

Do I prefer virtuals? No actually much prefer a traditional.

The site owners need to come to grips with virtuals however. What ever it takes to define the rules, get ALL the approval people AND the cachers on the same page. As it stands it seems getting a virtual approved depends on the luck of the draw as to which approval person you draw and then what mood they are in. We are all over the board in what gets approved it seems.

One more thing: As the radical paranoids in this world continue to tell us fair, reasonable, and sensible people what to do, traditional caches are in big trouble. A high percentage of traditional caches in western states are on Federal land. Mostly Forest Service and BLM land. Take the 70% of Utah and Nev. that is Federal off the list and the sites for traditionals gets not only boring but real scarce. Without virtuals we are looking at hundreds of millions of acres that will be cache-free.

9.4k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I don't think there is enough information to say this is a great cache. There must be a billion roadside markers put up by the organizations across the globe. Funny how they only become interesting to some if they are a cache. Living in Atlanta we have roadside monuments everywhere that relate to some aspect of the Civil War. As has been said over and over, these things are more like targets for http://www.waypoint.org instead of targets for a cache.

http://www.waypoint.org

Finally! a website for people who really like virtual caches.

February 26, 2003

Does the site commemorate something unique? As the rules state, "A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." As long as you can make the case that it meets that requirement, I see no reason to not approve. I've seen one locally, approved in the last couple weeks, that doesn't do it for me as being real unique, but that's because I know what it is without even going there. (but I will have to go there to get credit, as I would have to get some info off a marker to get credit)

I've "placed" a virtual multi-cache (all monument sites) that relates to a particular aspect of local history (see History Bluff), and I have plans for a couple more similar ones in the area (just waiting for the weather to warm up, no sense in putting out a virtual multi in the middle of winter here when you might not be able to access a site easily).

Maybe if you can relate your monument to something else or make the finder e-mail you something particular about the site, you'll increase your chances of getting approved?

[This message was edited by CloneZone on February 26, 2003 at 01:38 PM.]

February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Drifty:
I noticed on the approvers profile page a link to the GREEN PARTY. That is not my party of choice but I don't think this is the place to push politics either. My profile states that I own an ATV. If he read my profile first I was dead in the water before I started. The Green Party and ATV owners don't mix well in most cases even if my ATV has never been off the legal trail or road.

Don't feel bad that same person just did the same to four virtuals that I just created. I listed in the cache description the exact phrase. "Physical caches are prohibited but there is plenty of treasure to see." I was asked in response. "Is there a good reason that a physical cache could not be placed near the virtual's location?" Which makes me wonder if it was even read or just they blanket archive all virtuals and make you beg to have them accepted.

The fact that the US Government prohibits a physical in the area has a lot to do with why I chose to make virtuals.

beatnik

1.5k · February 26, 2003

Of the 4 caches I've placed, 3 are virtuals. 2 of them are individual memorials for Arizona Highway Patrolmen killed in the line of duty, and the third is the state memorial located at the DPS Headquarters where I work. To some, they may not care about what these memorials stand for, but it's one way to introduce the masses to locations they may not know exist, and give them an opportunity to reflect on the signifance of the locations and what the officers have done to 'earn' the memorial that honors their memory.

To me, these virtuals have a significant meaning, and I believe it beneficial to all that visit these locations and read the inscriptions on the memorial(s).

Brian

Team A.I.

February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Brian - Team A.I.:
Of the 4 caches I've placed, 3 are virtuals. 2 of them are individual memorials for Arizona Highway Patrolmen killed in the line of duty, and the third is the state memorial located at the DPS Headquarters where I work. >snip<

Brian

Team A.I.

Exactly my point earlier. There's memorials and dedication plaques galore for many deserving and brave folks who I'm sure warranted recognition. There's a plaque on the Polaski skyway that honors General Polaski - but I don't think it merits a virtual cache. (I'm guessing parking for the cache might be a problem anyway!)

I just don't feel (unless there's significant historical significance or some other factor at work) that monuments or plaques are good virtual caches.

IMHO. You're mileage may vary and I'm not disparaging these brave patrolmen - but I'm not sure I see the "gee whiz" factor. I'm guessing that's one reason why WATCHER's so popular, you can simply hunt for the types of caches you enjoy.

February 27, 2003

quote:
I just don't feel (unless there's significant historical significance or some other factor at work) that monuments or plaques are good virtual caches.

I agree, monuments and/or plaques CAN be good virtual caches. However, what's significant to me may not be significant to you, or vice versa. Personally, I think that if the site is educational, then it's a good spot. If it just commemorates something and doesn't tell you anything about it, then it's not so good.

As an example, there are a couple virtual caches around here that commemorate the Lewis and Clark expedition - neither site is an actual spot that Lewis and Clark stepped foot on. But, one of the sites has a nice plaza and interpretive displays that tell you about their Voyage of Discovery, the other one is just a city park next to the river, with little signage (at least yet anyway). To me, the first one is a great virtual, the second one is not, but I don't think everyone feels that way, and my opinion should not be used to keep others from seeking that virtual cache. If it's fun and follows the rules, what's the harm?

In the case of Brian - Team A.I.'s virtual caches of memorials to fallen officers, maybe those could be tied together into one multi-cache (and it could be all virtual sites or a combo of virtual and physical) to make it more interesting and challenging for people. Just my opinion, without having seen the locations.

February 27, 2003

I had placed a cache at Camp Lejune, NC at the "Other Wall" which honors the Marines killed in Beruit. After 9/11 the security there removed the physical cache, so I converted it to a virtual. I do not consider this cache "Lame" and have not considered archiving it. Very few people even remember the incident. So as far as I am concerned, if it enlightens even one fellow cacher, it has served its purpose.

Hiemdahl

February 27, 2003

Drifty,

Having read every post in this thread I have no idea why your proposed virtual cache should be approved. In the very first reply by Mr. Snazz you were asked for more details. Based on your response to Mr. Snazz and few other posts here is how I would describe the proposed sight:

A 10 foot pile of rocks, surrounded by gravel, next to a highway, in the middle of an empty prairie.

You have done a good job of explaining why a traditional cache should not be here. Now you need to convince us and the reviewer that this spot meets the novelty or interest guidelines for a virtual cache.

If it does and you have clearly communicated this to the reviewer then you have a legitamate beef. However from what I've read so far I agree with the reviewer.

I hope you'll give us and the reviewer a little more info so we can get a quality Virtual approved.

[This message was edited by gazetteer on February 27, 2003 at 01:40 PM.]

February 27, 2003

When one is new to this sport, as I am, I suppose its common to think everywhere would be a neat cache. I quickly got over that thought, figuring that just because I thought t was neat didn't mean that others would.

However, all those "neat" things are still out there and I want to share them.

So, when the weather gets better I plan to go out and take digital photos, GPS readings, and post them to geosnapper.com.

If you haven't looked, it's a website where you upload digital photos into "albums", along with the GPS coordinates. People cas see just what is at that specific location or can go out and see for themselves. It's sort of like a virtual cache without the bureaucratic approval process.

I plan on making a few albums:

History Abandoned: Pittsburgh is full of abandoned buildings and spaces that are more than just urban blight. They are a part of Pittsburgh's rich history. An abandoned steel mill. Pylons for bridges that are no longer there. Bridges hidden in the woods. Steps to nowhere. Those two gas street lamps a few blocks from my house. Interesting things that sometimes speak of history and others which hold their secrets.

Landmarks: A 200 year-old, 3 story brick structure nestled between two downtown skyscrapers. A historic church that backs up traffic for 20 miles.

Ordinance About: A piece of artillery sits at the entrance of McKeesport. A Sherman Tank is on the local Penn State campus. The Irwin VFW has a 50's-era fighter jet sitting on their lawn.

There are plenty of Historic Markers around but personally I think the marker is just a piece of information. Sometimes, it's not even correct. The website at http://www.signsofhistory.com/Penn/alleghen/alleghen.htm lists many of the historic markers around Pittsburgh. I point out "BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT ( US 30 at Forest Hills, S of I 376 exit 10.)" It reads something like "Near this site, yadda, yadda, yadda." But the actual battlefield was much closer to where the Westinghouse Bridge is a mile down the road.

Anyway, there are other places to show off what you think is cool. You could make an album on geosnapper and document all the historic markers you want.

Kordite

February 27, 2003

quote:
People cas see just what is at that specific location or can go out and see for themselves. It's sort of like a virtual cache without the bureaucratic approval process. . . .You could make an album on geosnapper and document all the historic markers you want.

Kordite,

I must respectfully disagree with you (at least to a point). As the rules for a virtual geocache state:

quote:
A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are. . . .A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects.

Now, a historical marker may or may not have something special that sets it apart. If it does, include it. It's up to the submitter to be the judge of that, as well as express to the approver what sets it apart, should the approver ask. Personally, I think if you can learn something from it, then it's a good site. If it's a historic building, but there's nothing to tell you about it, then it's not a good site. Same with a marker or monument.

I think that many of the examples you list are good examples of what shouldn't be virtual caches. But there are many legitimate ones out there, especially if there is no way to leave a physical one.

February 28, 2003

> I must respectfully disagree with you (at least

> to a point). As the rules for a virtual

> geocache state:

But I'm not talking about the "rules for a virtual geocache". I'm giving advice to someone who has tried to set up a virtual geocache and has been denied for one reason or another. My succestions are an OPTION that exist OUTSIDE the official geocaching.com heirarchy.

Read my post again and you'll see I'm not talking about virtual geocaches, per se. I said "It's SORT OF like a virtual cache without the bureaucratic approval process".

March 9, 2003

Anyone interested in the afore mentioned alternatives to virtual caches that get turned down, take a look here:

http://www.geosnapper.com/albums.php?person=92

The weather here in Pittsburgh got nice for a weekend before freezing up again so I was able to get out and take some digital pictures and some GPSr readings.

These aren't virtual caches, though under the right conditions and with the cooprtation of a sympathetic administrator some of them might have been.

3k · March 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

Am I the only one here who was captain of a college debate team?

I wouldn't know, but then you must also be bothered by the words "guidelines" and "rules" constantly being used interchangeably on this site.

Because they are used interchangeably both within the guidelines and by the approvers, the primary reason for so much confusion among cache placers and inconsistency among cache approvers is clear.

It's really a very simple matter: Don't treat guidelines as rules, and don't treat rules as guidelines.

3k · March 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mtn-man:
I don't think there is enough information to say this is a great cache. There must be a billion roadside markers put up by the organizations across the globe. Funny how they only become interesting to some if they are a cache.

That is certainly true ... In our region, there was a time when an individual wanted to make a virtual cache of every mundane historical marker in their hometown. Arrgh.

Historical Marker/Monuments as Virtuals

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

Join the conversation