An archived virtual cache and Why?

[Keystone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by res2100:

A good thing to put up in bold at the beginning is to say that Virtuals are only allowed where a physical could absolutely not be placed, and state that this would take presidence over anything else.

---

What a fine idea, which is why the Cache Listing Guidelines/Requirements state as follows:

quote:

---

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

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.

---

I did add the boldface. In case you think more boldfacing would help, the cache approvers are considering a clarified version of the guidelines, so stay tuned. In the meantime, please READ the guidelines before checking the box that says you've read the guidelines!

quote:

---

Originally posted by res2100:

georapper, you are a genious! Obviously smarter than most for thinking of your workaround, which I too have thought of. Feel free to apply to mensa.

---

Feel free to try the suggested workaround. You'll find that a new cache can no longer have its type changed by the owner. This change was made in response to abuse of the process as was suggested above.

 

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

Signal says, "Drink the Kool-Aid!"

[+woodsters]

Hey Keystone, while y'al lare considering things with the guidelines, is there anyway of perhaps just putting it all in one place? There are the guidelines, faqs and etc... A lot of the stuff is redundant, but some things are stated on one, but not the other. Another request would be that when changes are made to the rules, that they be added immediately to them and not of a hide and seek thing. There are some things that are stated here on the board, but to a new person, they will not know what was said before, especially if it's something they didn't know that was required. It's one thing for a person to search for an answer, but they need to know the question first. Plus as it's been pointed out, many people don't read the forums. And it's not fair to require them to. Especially with the nonsense that goes on half the time. A lot of people will turn away if it were required for them to enter this realm.

 

just my .02....

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+res2100]

I am glad to see that the virtual cache guidelines are being reviewed/revised. I just read the guidelines again, and it is very open to interpretation, so I can see why so many people place them and think they are fine. yes I do believe that the bolding would help.

 

I have never placed a virtual, but I did change my first physical cache to a virtual about a month or so ago because I've been having problems with it and it had eventually gone missing . I think it's good that the site has changed it so that one can not change the cache type once approved.

 

http://ca.geocities.com/geocachingcanada

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html