+woodsters Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Who wants to do a lame virtual anyway? You? Didn't you do one on yesterday? You've done nearly 40 of them and even own one... Although the virtual cache stated in this topic does not meet the requirements, I wouldn't venture to say that swimming with and petting rays is lame. Unless of course you are use to swimming with great whites and killer whales... Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Although the virtual cache stated in this topic does not meet the requirements, I wouldn't venture to say that swimming with and petting rays is lame. Unless of course you are use to swimming with great whites and killer whales... Wanna show us how its done?? Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 I prefer not to Doc. In the summer of 2002, we went to Panama City Beach , FL camping. We had a great time with our boogie boards. Then the next to the last day we were there. I woke up and was outside drinking my coffee just at daybreak. The campground we were at was St Andrews State Park and our site was right at the waters edge on the bay there. I'm standing there on the rocks drinking my coffee, watching boats and all, when all of a sudden a huge shark fin comes up out of the water about 100 yards out. I say huge. I would gather to say the shark was larger than I am, so that's huge to me. I told my wife about it and she didn't believe me. Then later that day, we were on the ocean side of the park and decided to go on the boardwalk which we never went to. We saw sharks and rays everywhere and only several hundred yards from where we were playing in the water earlier. Good thing we didn't them until then as we wouldn't of gone back in the water...lol Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water... Da da... Da Da.... Da da da da da... Da da dum.... Quote Link to comment
+erik88l-r Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 As the cache reviewer who declined to post the subject of this thread I apologies for belatedly piping up. As 9key has stated, due to the holidays there has been a flood of vacation caches. There are nearly 300 caches in the queue right now awaiting approval, luckily not all placed on vacation. As someone else noted, though it might be helpful in education a newbie to enumerate all the reasons a cache does not meet the guidelines, the approvers frankly rarely have the time. With a cache like this we'll select and quote the guideline that is most irrefutable and stop there. I think the sting ray site is cool and hope to one day experience it, but I don't feel that it meets the requirements of a geocache. There are similar sites, like Stella Maris in the Caribbean, that I'd also love to experience, but that's also not a geocache - it's a place you watch shark feedings. To some whether or not this qualifies as a "geocache" is subjective, so I'd rather just stick with something that isn't - the fact that there is a rule against caches placed away from your normal geocaching range. What the cache reviewers often see as "vacation virtuals" are the highlights of someone's vacation submitted as "geocaches". It's great that people want others to share their experiences, but to qualify as a geocache we can post they have to meet the guidelines. Some virtual locations require maintenance in the form of monitoring, others probably don't, but the reason we have posted guidelines is so the cache approvers aren't faced with having to judge whether a trail to a virt might be closed due to eagle nesting nearby or whether the target of a hunt might be temporarily removed for some reason. I would have questioned this particular "cache" even if it had been submitted by a local geocacher, but mention maintenance because it came up in the postings above this one. Happy New Year! erik - geocaching.com admin Quote Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 It never ceases to amaze me how some of you resort to personal attacks. GeoHo you take the cake here. He has made vaild points about his cache and it got declined. That's ok, he's going to list it someplace else. I would have done this if it were approved. Now about the cave I mentioned. The ones I mentioned aren't a dime a dozen. One has huge skylights inside and there are even underwater weddings performed in there. It has a room you could park a bus in and includes an altar. But again the pack mentality rears it's ugly head. Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 We saw sharks and rays everywhere and only several hundred yards from where we were playing in the water earlier. Soooooo... what you are saying is that rays in the water can be commonly seen? Thanks for proving my point about this being a common item. I've seen them myself several times. I've never considered the area a virtual cache. Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 But have you seen those rays, mtn-man? lol Actually, although it doesn't meet the requirements of a virtual, the argument of what is common is subjective. One could argue, as I think it was stated somewhere in this thread, that containers hidden in a stump, under a tree, amongst some rocks adn etc...is fairly common as well. A bunch of sting rays may be common to one, but for those who have never even seen the ocean before, it wouldn't be common. Even though I've seen sting rays before, it's not a common thing for me to see them in the trout brooks up here in massachusetts or in lake thurmond back at home. Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 One could argue, as I think it was stated somewhere in this thread, that containers hidden in a stump, under a tree, amongst some rocks adn etc...is fairly common as well. But remember, that is the game we are playing. That's what we are doing here. If traditional caches are to common then you are most likely bored with this hobby. Things like that can happen. One thing you can do to prevent them from being too common is to up the cache proximity guideline to something like 0.5 miles instead of 0.1 miles. (Not going to happen.) That is a matter for another topic though. Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 But remember, that is the game we are playing. That's what we are doing here. If traditional caches are to common then you are most likely bored with this hobby. Things like that can happen. One thing you can do to prevent them from being too common is to up the cache proximity guideline to something like 0.5 miles instead of 0.1 miles. (Not going to happen.) That is a matter for another topic though. Were virtuals not allowed in the beginning as well? There still are virts today and still virts get approved. So that is a game we are still playing as well. It's still subjective to opinions. Now if traditionals were denied because of similar requirements of virts then I could see it. But like you said on the distance thing, it's not going to happen. Quote Link to comment
+bons Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 (edited) If the goal is a physical cache, put it somewhere you can maintain it. If the goal is a physical location and you can't place a physical cache there, put a virtual somewhere you can verify the area and it's conditions. If the virtual isn't approved, wait until virtuals change. This cache is NOT a physical location, because the proof is the stingrays, not the location. If the goal is a physical object (such a stingrays) make it a locationless. Since they're not being approved right right, wait until locationless caches change. Edited January 2, 2004 by bons Quote Link to comment
+Geo Ho Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 May I please have my cacke now? Quote Link to comment
+Doc-Dean Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 You can not have your cacke and eat it too, ya know... Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 He said she took the cake. Not that it was hers. Quote Link to comment
+RIclimber Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Do you think this Virtual would be approved? 180' WSW of this spring, According to tradition, King Philip fell August 12, 1670 I'm going to hide a 'real' cache here because the stone is 50' off a walking path and about .25mi in the woods. Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Do you think this Virtual would be approved? 180' WSW of this spring, According to tradition, King Philip fell August 12, 1670 I'm going to hide a 'real' cache here because the stone is 50' off a walking path and about .25mi in the woods. is it within your normal caching area? (ie, easy for you to maintain?) Quote Link to comment
+seneca Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Note: After I snorkled here, some friends went to the same location and a boat party was feeding the rays, which attracted sharks. The sharks are supposedly harmless, but thrashed a bit when food was available. I would not recommend feeding the rays. Don't you know about the "compelling interest" to geocachers requirement for virtuals? I'm sorry but I have no compelling interest to swim in the middle of a bunch of stingrays and sharks. I think its safe to presume that the majority of geocachers are probably wusses like me. Quote Link to comment
+RIclimber Posted January 5, 2004 Share Posted January 5, 2004 Do you think this Virtual would be approved? 180' WSW of this spring, According to tradition, King Philip fell August 12, 1670 I'm going to hide a 'real' cache here because the stone is 50' off a walking path and about .25mi in the woods. is it within your normal caching area? (ie, easy for you to maintain?) It's within 1mi. of my house. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.