Jump to content

What Is Worthy Enough For A Virtual Cache?


Recommended Posts

Recenlty I have been debating with a cache approver about what is worthy to be a Virtual Cache. The description he gave me is: "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."

 

According to the approver, geocaching.com has recently tightened up their criteria for Virtual Caches. The above is a vague description of the criteria for a virtual cache making the approval of a virtual cache very objective - if it is not of interest to the approver then it won't be approved.

 

What are your thoughts?

Should geocaching.com be strict on Virtual Caches? Or, should geocaching.com allow the users to determine for themselves if a particular virtual cache is interesting enough to visit?

 

What, in your opinion, would qualify as a Virtual Cache?

 

This link may be of interest to you: Virtual Cache Guidelines

 

Cheers!

LeapFrog

Link to comment
There is a de facto ban on virts.

Why would they do that? I like to think that geocaching is alive because of the freedom people have gained with GPS technology to go and hunt for interesting caches. Physical or not. The nice thing about the Internet is that users can practice self censorship and choose what caches they would like to visit. Wouldn't it work against geocaching.com to restrict their users and frustrate those who are trying to enjoy geocaching?

 

LeapFrog

Link to comment

The subjective parts of the approval process should be removed. That means approving virtuals. But that's not what we have in place and approvers are forced to evaluate virtuals based on subjective criteria. What gets approved here won't be the same as what gets approved where you are at.

 

I don't agree with it, but that's life on this site.

Link to comment

hi,

 

the "coffee table" factor has always bothered me...my coffee table has books on composting toilet construction, small scale farming, abnormal psych, and some hardcover mysteries (oh yeah, and a mug full of cold coffee)...I would assume that most approvers would have different stuff on their coffee tables...this whimsical "guideline" seems to celebrate, not just suggest, a subjective aspect to cache approval

 

nfa

Link to comment
That's just it, we are trying to enjoy geocaching, not waypointing

I hate to burst your bubble, but geocaching is essentially waypointing. You can spend hours decifering words into categories, but in order to find a cache you need a waypoint. Then you waypoint your way to a loction where there is a reward. The difference between a cache and a virtual cahce is whether there is a physical reward such as a stash or a visual reward such as a virtual cache. Either way, you should not limit those who enjoy doing both just because you prefer a physical cache.

 

My hopes is that through this forum we might be able to send a message to the administrators that such tight and objective restrictions are not necessary. That is unless I am a loner on this thought. Which is fine - everyone is entitled to their opinions and forums are the place to share them. :grin:

Link to comment
My hopes is that through this forum we might be able to send a message to the administrators that such tight and objective restrictions are not necessary. That is unless I am a loner on this thought. Which is fine - everyone is entitled to their opinions and forums are the place to share them.  :grin:

This topic has been addressed quite a bit. To get a flavor of the debate about virtual caches, you might look:

 

Here, here, here, here or here.

 

Run a search and you can find a bunch more. Hence Mopar's yawn. :mad:

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The nice thing about the Internet is that users can set up a webpage and allow or disallow whatever they. This particular one you are using right now decided some time ago (those new guidelines you link to haven't changed in over 6 months) that "Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate." The reasons for this have been debated to death. You can agree with them, or not, but since the people that own this website agree with them, that's all that matters. I can NEVER understand why some people feel it's ok to try and force someone to change their website or company because you don't like it. How would you feel if your next-door neighbor tried to tell you what color he wanted you to paint your house? Or what type of car you owned?

 

Why don't you tell us what your virtual was (post the description, we can't see your cache page if you just link it), and let your peers decide if your cache reviewer was fair. From what I've seen, Groundspeak tries very hard to keep all their reviewers on the same page, if yours was unfair, they may reverse the archive.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
This topic has been addressed quite a bit.

Thank you for sharing those links, but hey - it doesn't hurt to discuss it one more time. there are always new people coming to geocaching who might have a new point of view.

 

I was ignoring Mopar, his yawn was unnecessary and rude. If he isn't interested or doesn't want to take part in this topic then he can be mature and leave. There are people, including myself, who are interested in Virtual Caches and don't like the strict restriction imposed ... I will stop there so I don't repeat anything previously said.

 

Thanks for charming in .. LeapFrog :grin:

Link to comment
The reasons for this have been debated to death. You can agree with them, or not, but since the people that own this website agree with them, that's all that matters. I can NEVER understand why some people feel it's ok to try and force someone to change their website or company because you don't like it. How would you feel if your next-door neighbor tried to tell you what color he wanted you to paint your house? Or what type of car you owned?

well yeah...how would you feel if a paying member of a club you belonged to raised a question in a polite manner about how the club's message system is run?

 

what nerve :grin::mad:

 

I don't know if Leapfrog and Ladybug are paying members or not, but we should probably taken em out back and open up a can of whup-a** on them for suggesting that something could be changed in this member-and-volunteer-driven organization that has forums so that its members can talk about the organization. :huh::mad:

 

nfa

 

(poke, poke. stir, stir)

Link to comment
I've said it before, I'll say it again.

The nice thing about the Internet is that users can set up a webpage and allow or disallow whatever they. This particular one you are using right now decided some time ago (those new guidelines you link to haven't changed in over 6 months) that "Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate." The reasons for this have been debated to death. You can agree with them, or not, but since the people that own this website agree with them, that's all that matters. I can NEVER understand why some people feel it's ok to try and force someone to change their website or company because you don't like it. How would you feel if your next-door neighbor tried to tell you what color he wanted you to paint your house? Or what type of car you owned?

 

Why don't you tell us what your virtual was (post the description, we can't see your cache page if you just link it), and let your peers decide if your cache reviewer was fair. From what I've seen, Groundspeak tries very hard to keep all their reviewers on the same page, if yours was unfair, they may reverse the archive.

Thanks Mopar for writing something other than a yawn. My virtual cache was located at a private facility, but visitor are able to reach it. Since it is a private facility - I don't think a physical cache would be appropriate, which is why I chose a virtual cache. The approver gave a lot of reasons, all of which I discounted. It came down to the fact that the approver did not like the cache and refuses to post it. I have washed my hands of it, but I am still interested in why such restrictions have been put forth.

 

I do agree that if a physical cache can be placed - then it there should be one, but there are lots of places that do not allow caches. Also a unmaintained cache can turn into litter. So for those who don't want to litter or for those who want to have a cache in a privately owned location or in a National Park, the virtual cache is a great opiton.

 

Aslo, a correction. I am not trying to force geocaching.com to change their policy. They are a company and it is in their best interest to take into consideration their users opinions. Makes sense since they are serving the users. Therefore it would be nice if this thought is so wide spread that they do consider removing the tough restrictions.

Link to comment

Hey...I personally LIKE Virtuals. But I understand the whole thing about this being Jeremy's site, and he has the right to make his own rules. But I don't agree with saying "how would you like it if your neighbor told you what color to paint your house?" We're talking about two different things, here. This is a site that is used by the public. Most businesses in this world have places where you can make suggestions about how they could do things differently. If a lot of people write in with the same suggestions, sometimes they might actually listen, and change their policies. This is a totally different situation than your personal house color :grin:

 

Anyway, obviously this has all been discussed to death, and also locationless caches. I think that every time it has been brought up, the overwhelming majority of people think that either they don't like virts, or they're OK, and Jeremy has the right to do whatever he likes. So I guess the majority rules in this case.

 

:mad: I think that you really should show us the text of your cache, so we can get down to the real issue...why was your particular virtual not allowed, and was it fair under the guidlines?

 

EDIT: Whoops, I took too long writing!

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment
:grin: But I do still hold to the fact that this has been discussed over and over, and the main consensus was that people can take or leave virts, and they think this has been discussed to death, and that Jeremy can do whatever he wants in this matter. So even though I agree with you to a POINT, not very many others do. So I think that is your answer right there. :mad:
Link to comment
The approver gave a lot of reasons, all of which I discounted. It came down to the fact that the approver did not like the cache and refuses to post it. I have washed my hands of it, but I am still interested in why such restrictions have been put forth.

 

What were the other reasons and why were they discounted?

 

Anyway, I wonder if you could use information from the site to make a multi. Basically have the virtual as the start and have it lead to a physical cache elsewhere? Also did you ask permission from the place for a physical? Was it in your area? What kind of "private facility" was it?

 

edited to add another question.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
[well yeah...how would you feel if a paying member of a club you belonged to raised a question in a polite manner about how the club's message system is run?

 

what nerve :grin::mad:

 

I don't know if Leapfrog and Ladybug are paying members or not, but we should probably taken em out back and open up a can of whup-a** on them for suggesting that something could be changed in this member-and-volunteer-driven organization that has forums so that its members can talk about the organization. :huh::mad:

 

nfa

 

(poke, poke. stir, stir)

This is not a club website.

This is not an organization website.

This is a website run by a company, that offers enhanced features to users that pay.

How is telling Groundspeak what product they should carry and different then telling you what car to drive? Obviously their business model is working for them now, or we wouldn't even be here to discuss this. There are plenty of other places where you CAN list virtual caches. waypoint.org, ecoscavenger.com, navicache.com, gpsgames.org are just a few. If Walmart won't carry what I want, and Target will, you go shop at Target. You don't argue with Walmart trying to get them to carry something they don't want to stock.

 

 

I was ignoring Mopar, his yawn was unnecessary and rude. If he isn't interested or doesn't want to take part in this topic then he can be mature and leave. There are people, including myself, who are interested in Virtual Caches and don't like the strict restriction imposed ... I will stop there so I don't repeat anything previously said.

Not as unnecessary or rude as telling someone how to run their business. Not as unnecessary or rude as posting a new topic here without even taking 30 seconds to see if it's already being discussed. That to me shows you don't care what anyone else thinks, you're #1, you're special, the rules the rest of us follow don't apply to you. Not as unnecessary or rude as telling me I have no interest in virtuals, especially since I've found 86 of them (compared to your 2, so I guess I'm 43 times more interested in them then you are) and own 2 myself.

That STILL doesn't give me the right to dictate how TPTB run their website.

Link to comment

Ok guys. Listen up.

 

Marketing 101.

 

Listen to your customers and give them what they want. They will pay.

 

Marketing 201.

 

Listen to your customers and give them what they want. They will pay.

 

Marketing 301.

 

Yet more listening to your customers and giving them what they want so they will pay yet more.

 

This site is a businesses supported by clubs and organizations, and members who pay.

 

Don't make me pull out the Marketing 401 syllabus.

Link to comment
But I don't agree with saying "how would you like it if your neighbor told you what color to paint your house?" We're talking about two different things, here. This is a site that is used by the public. Most businesses in this world have places where you can make suggestions about how they could do things differently. If a lot of people write in with the same suggestions, sometimes they might actually listen, and change their policies. This is a totally different situation than your personal house color :grin:

Ahh, but as your neighbor, I have to look at your house. Possibly even more then you. Your house is green. I HATE green. You drive up to your green house, walk in, and that's it. I have to look at it out 1/2 the windows in my house. Surely that gives me some say in what color it is.

 

As Carleen showed, with probably 10 seconds of searching, there IS plenty of discussion on it, yet it's not changed. As much as I enjoy a good virtual (btw, my all time favorite cache ever is a virtual) I understand who's sandbox I'm in, and play by the rules. I also understand that those rules might upset a few, but they are in place for the better good of the game. I'd much rather see fewer virtuals, then see them become the only type of caching allowed.

Link to comment
:grin: But I do still hold to the fact that this has been discussed over and over, and the main consensus was that people can take or leave virts, and they think this has been discussed to death, and that Jeremy can do whatever he wants in this matter.  So even though I agree with you to a POINT, not very many others do.  So I think that is your answer right there.  :huh:

Ha! But as you can see, I said the same thing myself! :(

 

Anyway, you could only say something about my house, if our neighborhood had a covenant. :mad:

 

EDIT: spelling...I'm so afriad that I will get trumped by someone else, that I wrote and posted without checking my speeling. :mad:

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment
Ok guys. Listen up.

 

Marketing 101.

 

Listen to your customers and give them what they want. They will pay.

 

Marketing 201.

 

Listen to your customers and give them what they want. They will pay.

 

Marketing 301.

 

Yet more listening to your customers and giving them what they want so they will pay yet more.

 

This site is a businesses supported by clubs and organizations, and members who pay.

 

Don't make me pull out the Marketing 401 syllabus.

This website grows bigger every day. To me it looks like they are giving the MAJORITY what they want.

 

If someone thinks they can do a better job, do it. (How IS that locationless caching site coming along, RK?)

 

This isn't the first website for geocaching. Looks like Jeremy did a better job of giving the MAJORITY what they want then the last guy did. If someone else does a better job of pleasing the MAJORITY of geocachers then this site does, then this site will either adapt or die. Either way, the MAJORITY of geocachers get what they want.

Link to comment
As much as I enjoy a good virtual (btw, my all time favorite cache ever is a virtual) I understand who's sandbox I'm in, and play by the rules. I also understand that those rules might upset a few, but they are in place for the better good of the game. I'd much rather see fewer virtuals, then see them become the only type of caching allowed.

I highly doubt you will see the entire site turn into virtual caches, there is value to both kinds of caching. We understand that although you like virtuals, that you also hate to question geocaching.com and just want to play by the rules. That is fine. There are others that like to see a product improved. As long as this website collects for membership, they are producing a product for that membership. I can see why this question has been asked so many times. When ever somebody tries to get people to discuss what should and should not be a virtual cache some one goes off on some tangent about hating virtuals or God forbid somebody discusses improving the geocaching.com website.

 

Lets try to keep to the topic, what should be the limitations for a vitual cache? Should virtual caches entail more than just National Parks or well known monuments?

 

LeapFrog

Link to comment
Either way, the MAJORITY of geocachers get what they want.

 

And the rest can just "like it or leave" - isn't that the usual phrase? Marketing -101

Yes it is. Any successful company knows you can't be everything to everyone. The most successful companies find a nich where they offer a superior product, and concentrate their efforts there. Thats pretty much what I see here. TPTB decided that most cachers are interested in physical caches, and the website is best set up for that. Since the site is growing by leaps and bounds as it is, they appear to be concentrating on that core group, and keeping the site up and running with just that seems to be a full-time job. Maybe in the future they will branch out. Jeremy has said plenty of times he is interested in providing better services for locationless and virtual caches. If that happens, great. If RK or someone else makes a better site for them first, well, then that's the breaks (or tough nuts). Like I said, I'd rather see them concentrate on what most cachers want. THAT'S good business. Given a choice between a new locationless and or virtual cache section, and having the servers offline every weekend, I think most of us will pass on the new sections.

Link to comment
I highly doubt you will see the entire site turn into virtual caches, there is value to both kinds of caching.

I didn't say that would happen from within the website.

It hasn't happened to me yet personally, but I'm sure plenty of people can point you to current examples where landmanagers decided to ban physical caches because it seems that virtual caches are just as good. The National Parks, and US Fish and Wildlife both take this position. So does the New York state DEC, which recently banned all but virtual caches on 3.5 million acres of land. I know the guys in GA ran into the same thing. And can you blame the landmanagers???? If virtual caches are just as good as an ammo box full of mctoys, why would you allow the ammo box? Virtual caches seem like the perfect solution to all the problems here. Very little to maintain. No trading down. Nothing abandoned when the owner gets bored. Nothing that looks like a bomb to scare people. Really, from a landmanager point of view, if virtuals are just as good as a physical cache, why would you allow a physical cache? Just ban them and stick to virtuals and webcams.

 

To get back on the topic at hand, what EXACTLY was this declined virtual? We still haven't heard. If a cache meets ALL the guidelines (not just the ones the hider believes in) the cache should be listed here on the site. Virtuals are not banned, ones that meet the guidelines get listed all the time.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I think the rules as they are, are pretty good. Ask yourself, can a regular cache go here? It's amazing how many times you can say, yes! I don't agree with offset caches, for the most part, though. If I have something cool that I want to point out to people, if I make it part of an offset cache, it can get to some pretty silly contortions, and I defeat the whole reason I wanted that (virtual) cache to be there in the first place. Anyway, I realized that this is the way it was a long time ago, and so I gave up some cherished ideas for some downtown historical virts that I had, and that's life!

Link to comment
Should virtual caches entail more than just National Parks or well known monuments?

 

I have had 6 virts approved since Aug. of last year. Only one is in a national park, one I temporarily archived for safety, and the rest are not well know monuments, but rather they represent well know periods of history that most people know in passing about, but not the actual places or persons involved. They have been very well received, and I hope they will in the future.

 

I had no trouble having these approved. Why, because I did my homework, and emailed any questions I had to my approver. I see alot of people join in caching, but rather then wait, watch, and learn before placing caches, or asking for the help provided by the very insightful approvers, they are setting themselves up to fail. The Administrators are and have a wealth of information at their fingertips, use them. Virtuals are not dead, they have been streamlined to provide a more enjoyable experience for everyone.

Link to comment
There is a de facto ban on virts. TPTB won't come out and say it, but it's true, for better or for worse.

The only virt you might get approved is one in a National Park or the like.

No there isn't. That statement is just plain wrong.

Link to comment

I agree with the last few posts. If you've done everything you can to put in a real cache, and the place is truly unique, you should be fine.

 

I put in a virtual in a place that could not support a physical cache, my page was well done, and had pics and history, and it was in a great spot. The approver said that he doesn't usually put up virtuals, but that mine looked neat, and he hoped to be able to go to it someday. So it is possible, if you do it right.

 

Hey- I checked, and that was Mtn-man that approved it! ( I guess that I was telling on you! :grin::mad: )

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment
I have had 6 virts approved since Aug. of last year. Only one is in a national park, one I temporarily archived for safety, and the rest are not well know monuments, but rather they represent well know periods of history that most people know in passing about, but not the actual places or persons involved. They have been very well received, and I hope they will in the future.

That is interesting. So if I understand you correctly, you think Virtual caches should be intersting to cachers, not some garbage can, but something new or unique that people would be interested in seeing.

 

I agree, as long as it has interest by cachers and that is usually determined by whether people visit the cache. You must have had a much easier approver than I did. Couple of things you might be interested in:

 

From the virtual cache guidelines

"The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page. "

 

When I talked to the approver, he said that Virtual Caches need not just be interesting, but they need a "WOW" factor to it.

 

This is why I am confused about what contains a WOW factor. I believe if a virtual cache is interesting and enjoyable then it should be approved so others can share in the experience. I pointed out other comparable virtual caches in the area and the approver said the following:

 

"Both caches you mention were approved before the guidelines on virtual caches were tightened up. Therefore they do not apply. They have been allowed to remain because they were Grand Fathered under the old ruling.

 

 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. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.  Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples."

 

This is why I can only think of NP and well known monuments, which are things in a coffee table book. I suppose there are a few unknown places. But for the most part that really limits virtual caches. Things that are very interesting could be unapproved.

Link to comment
There is a de facto ban on virts. TPTB won't come out and say it, but it's true, for better or for worse.

The only virt you might get approved is one in a National Park or the like.

No there isn't. That statement is just plain wrong.

OK. Go out tonight and set up a virt. Submit it. I'd say there is about a 95% chance it gets rejected.

The approver will write you and say something like, "Couldn't you make this the first step in a multi ending in a physical cache with a log book?"

That's a de facto ban.

Link to comment
I have had 6 virts approved since Aug. of last year. Only one is in a national park, one I temporarily archived for safety, and the rest are not well know monuments, but rather they represent well know periods of history that most people know in passing about, but not the actual places or persons involved. They have been very well received, and I hope they will in the future.

That is interesting. So if I understand you correctly, you think Virtual caches should be intersting to cachers, not some garbage can, but something new or unique that people would be interested in seeing.

 

I agree, as long as it has interest by cachers and that is usually determined by whether people visit the cache. You must have had a much easier approver than I did. Couple of things you might be interested in:

 

From the virtual cache guidelines

"The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page. "

 

When I talked to the approver, he said that Virtual Caches need not just be interesting, but they need a "WOW" factor to it.

 

This is why I am confused about what contains a WOW factor. I believe if a virtual cache is interesting and enjoyable then it should be approved so others can share in the experience. I pointed out other comparable virtual caches in the area and the approver said the following:

 

"Both caches you mention were approved before the guidelines on virtual caches were tightened up. Therefore they do not apply. They have been allowed to remain because they were Grand Fathered under the old ruling.

 

 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. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.  Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples."

 

This is why I can only think of NP and well known monuments, which are things in a coffee table book. I suppose there are a few unknown places. But for the most part that really limits virtual caches. Things that are very interesting could be unapproved.

You both have the same approver.

Link to comment
The approver will write you and say something like, "Couldn't you make this the first step in a multi ending in a physical cache with a log book?"

That's a de facto ban.

That is pretty much what the approver told me, the funny thing is, my cache was on private land and could not contain any sort of physical cache. Only a virtual cache.

That's what I meant by "National Parks and the like" places you can't have a physical cache nearby. Should've clarified.

Link to comment
The approver will write you and say something like, "Couldn't you make this the first step in a multi ending in a physical cache with a log book?"

That's a de facto ban.

That is pretty much what the approver told me, the funny thing is, my cache was on private land and could not contain any sort of physical cache. Only a virtual cache.

Did you ask permission for a physical cache? Can you use information from the site as the first part of a multi that leads to a physical cache off the site? What kind of private property is it, and is it in your area?

Link to comment
[That is interesting. So if I understand you correctly, you think Virtual caches should be intersting to cachers, not some garbage can, but something new or unique that people would be interested in seeing.

 

I agree, as long as it has interest by cachers and that is usually determined by whether people visit the cache. You must have had a much easier approver than I did. Couple of things you might be interested in:

 

From the virtual cache guidelines

"The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page. "

 

When I talked to the approver, he said that Virtual Caches need not just be interesting, but they need a "WOW" factor to it.

 

This is why I am confused about what contains a WOW factor. I believe if a virtual cache is interesting and enjoyable then it should be approved so others can share in the experience. I pointed out other comparable virtual caches in the area and the approver said the following:

 

"Both caches you mention were approved before the guidelines on virtual caches were tightened up. Therefore they do not apply. They have been allowed to remain because they were Grand Fathered under the old ruling.

 

 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. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.  Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples.".

What yuu said AND that they conform to the REST of the guidelines that you keep forgetting about. Well-known monuments probably would fail on the part about being able to look up the verification online or in a library. Can you hide a cache here, or nearby? I have a micro near a monument, and the very first finder said, "wow, I tried to make this a virtual last month, but it was turned down". Since this website prefers physical caches, if you can hide a physical cache there, it probably won't get listed. Does it meet the vacatiion rules? the rules on commercial locations? We don't know about yours, since you seem to be unwilling to go into detail about what you submitted as a cache. Since your reviewer just posted to the thread, perhaps he will share?

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>Go out tonight and set up a virt. Submit it. I'd say there is about a 95% chance it gets rejected.

<<SNIP>>

That's correct.

 

Now if you go out, spend some time making sure the virtual cache is within the virtual cache guidelines and you have a %95 chance of getting it approved.

Link to comment
There is a de facto ban on virts. TPTB won't come out and say it, but it's true, for better or for worse.

The only virt you might get approved is one in a National Park or the like.

No there isn't. That statement is just plain wrong.

OK. Go out tonight and set up a virt. Submit it. I'd say there is about a 95% chance it gets rejected.

The approver will write you and say something like, "Couldn't you make this the first step in a multi ending in a physical cache with a log book?"

That's a de facto ban.

That's just it, you CANNOT set up a good virtual in just one night. It take more work then that...even more then a traditional at times.

Geocaching is in a transition period of refining and redefining this sport to make it better for all. Bare with it, and ask questions of the admins. They are here to help make the game better.

Link to comment

I'm confused. How come you could put a virtual cache on private property, but not a physical cache? If it's OK for an endless parade of strangers to be going through this "private" property, then why can't they look for a physical cache?

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>Go out tonight and set up a virt. Submit it. I'd say there is about a 95% chance it gets rejected.

<<SNIP>>

That's correct.

 

Now if you go out, spend some time making sure the virtual cache is within the virtual cache guidelines and you have a %95 chance of getting it approved.

Harrald is correct. The two virtual caches I've approved in Pennsylvania this *WEEK* (I didn't get the memo about the ban) both sailed through on the first try. One was a multi-stop tour of a National Monument. Since it was NPS property, no physical caches are allowed. Since it was a tour that gave the finder a sense of the entire set of events that took place at this location, it was compelling... more so than finding a single historic marker or monument. The second cache was on private property in a residential neighborhood. The cache owner told me *in advance* that there was no park or other open space nearby for a physical cache to be hidden, as the second stage of a multi. She also asked the property owner if he'd mind having a micro hidden in his yard, and he said no to having a cache, but visitors were welcome to browse around among the objects he's displayed in his yard. Finally, she sent me pictures of the virtual cache target. They not only made me say "wow, coffee table book material," but when I shared them with the other volunteers (we do that, to be sure we're consistent and objective), they all said "wow" as well.

 

I am happy to list virtual caches that meet the guidelines which the website has asked me to follow. I also had to archive several submissions this week that did *not* meet the guidelines -- they were for road markers and historic signs. And one of my favorite listings of the past week was a micro that was hidden at a spot 35 feet away from where a virtual cache had been denied more than a year ago.

 

Two of my top 30 geocaches are virtuals. I enjoy finding the good ones, and I can do without some of the older grandfathered caches that say "look at the roadside historic marker." I could also do without moldy gladware that's hidden 50 feet from the parking lot.

 

EDIT: It is "coffee table book" not "coffee book." Freudian slip.

Edited by Keystone Approver
Link to comment
I'm confused. How come you could put a virtual cache on private property, but not a physical cache? If it's OK for an endless parade of strangers to be going through this "private" property, then why can't they look for a physical cache?

One reason could be that it is owned by the city...which could make it private property.

Link to comment

He's already been asked twice, and then he only gave a general summery.

 

I know you have been upset because you feel like you've been attacked by your posting, but how can you expect help if you hold back information? It seems like ever time someone posts a thread complaining about cache approval, they never tell the whole story. We cannot help you unless you show EXACTLY what the cache page looked like when you submitted it, and EXACTLY what the approver said to you, and EXACTLY what you may have said back to the approver.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

Welcome to the forums LeapFrog & Ms. LadyBug.

 

People asked you to search the forums for good reason. I would like to point out something you would have found.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ndpost&p=584849

Jeremy,Aug 12 2003, 02:46 PM

Re: Virtual Caches

 

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ndpost&p=584852

Originally posted by solohiker:

Jeremy, is a wild cannon.

 

Originally posted by Jeremy

I'm wildly sober about this. Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

 

Cache reviewers don't set policy, we follow it.

We are only doing what the owner of the site has asked us to do. We are asked to follow the guidelines. As Harrald said, "Now if you go out, spend some time making sure the virtual cache is within the virtual cache guidelines and you have a %95 chance of getting it approved."

Link to comment

The cache I tried to approve was on private property that provided tours of the facility. I m sure the company that owns the property would not appreciate a physical cache and that is more than enough reason to create a virtual cache.

 

The reason I do not share the cache is because I have learned from the experience and I am learning even more now that we are discussing virtual caches. I think the cache was valuable and have received enough disappointment by not having it approved. I don't need a forum of people nit-picking apart the cache. I hope that it is satisfying enough to everyone that the virtual cache was unique, contained history, and would have been interesting to cachers. The approver obviously disagreed.

 

I also would like to say that I have done my research. I have been caching for little over a year and only have placed one virtual cache. I like to choose very interesting locations and I do read the policies. I am not out to get as many caches as possible approved, that is not and should not be a status symbol of experience in geocaching.

 

Leap Frog

Link to comment
There is a de facto ban on virts. TPTB won't come out and say it, but it's true, for better or for worse.

The only virt you might get approved is one in a National Park or the like.

No there isn't. That statement is just plain wrong.

OK. Go out tonight and set up a virt. Submit it. I'd say there is about a 95% chance it gets rejected.

The approver will write you and say something like, "Couldn't you make this the first step in a multi ending in a physical cache with a log book?"

That's a de facto ban.

That's just it, you CANNOT set up a good virtual in just one night. It take more work then that...even more then a traditional at times.

Geocaching is in a transition period of refining and redefining this sport to make it better for all. Bare with it, and ask questions of the admins. They are here to help make the game better.

Sure you can put together a virt in one night. The most recent virt to get approved in the US doesn't look like it took more than one visit to put together.

 

Also, let me state that personally, I wouldn't care if another virtual was never approved on this site again, so I'm not approaching this from a sour grapes POV or anything. I have been to a few virts I enjoyed, and a few I that were beyond utterly pointless.

The way the rules are now written it is incredibly hard to find a suitable place for a virt. I don't know why people are having a hard time with the word "ban." The rules pretty much do ban virts anyplace where physical caches are not outright banned. (There's that word again.)

 

Keystone Approver

(I didn't get the memo about the ban) 

 

You didn't? Then why did you spend the next paragraph explaining why you made exceptions and approved the caches. :grin:

Edited by Bull Moose
Link to comment
<<SNIP>>Go out tonight and set up a virt. Submit it. I'd say there is about a 95% chance it gets rejected.

<<SNIP>>

That's correct.

 

Now if you go out, spend some time making sure the virtual cache is within the virtual cache guidelines and you have a %95 chance of getting it approved.

Ha! Now that's just funny.

 

The sad truth is that if you go out, do your research and all that jazz and submit your Virtual you have a slight increase in your probability of approval. The odds are still stacked aginst a virtual.

 

The only way to make sure a virtual will get approved is to email your handy local admin before you even bother and ask. That way you get the no out of the way before you submit. Then if you happen to be one of the few who can prove you can't make it into a lame multi cache, or a lame offset cache, or any other kind of lame regular cache, then you can do the extra work of proving it's "Coffee Table" worthy.

 

In the case of a virtual if you do your homework it doesn't help much at all. The reason is that there is a defacto ban on them. The only reason that I can think of that they are even on this site is that a few parks only allow them.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...