Jump to content

Denied Virtuals


Recommended Posts

After spending a week traveling through the South (geocaching all the while) with my wife in celebration of our 20th anniversary, I arrived home, logged my finds, and placed two virtual caches, both of which were Native American mounds, neither of which had caches within 8 miles of them. One of these mounds actually had a Geodetic Survey benchmark placed on its top. To my amazement, both of these virtuals were denied. Given the fact that it is illegal to place physical caches at the sites, and given the fact that no other caches were anywhere near these sites, and given the fact that these areas are of high historical significance, I find this rejection unwarranted.

 

In my humble opinion, these historical areas are worthy of virtual cache status. I sought them out on a map, took time from my trip to search for them, and would like to lead other historically minded geocachers to visit them. That, however, does not seem to be possible. These are archeological sites where the placement of physical caches is either illegal, or would be detrimental to our game. Why not allow them to be listed as virtuals?

 

After reading the requirements for virtual caches, both of these sites fit perfectly, and I stated my arguments to reviewers. However, the reviewers decided to reject the sites nevertheless.

 

As a busy professional, I do not have the time I would like to spend geocaching. But when I have time, I enjoy caching in those areas I am visiting. And I especially like caches of historical significance. I can't help but think there are other individuals like me across this great country.

 

All of this dampers my enthusiasm for geocaching, and will probably lead me to give up my premium membership in the organization. Does anyone else feel as I do?

Link to comment

I archived the one you submitted in Alabama. I quoted this in my archive note:

Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc. You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches including virtual caches.

 

You can find this passage in the guidelines here:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#vacation

Vacation virtual caches are not approved.

 

On top of that, your verification question was:

To claim credit for this virtual cache, e-mail me the date and name on the Geodetic Survey benchmark located on top of the mound. (And don't forget to log the benchmark, too!)

 

There is a direct link to nearby benchmarks on the cache page. All you have to do is click it and you have the answer to your verification question. The virtual cache guidelines clearly state:

3. There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research.

Since you are now over 400 miles away from the area it would be tough for you to come up with an decent verification question I would imagine. Benchmarks also get stolen. It happens all the time. If it goes missing how do you plan to verify that your target is gone since you placed it while on vacation? This cache failed the guidelines big time on two fronts, so I archived it.

 

You make two big mistakes and blame the web site for them rather than accepting personal responsibility for making a mistake yourself.

 

:P

Link to comment
To claim credit for this virtual cache, e-mail me the date and name on the Geodetic Survey benchmark located on top of the mound. (And don't forget to log the benchmark, too!)

 

BTW, is this the answer to the question:

 

MOUND B 1939

 

I have seen this benchmark at the park but just haven't gotten around to logging it yet. Plus, since the OP had already logged the benchmark, it was very easy to find the answer to the question. This park is definitely worthy of a geocache. The members of the AGA are actively working on getting more geocaches in the Tuscaloosa area. I'll post a message on our web site about the park to see if we can get one there.

Link to comment
All of this dampers my enthusiasm for geocaching, and will probably lead me to give up my premium membership in the organization.  Does anyone else feel as I do?

I don't understand why some people feel that they may quit geocaching, or "give up my premium membership" because a cache is not approved. It seems that if someone truly enjoys this sport/activity that they would just move on and try another. Oh well.

Link to comment

Almost everyone who places caches has probably had at least one denial, gotten upset, has cooled off and realized its all for fun and tried again. Using a benchmark as positive proof of visitation is just not gonna work. As you have been shown, it can be looked up right here on Geocache.com, and has been guessed correctly just by the little you have posted.

 

PS - you will find most on here busy professionals also, whos time is rationed when it comes to Geocaching.

Link to comment

While Indian Mounds are interesting, there's certainly nothing unique about them, especially in the South. There's hundreds of them.

 

While I personally wish virtual rules were a little more loose, thought I'm not a big fan of virtuals myself, I can see several reasons for turning these down.

 

1) Caches (even virtuals) don't need to be where placers can't regularly check on them. Let the local cachers handle the local caches. Both will be there eventually.

 

2) Most historically minded people would already know about it, so it's not drawing people there.

 

3) With careful planning, the mound could be used as an offset for a physical. For that matter, I have a full-size ammo box cache (yes, with permission) ON an Indian Mound placed in a way that did no damage to the mound.

 

Don't let a couple of rejections bother you. My love life's been rejected more than that (and that was just yesterday).

Link to comment

I've never seen an Indian mound. You all may trip over them in some parts of the country but that doesn't mean they are ordinary and unworthy.

 

If this site suddenly allowed buried caches that would have a negative impact on this RASH. If they suddenly decided to start allowing virtual caches with no "Wow" restrictions and no "place another kind of cache there first restrictins" this RASH would not be hurt one bit.

 

Which isn't to say that the issue of maintainability isn't a valid issue on this one. It is.

Link to comment
Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc. You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches including virtual caches.

This is a silly guideline when it comes to Virts and it should be removed...really, how much maintainance is needed on a Virt?

Link to comment
Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved.

This is a silly guideline when it comes to Virts and it should be removed...really, how much maintainance is needed on a Virt?

Sometimes quite a bit. :(

Link to comment
Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc. You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches including virtual caches.

This is a silly guideline when it comes to Virts and it should be removed...really, how much maintainance is needed on a Virt?

Well there's the possibility that the access to the cache may become blocked, or the item that the virtual is about could be closed.

 

Like what if a fire came through and they had to close that park for a couple months. It's not like the owner would know unless someone email him...

Link to comment
I've never seen an Indian mound. You all may trip over them in some parts of the country but that doesn't mean they are ordinary and unworthy.

I agree, as I have never seen one, either...I think it would be kinda cool to see one of them if I was driving through that part of the country, but of course, since it wasn't approved, I guess I will miss out...

 

Also, telling this cacher to try waypointing or giving out the answers to his Virt is uncalled for, IMO, and doesn't help to address the issue...

Link to comment
Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc. You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches including virtual caches.

This is a silly guideline when it comes to Virts and it should be removed...really, how much maintainance is needed on a Virt?

This virtual cache was technically unavailable from June 2003 until November 2003. Part of the verification info was missing, and the cache owner no longer lives in the area. So for 6 months cachers (including myself) ducked around construction fences and wet cement, and googled the missing verification questions. If it had been properly maintained the verification could have been changed to something that could LEGALLY be obtained for the 6 month duration of the construction.

Link to comment
Placing Caches on Vacation/Beyond Your Maintainable Distance

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved.

This is a silly guideline when it comes to Virts and it should be removed...really, how much maintainance is needed on a Virt?

Sometimes quite a bit. :(

I am sure in a case like that, or in the event of a fire, the next cacher would drop the Virt owner a note, and then the cache can be archived. (Caches aren't gonna last forever, ya know!)

 

The only maintenance needed is a click of the "archive" button if something bad happens like that. No biggie.

Link to comment
giving out the answers to his Virt is uncalled for, IMO, and doesn't help to address the issue...

Yes, it DOES help. The verification should be just that, something to verify you were there. Yet, without even posting exact details of the cache, someone who couldn't even see the cache details was able to "prove" he visited the cache. That shows it was not an acceptable form of verification.

Link to comment
So for 6 months cachers (including myself) ducked around construction fences and wet cement, and googled the missing verification questions. If it had been properly maintained the verification could have been changed to something that could LEGALLY be obtained for the 6 month duration of the construction.

Mopar? Tresspass? Went around a construction fence instead of moving onto the next cache?

Say it ain't so! :(

Link to comment
giving out the answers to his Virt is uncalled for, IMO, and doesn't help to address the issue...

Yes, it DOES help. The verification should be just that, something to verify you were there. Yet, without even posting exact details of the cache, someone who couldn't even see the cache details was able to "prove" he visited the cache. That shows it was not an acceptable form of verification.

I would rather see someone discreetly drop the cache owner a note, rather than rubbing his face in it and humiliating them in public....

Link to comment

Mopar? Tresspass? Went around a construction fence instead of moving onto the next cache?

Say it ain't so! :(

HA! It's happened before (usually followed by an SBA post). In this case, if you check my log, I didn't actually climb any fences for this one. There was a construction gangplank over the the wet cement surrounding the monument. Did they intend for that to be public? Probably not, but there were no signs, and nobody around at night to tell me it wasn't allowed........ :D

I did go back again last Feb when IV Warrior was out visiting, and got to see it as the hider intended.

Link to comment
giving out the answers to his Virt is uncalled for, IMO, and doesn't help to address the issue...

Yes, it DOES help. The verification should be just that, something to verify you were there. Yet, without even posting exact details of the cache, someone who couldn't even see the cache details was able to "prove" he visited the cache. That shows it was not an acceptable form of verification.

I would rather see someone discreetly drop the cache owner a note, rather than rubbing his face in it and humiliating them in public....

Actually, normally I would agree with you. In this case, the cache owner already brought the issue to the forums, claiming it was "Illogical denial of virtual caches" and "After reading the requirements for virtual caches, both of these sites fit perfectly, and I stated my arguments to reviewers. However, the reviewers decided to reject the sites nevertheless. "

The fact that members of the community were able to prove the reviewer made a good call (in this case) by pointing out a major issue with the potential cache might help the hider (and others) to understand why the cache was declined.

Link to comment

Mopar? Tresspass? Went around a construction fence instead of moving onto the next cache?

Say it ain't so!  :D

HA! It's happened before (usually followed by an SBA post). In this case, if you check my log, I didn't actually climb any fences for this one. There was a construction gangplank over the the wet cement surrounding the monument. Did they intend for that to be public? Probably not, but there were no signs, and nobody around at night to tell me it wasn't allowed........ :(

I did go back again last Feb when IV Warrior was out visiting, and got to see it as the hider intended.

So everyone who walks on the sidewalk now reads the "Mopar+GeoHo" in the cement? LOL!

 

Well, anyway, getting back to the Virt in question: let's look at this on an individual basis (which is what they should do anyhow, instead of applying blanket rules). How much maintenance will an INDIAN MOUND need? After all, it's been there for a couple hundred years, and I don't think it will be going anywhere soon.

Is it really gonna be detrimental to the game to allow this? Come on, let the guy have his Virt...I really think it would be a cool thing to see...I say approve it, so others can come and enjoy this bit of Native American history.... :D

Link to comment
Why should it be a virt? Didn't someone say that it would be a great place for a physical?

 

Physical caches get priority.

 

Of course, he'd still need to be able to maintain it.

Can't put a physical cache on an Indian Mound, I am assuming they are protected sites...

Link to comment
So hide one nearby and use the info from the benchmark to make it a multi. :(:D

He could...but he wanted to make it a VIRT...

One could ALWAYS argue: "Hey, there is room nearby for a physical"....well, yea, but he wanted to place a Virt at that spot, not nearby, and not a physical...if Virts are not allowed anymore, then perhaps GC.com should get rid of the Virt option when listing a new cache, instead of steering the cacher into placing a different type of cache than what was originally planned...

 

"You gotta fight, for your right...to place a cache!" (and party, too!)

Link to comment
Enough said.  I stand corrected!

 

Sheepishly,

 

WalkinJake

WalkinJake seems to be okay with the decision now. And he was the one who's cache was denied.

Why is Team 360 still going on about it? :D

It's a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it! :(

Link to comment
Enough said.  I stand corrected!

 

Sheepishly,

 

WalkinJake

WalkinJake seems to be okay with the decision now. And he was the one who's cache was denied.

Why is Team 360 still going on about it? :(

Because I think the maintenance rule should not apply to this type of cache.

Okay, enough said...I am outie....

Link to comment

The maintenance rule was my biggest gripe as well. I just didn't think it should apply to a virtual cache on National Park land, or to the Moundville Archeological Park. To me, these virtuals bring historical sites to a cacher's attention. Whenever I travel, I always search (on-line) for geocaches in areas through which I will pass to get an idea of things I might want to stop and see. I might not have time to delve into an involved physical cache hunt, but I can find places to stretch my legs or enjoy a picnic lunch while enjoying a site a fellow cacher has deemed interesting.

 

It disturbs me somewhat that the game has become so cemented in rules and regulations that we cannot share these simple pleasures with each other.

 

But, hey, no big deal. If that's how you guys want to play, I'll abide by your rules.

Link to comment

Please remember that you CAN share them with others. You can list it your self and post a note in your regions forums about it. You can list it on another listing service. Not getting it listed here is not the end of life as we know it. Be Creative.

Link to comment
Enough said.  I stand corrected!

 

Sheepishly,

 

WalkinJake

WalkinJake seems to be okay with the decision now. And he was the one who's cache was denied.

Why is Team 360 still going on about it? :D

Amazing sometimes isn't it. :D:(

 

I bet if someone started a topic regarding painting a geocaching.com logo and wanted to know how long it would take the paint to dry that it would go for at least 4 pages and there would be a geocide along the way.

Link to comment
The maintenance rule was my biggest gripe as well. I just didn't think it should apply to a virtual cache on National Park land, or to the Moundville Archeological Park....

Because things do happen to virtual caches that require an owner to check on the cache. Construction, vandalizm etc, maintanece is a valid issue.

Link to comment
I would rather see someone discreetly drop the cache owner a note, rather than rubbing his face in it and humiliating them in public....

The cache owner did not offer me the courtesy of dropping me a note asking me for more of an explaination. The cache owner came to the forums and said, "I find this rejection unwarranted." It think I was perfectly justified in thoroughly explaining why I rejected the cache. I didn't give a half-baked answer. I totally explained all aspects of the reasons behind my decision. There are a combination of reasons why it was rejected. If the cache was buttoned up it still would have been rejected because he did this while traveling. Since he was traveling, he could not correct the cache EVEN IF it would have been an acceptable virtual cache. Geez, the answer was available with two clicks from the cache page itself for heavens sake. Man, are some of you saying we should approve virtual caches when the answer can be found by clicking a link on the cache page itself???

 

I am happy the cache owner understood the facts when I presented them.

I would have much rather done it via email myself.

 

 

I want to give everyone something to think about regarding creating virtual caches while traveling...

 

I have three virtual caches that were created while traveling. They were created before the guidelines changed. They are all in areas where a traditional cache cannot be placed. I am one that at first did not agree with this change in the guidelines but I abided by it and did not complain. Over time I have come to realize one important thing though -- places to create caches are tougher and tougher to come by. As Jeff said, the local group of cachers is working to get more caches placed in that area -- local cachers trying to place caches. I have still seen places as I travel where I could create a virtual cache with no problem. But, I have no problem letting that place go without a cache now because I know I have left the area open for a future local cacher to create a cache. I have potentially given a new person to caching a place to create their first cache so they can enjoy the fun of creating a cache themselves.

 

Using this cache as an example, why not let the local cachers work out a cache there? I think it shows courtesy to the local cacher to allow them to join in the fun. We are still at the dawn of geocaching in my opinion. Just because you cannot create a cache while traveling *now* does not mean that a cache will never be created there. Be patient. If the place is that special then eventually the cache will be created.

Link to comment
In it's current form it would not be approved.

Even still, I know the area too, and as Jeff said:

 

It's a cool place, but there's lots of places that you could hide a traditional or use the benchmark as part of an offset.

That is a 'guideline' that can eliminate ALL virtuals. If it is an archeological site it would be off limits to a traditional cache. Barring that and giving it a photo or other (better) logging requirement what would keep it from being approved as a virtual?

Link to comment
That is a 'guideline' that can eliminate ALL virtuals.

No it isn't. Come on.

 

Frankly, these *are* common. Are you suggesting that we allow virtuals for the hundreds of these that are around throughout the south and Mexico? Wouldn't that make them by definition common?

Link to comment

What virtual could not be used as an offset. The only question is how far it would be.

 

As far as the commonality, that may well be an issue. But surely if a few of them (tallest, oldest, largest area etc.) ones were virtuals what would that hurt? There are quite a few pyramids in Egypt also, would the Great Pyramid be 'WOW' enough to qualify? I would actually think that in a perfect world they (indian mounds) would make an excellent locationless cache (there is already one for pyramids), but those aren't allowed.

Link to comment
I bet if someone started a topic regarding painting a geocaching.com logo and wanted to know how long it would take the paint to dry that it would go for at least 4 pages and there would be a geocide along the way.

Haven't been able to read anything since this....still....laughing.....too....hard...... :(

Link to comment
What virtual could not be used as an offset. The only question is how far it would be.

 

As far as the commonality, that may well be an issue. But surely if a few of them (tallest, oldest, largest area etc.) ones were virtuals what would that hurt? There are quite a few pyramids in Egypt also, would the Great Pyramid be 'WOW' enough to qualify? I would actually think that in a perfect world they (indian mounds) would make an excellent locationless cache (there is already one for pyramids), but those aren't allowed.

I love irony. He he.

 

I cannot say that I disagree with what you say. All points are valid.

 

The ironic part is this...

 

Cheops V

 

Approved a week ago. Created by a local cacher.

Checkmate. :(

Link to comment
If it is an archeological site it would be off limits to a traditional cache.

That is not necessarily true. Pater47 has a cache that is on an Indian Mound WITH permission. I have one that is beside a mound - I will have to archive it when the brush in the area is cleared...BUT I have permission... actually more of a request - to hide it on TOP of the big mound when the new steps are completed.

 

It's not so cut and dry. Each location may be different. In the case of this one - I think that it shows that the vacation cache rule applies EVEN to virtuals - Locals often know things that MOST (but not all) vacationerss can't or don't know.

 

As far as virtuals - I think the whole "wow"/"coffee-table book worthy" rule is stupid and subjective. It is totally inconsistant, you can bet that not all approvers think the same things are cool. However, due to people wanting to make every dang historical marker or tombstone a virtual - we have to put up with it.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
mtn-man wrote:
Benchmarks also get stolen. It happens all the time.

 

Really? How often? Could you give us some stats, please? Around these parts, the benchmarks on top of the peaks have been there for more than 30 or 40 years.

 

Sorry, but with all due respect, this is a lame, lame excuse for denying a vacation virtual. I think it would be helpful if Groundspeak could actually be honest about the reasons for the ban.

 

Well, you have logged 4 so far yourself. One of them was not there.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=HS4084

 

I would say by your own experience that you have had a 25 percent failure rate so far. I would have to ask some of the high ranking benchmark hunters to get a good feel. I know when I tried to log the benchmark locationless cache a couple of years ago that it took me 5 to find one. That was an 80 percent failure rate for me.

 

If you have a question for Groundspeak then feel free to write them at the contact address.

Link to comment
Treating it as Revealed Gospel may be required of you as an approver, but it is certainly not required of anyone as a thinking human being.

I take that statement as a personal insult.

 

Ironically, I agreed some time ago to watch a cache you placed while traveling here in Atlanta. I am no longer going to accept that responsibility. You can deal with it yourself.

 

Fizzy's Fantastic Fenceline Frolic

 

We used to be friends. I don't understand why you needed to make that comment.

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