Virtual Caches

[+qhtxvckfkfl]

Please HELP me! I recently found accidentally while hiking the most BIZARRE place that I have ever seen. It is accessable only by a VERY long (12-mile) round-trip hike on a large deserted island. What is it? Wooden poles (some 30 feet tall) painted pink and blue; with some coconuts stuck on the top of some of the poles. A fence with hundreds of (full) bottles of water on it; a large used fishing net; wooden posts with large buckets on them. What is this place? It is not used for satanic worship or for the occult, so its purpose and origin remain a mystery. They would not post it on the web site as a virtual cache. Why not? What virtual cache WILL meet their criteria? THX PTH

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Why couldn't you place a container there?

[+qhtxvckfkfl]

I don't want to! It is such an unbelieveable place YOU HAVE TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF!

[+welch]

'They would not post it on the web site as a virtual cache. Why not?'

Because there was a problem in which it was thought too many were being submitted for frivous reason, which caused problms (complaining for one), so they were cracked down on.

 

Digging threw all the guidelines/Faqs/How-tos maybe some of the many other threads on this topic, might give you an idea about what will be accpeted. Basically you need to find something this WOW to enough people, and get your nearest approver to agree (or 'see-it', depeding how you consider such things) with you. Oh, and the wow spot is not supposed to be able to have an actual phyisical cache there (and not being to incorperate into a multi would be nice ). That, of course, rules out a LOT of places.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Just "not wanting to" would not conform to the guidelines. It has to be a place that you can not place a container, in addition to the "WOW" factor.

 

Tell me, would placing a container really distract someone from the "WOW" of the site?

If yes, it must not be a "WOW" maybe it's only a "wow".

If no, and containers are prohibited there, it just might qualify.

[+welch]

I don't want to! It is such an unbelieveable place YOU HAVE TO SEE IT FOR YOURSELF!

See, thats not one of the accepted reasons for not placing a phyisical. And things involving distance/time (maintaince of the a phyisical) are also not accepted.

[uperdooper]

Please HELP me! I recently found accidentally while hiking the most BIZARRE place that I have ever seen. It is accessable only by a VERY long (12-mile) round-trip hike on a large deserted island. What is it? Wooden poles (some 30 feet tall) painted pink and blue; with some coconuts stuck on the top of some of the poles. A fence with hundreds of (full) bottles of water on it; a large used fishing net; wooden posts with large buckets on them. What is this place? It is not used for satanic worship or for the occult, so its purpose and origin remain a mystery. They would not post it on the web site as a virtual cache. Why not? What virtual cache WILL meet their criteria? THX PTH

maybe you found where they are taping the next survivor show.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Please HELP me!  I recently found accidentally while hiking the most BIZARRE place that I have ever seen.  It is accessable only by a VERY long (12-mile) round-trip hike on a large deserted island.  What is it?  Wooden poles (some 30 feet tall) painted pink and blue; with some coconuts stuck on the top of some of the poles.  A fence with hundreds of (full) bottles of water on it; a large used fishing net; wooden posts with large buckets on them.  What is this place?  It is not used for satanic worship or for the occult, so its purpose and origin remain a mystery.  They would not post it on the web site as a virtual cache.  Why not?  What virtual cache WILL meet their criteria?  THX PTH

maybe you found where they are taping the next survivor show.

That was my first thought, too.

[AC Student]

It is not used for satanic worship or for the occult, so its purpose and origin remain a mystery.

Just curious - how do you know it isn't used for satanic or occult purposes? Even if it is... as far as I know neither satanic worship nor the occult are against GC.com guidelines.

 

Seriously, it sounds like a really interesting spot. You'd being doing a service to the game by placing a traditional cache there so others will seek out and enjoy it too.

 

Also, did you take any pictures? If so please post one here.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well now, that area sounds like the kind of place you couln't really keep a physical cache.

 

Point one in favor of a virtual.

 

Next you have to have wow. On the one hand you have something people will drap their jaw in wonder at should they happen on it. However you could also argue that poles are in fences, water bottles can be see at the store, and the buckets are probably full of doot which truckers now cary in their rigs as a stock item. Nothing special in any of it. Since it's assembled in an artistic format and you can see art in a museum.

 

Call this a wash so I can't see any points being given for WOW. Because you need two points and you are are short a point, it's back to the drawing board for you.

[+ADKcachers]

 

Also, did you take any pictures? If so please post one here.

Yeah!! What he said.

[+Beta Test]

If you are going to put a container out there, you might want to figure out if it is an active site. It sounds like a hobo with exceptional taste made a camp there to me.

[+Harrald]

Well now, that area sounds like the kind of place you couln't really keep a physical cache.

 

<<SNIP>>

It doesn't sound that way to me.

[+Beta Test]

Well now, that area sounds like the kind of place you couln't really keep a physical cache.

 

<<SNIP>>

It doesn't sound that way to me.

It depends. I can see where RK can figure this. I think his point was that it very well could be a commonly visited site, and that the regulars there would notice a cache and add it to their odd little set up. Just a thought.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think his point was that it very well could be a commonly visited site, and that the regulars there would notice a cache and add it to their odd little set up. Just a thought.[/color]

We have a winner!

 

What I was thinking was that anyone who would do all that work knows the area like the back of their hand. Any cache in the vicinity would not last. Because of that while it may be a cool spot to happen upon in your travels, it would not do much for cache permanence.

[+Bilder]

Wooden poles (some 30 feet tall) painted pink and blue; with some coconuts stuck on the top of some of the poles. A fence with hundreds of (full) bottles of water on it; a large used fishing net; wooden posts with large buckets on them. What is this place?

 

Sounds like a local resturant.

 

About the only way you will get a virt approved these days is to prove without a doubt that there is no way a regular cache cannot be placed at the site.

 

Either that or a large sum of money slipped to an approver.......

[MOCKBA]

Just "not wanting to" would not conform to the guidelines.

Not wanting in the original poster's context didn't read like "I do not want to conform to guidelines", but rather, "I do not want to hike back again soon" IMHO.

Since maintenance of the virtuals is generally virtual in nature (verifying answers, chiding illegitimate finders, archiving if the object is gone) and doesn't require many trips back to the location, I could imagine how a cacher may be willing to share his secret, remote WOW spot with the community only if it is posted as a virt.

Sounds like another situation where rigid enforcement of the guildelines stifles the creativity for no good reason...

[+JohnnyVegas]

So you want to get a virtual approved, You have a better chance of winning a lotery

[+mtn-man]

I recently found accidentally while hiking the most BIZARRE place that I have ever seen. It is accessable only by a VERY long (12-mile) round-trip hike on a large deserted island.

1. Sounds like private property. Do people have permission from the land owner for other people to visit this location at will?

 

2. Wouldn't this be a cache place while traveling since you don't live there?

Edited July 7, 2004 by mtn-man

[CoyoteRed]

Please HELP me! I recently found accidentally while hiking the most BIZARRE place that I have ever seen.

Post the coordinates here. It seems very interesting indeed!

[+JMBella]

It depends. I can see where RK can figure this. I think his point was that it very well could be a commonly visited site, and that the regulars there would notice a cache and add it to their odd little set up. Just a thought.

I say add it to their odd little set up to begin with. Make one of the coconuts a micro cache. Use NG adventure paper for a logsheet, make sure there's room for a couple hundred logs and you may never have to do maintenance of the thing. Problem solved. Next please, no waiting.

[+TEAM 360]

AGAIN, here is another cacher getting "railroaded" into placing a physical cache there.

 

If they want to make it a Virt, let them make it a Virt!

 

Otherwise, take away the Virt option if you aren't going to allow them anymore.

 

Enough of this "you HAVE to place a physical container there" BS stuff, already!

[+Beta Test]

I think it's time to abandon ship!

[+JMBella]

AGAIN, here is another cacher getting "railroaded" into placing a physical cache there.

 

If they want to make it a Virt, let them make it a Virt!

 

Otherwise, take away the Virt option if you aren't going to allow them anymore.

 

Enough of this "you HAVE to place a physical container there" BS stuff, already!

I think the general consensus is that if the location can support a physical cache then most geocachers would prefer that. Not saying that everyone agrees with that but I think most do. It seems to me that the virtuals are reserved for National Park, National Wildlife and other property that does not allow physical caches. There are other variables in this case that I don't think were covered here.

A) Is the location within the cachers maintainable area. Whether it's a traditional or virt, they would still have to be able to maintain it to some degree.

<--- (That's was't supposed to happen) b.) What is the make up of the area. Are there woods or trees?

C) Who owns or manages the property and can it be accessed legally?

D) You said it was a deserted Island. I assume you took a boat and then hiked 6 miles to get to the site? Did you accidentally find the Island or the site?

E) And most importantly, Was Wilson there?

Edited July 7, 2004 by JMBella

[+TEAM 360]

I think the general consensus is that if the location can support a physical cache then most geocachers would prefer that.

Certainly don't want to start anything here, JMBella, because you are a forum regular and have gained a respectful standing in here, and with me, but isn't it up to the HIDER to determine what kind of cache they want?

 

To me, that's like ordering a t-bone steak and having the restaurant demand you get a burger instead, adding that "if you don't like our policy, take your business down the road...". Hey, if I can't order it, why is it even on the menu, then?

Edited July 7, 2004 by TEAM 360

[Pto]

I think the general consensus is that if the location can support a physical cache then most geocachers would prefer that. Not saying that everyone agrees with that but I think most do

 

I tend to feel that "most cachers" are led to believe that by the overload of anti-virt posts, and beating over the head of guidelines repeatedly.

 

To me, that's like ordering a t-bone steak and having the restaurant demand you get a burger instead, adding that "if you don't like our policy, take your business down the road...". Hey, if I can't order it, why is it even on the menu, then

 

Exactly what I was thinking. Whatever happened to My Choice in the matter?

The guidelines might as well be clear: You have .001% chance of getting one of these approved, so maybe dont even bother. Go sit on the couch, and re-read the guidelines....

[+Team Flashncache]

I have a question regarding Virtuals. I have gotten the impression that new virtuals, while not actually frowned upon, are less and less likely to be approved.

Is this true? If not, are there any criteria (beyond what is listed in the 'hide a cache' guidelines) that a virtual has to meet in order to gain approval?

Here's the situation: My family and I will be going on vacation next week to a somewhat remote location. I have already searched for the available caches in the area, (we plan on getting them all) but there are no virtuals within 20 miles. I found this to be somewhat surprising, as there are two choice locations in the area. I will not be able to maintain a "real" cache in the area, as this is a vacation spot and not someplace that we are likely to go more than once a year. The spot(s) I have in mind are noteworthy; not only for their scenic beauty, but also for their historical value. So, should I give it a shot?

Looking forward to your replies, especially those of the site moderators and area approvers.

 

Thanks,

[+Team Perks]

There has been a LOT of discussion about virtuals. A search of the forums will tell you much more than I can!

 

The truth is, virtuals ARE frowned upon--just not banned. You have to demonstrate 1) that it is not possible to place a physical cache there (i.e., using the information on a plaque at the virtual site to gain the final coordinates for a multi-cache) and 2) that the area is worthy of a virtual (the "wow" factor).

 

It is considered inappropriate to place a virtual while on vacation because you won't be able to maintain a physical cache there. It is expected that the cache owner will be able to check on a virtual with the same frequency as a physical cache. Plaques go missing. Buildings get torn down. Roads get closed for construction. You need to be able to monitor for that.

[+Beta Test]

Well you still have to maintain a virtual. Making all signs, and trails and what not are still open and available. Also a Virt can only be placed where another cache cannot

[+mtn-man]

I think the general consensus is that if the location can support a physical cache then most geocachers would prefer that.

Certainly don't want to start anything here, JMBella, because you are a forum regular and have gained a respectful standing in here, and with me, but isn't it up to the HIDER to determine what kind of cache they want?

 

To me, that's like ordering a t-bone steak and having the restaurant demand you get a burger instead, adding that "if you don't like our policy, take your business down the road...". Hey, if I can't order it, why is it even on the menu, then?

It may be up to the hider to decide what type of cache they want to hide (which is perfectly fine), but it is also up to this site to decide if they want to list it.

 

You may want a steak, but a t-bone steak is not on the menu. They might have a tenderloin, but you want a t-bone steak. They may not want to carry t-bone steaks. They don't tell you "if you don't like our policy, take your business down the road...", they just say that they choose not to carry that type of steak. In the same light, this site will list virtual caches, but it won't list every one that is out there. They are selective, just as a steak house is with their selected cuts of meat.

 

If a cache hider wants to go to another site to list their cache then that is perfectly fine, just as you are more than welcome to go to a restaurant that carries t-bone steaks if you want. Not every restaurant will carry every single cut of meat from every cow, pig, duck, lamb, buffalo, snake and yes, even chicken (sorry Stunod). Likewise, this site might not want to list every virtual cache that is out there.

[+Harrald]

AGAIN, here is another cacher getting "railroaded" into placing a physical cache there.

 

If they want to make it a Virt, let them make it a Virt!

 

Otherwise, take away the Virt option if you aren't going to allow them anymore.

 

Enough of this "you HAVE to place a physical container there" BS stuff, already!

Maybe you should check your information before posting untruths just to stir things up.

 

Here are 3 virts I found after a 2 minute search that were listed only a short time ago. The latest being 10 days ago. This wasn't even a country wide search. Do some research before you make bold statements of fact.

 

Whiteoak Canyon

 

Meem's Bottom Covered Bridge

 

Birdwalk

[+TEAM 360]

AGAIN, here is another cacher getting "railroaded" into placing a physical cache there.

 

If they want to make it a Virt, let them make it a Virt!

 

Otherwise, take away the Virt option if you aren't going to allow them anymore.

 

Enough of this "you HAVE to place a physical container there" BS stuff, already!

Maybe you should check your information before posting untruths just to stir things up.

 

Here are 3 virts I found after a 2 minute search that were listed only a short time ago. The latest being 10 days ago. This wasn't even a country wide search. Do some research before you make bold statements of fact.

 

Whiteoak Canyon

 

Meem's Bottom Covered Bridge

 

Birdwalk

My post is about letting the hider make the choice, not whether or not it is approved. There is nothing "untrue" about it...

 

I am thankful you responded with such good research, and glad to see some Virts actually getting approved these days.

 

Let's get past the hostilities.

[+Naefearjustbeer]

Before submitting a virt make sure it meets the criteria. Dont submit one if it doesnt meet the rules then complain. I have a couple of virtual caches and I provided full and complete reasons to the aprover at the time of submission so that he would not need to question every point with me. I have had them both aproved with no problems because they both met the rules.

[+TEAM 360]

t-bone steak burger steak t-bone steak tenderloin t-bone steak t-bone steaks steak steak selected cuts of meat restaurant t-bone steaks cut of meat cow, pig, duck, lamb, buffalo, snake and yes, even chicken

Puppymonster sounds hungry....

 

And it's lunchtime here at work.

 

Now I am starving. Thanks.

[+Mopar]

t-bone steak burger steak t-bone steak tenderloin t-bone steak t-bone steaks steak steak selected cuts of meat restaurant t-bone steaks cut of meat cow, pig, duck, lamb, buffalo, snake and yes, even chicken

Puppymonster sounds hungry....

 

And it's lunchtime here at work.

 

Now I am starving. Thanks.

two words:

Wings

Beer

 

 

mmmmmmmmm

carry on!

[+welch]

Is this true? If not, are there any criteria (beyond what is listed in the 'hide a cache' guidelines) that a virtual has to meet in order to gain approval?

Yes, its true. Did you read all the FAQs and Guidelines?

You need wow, and a location that can't possiably support another type of cache.

I'd won't go into that becauses, its been touched on already, and I meant be accused of railroading by telling you how it is at gc.com.

 

btw- I don't think the proximity to another virtual matters... 528ft is for any cache.

[ju66l3r]

It may be up to the hider to decide what type of cache they want to hide (which is perfectly fine), but it is also up to this site to decide if they want to list it.

 

You may want a steak, but a t-bone steak is not on the menu.

T-Bone is on the menu.

 

I think corollary you are looking for is that T-bone (virtual caches) are on the menu (approved by this site)...but you have to wash your hands (validate your reason for a virtual) before they will serve you a T-bone. Even after washing your hands, the server may scan them with a microscope and complain that he still sees a few pieces of dirt (could place a physical .15 miles away and make it an offset cache where the number of water bottles is added to X, Y, and Z to give new coordinates and not enough to "WOW" the un-wow-able).

 

Of course, the only thing the menu said is to please present "clean" hands and you thought they were cleaner than usual...

[ju66l3r]

It won't approve for the sole reason of "vacation cache"..which a few people have commented on.

 

If you really hate a geocacher in that area, feel free to e-mail them your virtual idea and ask them to take up your cause by submitting the cache.

[+Beta Test]

It won't approve for the sole reason of "vacation cache"..which a few people have commented on.

 

If you really hate a geocacher in that area, feel free to e-mail them your virtual idea and ask them to take up your cause by submitting the cache.

[+CO Admin]

It may be up to the hider to decide what type of cache they want to hide (which is perfectly fine), but it is also up to this site to decide if they want to list it.

 

You may want a steak, but a t-bone steak is not on the menu.

T-Bone is on the menu.

 

I think corollary you are looking for is that T-bone (virtual caches) are on the menu (approved by this site)...but you have to wash your hands (validate your reason for a virtual) before they will serve you a T-bone. Even after washing your hands, the server may scan them with a microscope and complain that he still sees a few pieces of dirt (could place a physical .15 miles away and make it an offset cache where the number of water bottles is added to X, Y, and Z to give new coordinates and not enough to "WOW" the un-wow-able).

 

Of course, the only thing the menu said is to please present "clean" hands and you thought they were cleaner than usual...

From the guidelines:

 

Virtual Caches

 

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a very unique and compelling nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was really there. Note, however, that new virtual cache proposals are only approved if they meet the all of conditions listed in the guidelines below. 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.

 

Note: Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep that in mind when submitting your cache report.

 

Gee sounds like it says more than just clean your hands to be. But then again I have read all the guidelines.

[+CO Admin]

two identical threads. Merged to make discussion easier

Edited July 7, 2004 by CO Admin

[+Beta Test]

I am not showing them as merged. Does this take time to show up?

[+yumitori]

I think the general consensus is that if the location can support a physical cache then most geocachers would prefer that.

Certainly don't want to start anything here, JMBella, because you are a forum regular and have gained a respectful standing in here, and with me, but isn't it up to the HIDER to determine what kind of cache they want?

 

Because some geocachers are idiots.

 

Not all certainly, hopefully not even most, but there will always be a few. As a long-time member of these forums, you no doubt remember some of the discussions concerning poorly considered ideas; there's not really any need to go into them all over again, is there?

 

Isn't it up to the website OWNER to determine what kind of caches they want to list?

[+TEAM 360]

Isn't it up to the website OWNER to determine what kind of caches they want to list?

Yes it is. I swear I thought I saw a category for Virt around here somewhere....

[MOCKBA]

It won't approve for the sole reason of "vacation cache"..which a few people have commented on.

But I don't think anybody commented on my point that a virtual cache requires virtual maintenance only, and the maintainable distance rules may not even apply.

Indeed, I don't think that our rules require pro-active maintenance of any caches, trads included. The owner is not required to visit them monthly or quarterly. What the owner should do is to respond to cacher's DNFs, notes, and e-mails. Basically, if several cachers noted a problem, and the owner didn't correct it, only then we are speaking about 'maintenance issues'.

The same holds for a virtual, presumably. Proper maintenance doesn't mean 'scheduled periodic check-up', but it does include responding to the problems noticed by other cachers. So if a few cachers look for a virt and report that the plaque is gone, or the cave collapsed, or the tree fell on the ground, the virtual cache owner should communicate with them, double-check the details, and modify or archive the cache as appropriate. All it requires is resposible attitude and a valid e-mail address. No need to physically visit it every now and then.

[+JMBella]

I think the general consensus is that if the location can support a physical cache then most geocachers would prefer that.

Certainly don't want to start anything here, JMBella, because you are a forum regular and have gained a respectful standing in here, and with me, but isn't it up to the HIDER to determine what kind of cache they want?

 

To me, that's like ordering a t-bone steak and having the restaurant demand you get a burger instead, adding that "if you don't like our policy, take your business down the road...". Hey, if I can't order it, why is it even on the menu, then?

First of all, the feeling is mutual 360 and thanks for respectfully disagreeing. Now that we're all warm and fuzzy in here here's what I think:

 

IMO, GS is on target with their treatment of virtuals. I like the statement that Physical caches are the basis of the activity. I think what the site did wrong is at some point they started allowing every single virtual to be approved. This is why we see a bizillion plaques, tomb stones etc. as virts. I even found a virtual that was a sign outside of a hair salon. There was really nothing special about the hair salon, as I remember maybe the name was kind of weird or something. At any rate I remember being like, huh? How did that get approved? The other problem is virts were getting approved were the "finder" could google the info they need to log the cache.

 

GS says that virtuals were created specifically to be used in locations that do not allow physical caches or locations that cannot accommodate physical caches. That being the case then turning down a virtual where a physical cache can be placed is perfectly in line with there guidelines. The only thing that changed is that they strayed away from that for some time. I wonder if they hadn't if we would be having this discussion.

Edited July 8, 2004 by JMBella

[+JMBella]

It won't approve for the sole reason of "vacation cache"..which a few people have commented on.

But I don't think anybody commented on my point that a virtual cache requires virtual maintenance only, and the maintainable distance rules may not even apply.

Indeed, I don't think that our rules require pro-active maintenance of any caches, trads included. The owner is not required to visit them monthly or quarterly. What the owner should do is to respond to cacher's DNFs, notes, and e-mails. Basically, if several cachers noted a problem, and the owner didn't correct it, only then we are speaking about 'maintenance issues'.

The same holds for a virtual, presumably. Proper maintenance doesn't mean 'scheduled periodic check-up', but it does include responding to the problems noticed by other cachers. So if a few cachers look for a virt and report that the plaque is gone, or the cave collapsed, or the tree fell on the ground, the virtual cache owner should communicate with them, double-check the details, and modify or archive the cache as appropriate. All it requires is resposible attitude and a valid e-mail address. No need to physically visit it every now and then.

The problem I see with that is that the hider wants to place a cache solely BECAUSE it is a vacation cache. Thus prohibiting a local cacher from hiding a traditional in the same location. The reason: "I don't feel like it" doesn't fly as a reason you should be able to "hide" a virtual. In other words I should be able to fly to Denver and hide a virt because, "hey, I won't have to maintain it". This shouldn't be used as a loop hole in the vacation cache policy.

Edited July 8, 2004 by JMBella

[+yumitori]

Yes it is. I swear I thought I saw a category for Virt around here somewhere....

You probably also saw the guidelines that pertain to what sorts of virtuals are accepted for listing then.

 

Glad we've reached agreement...

[+TEAM 360]

Yes it is. I swear I thought I saw a category for Virt around here somewhere....

You probably also saw the guidelines that pertain to what sorts of virtuals are accepted for listing then.

 

Glad we've reached agreement...

Guidelines? You mean there's some kinda rules going on in here?

 

Alright, alright...I am not gonna get into the Virt mess any more today...

 

But I'll be back!

[+mtn-man]

It may be up to the hider to decide what type of cache they want to hide (which is perfectly fine), but it is also up to this site to decide if they want to list it.

 

You may want a steak, but a t-bone steak is not on the menu.

T-Bone is on the menu.

 

I think corollary you are looking for is that T-bone (virtual caches) are on the menu (approved by this site)...but you have to wash your hands (validate your reason for a virtual) before they will serve you a T-bone. Even after washing your hands, the server may scan them with a microscope and complain that he still sees a few pieces of dirt (could place a physical .15 miles away and make it an offset cache where the number of water bottles is added to X, Y, and Z to give new coordinates and not enough to "WOW" the un-wow-able).

 

Of course, the only thing the menu said is to please present "clean" hands and you thought they were cleaner than usual...

I knew exactly what I was talking about. Sorry that you don't get it. Let me explain this in detail.

 

It may be up to the hider to decide what type of cache they want to hide (which is perfectly fine), but it is also up to this site to decide if they want to list it.

 

You may want a steak (virtual cache), but a t-bone steak (gravestone virtual) is not on the menu (usually approvable according to the guidelines).  They might have a tenderloin (Great Pyramid Egypt Virtual placed by a local cacher), but you want a t-bone steak (gravestone virtual).  They (GC.com) may not want to carry (approve) t-bone steaks (gravestone virtuals).  They (GC.com) don't tell you "if you don't like our policy, take your business down the road...", they just say that they choose not to carry that type of steak (virtual cache).  In the same light, this site will list virtual caches, but it won't list every one that is out there.  They are selective, just as a steak house is with their selected cuts of meat.

 

If a cache hider wants to go to another site to list their cache then that is perfectly fine, just as you are more than welcome to go to a restaurant that carries t-bone steaks (gravestone virtuals) if you want.  Not every restaurant will carry every single cut of meat from every cow (virtuals), pig (multicaches), duck (webcam caches), lamb (event caches), buffalo (locationless caches), snake (unknown caches) and yes, even chicken (traditional caches) (sorry Stunod).  Likewise, this site might not want to list every virtual cache (cut of beef) that is out there.

 

So, what I said was that the t-bone (gravestone virtuals) is NOT on the menu (usually approvable according to the guidelines). If you want a t-bone steak (gravestone virtual) then you can always quietly go to another restaurant or you can complain to the restaurant owner, the cooks and the other patrons in the restaurant. I usually just order a tenderloin rather than just complain that I want a t-bone over and over until everyone in the restaurant is tired of it, or I quietly go to the another restaurant.