Jump to content

Virtual Caches


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

What with all the talk about menus and steaks and such, I'm now thoroughly confused!

But in order to continue the train of thought, I will say this: Virtual Caches are among the choices that we have on the "menu". I don't want to get drawn into the T-bone vs Tenderloin debate, but when we go to the "restaurant" (GC.com) we look at the menu (available caches). You pretty much have to order from the menu. That is to say, it won't do much good to order a T-bone if it isn't on the menu. But if I look at the menu and T-bone is one of my options, and I want a T-bone, I'll order it. But what happens if the restaurant is temporarily out of T-bones?

Here is where the comparison ends...

I understand the various situations; "vacation caches", lame-o virtuals, etc. What I don't understand is punishing Cachers today for the transgressions of years gone by. I personally don't like urban micros, but I'm not leading a crusade to have them banned or made nearly impossible to get approved. When selecting the caches that I'd like to try to find, I simply avoid urban micros! And all of us have that same choice! If you don't like virtuals, don't look for them.

I also understand that the GC.com website is privately owned. I know that it takes a lot of time and money to keep something like this running, and that the owner has the right to decide what gets approved and what doesn't. With that said, I would like to suggest that the WWW is big enough for all of us.

At any rate, I'm still going on vacation. I'm still going to get the coordinates for the site I have in mind and I will still submit my proposed virtual for approval. Who knows, there may be enough "wow" (and a reasonable approver) to get it listed.

Wish me luck,

Link to comment
At any rate, I'm still going on vacation. I'm still going to get the coordinates for the site I have in mind and I will still submit my proposed virtual for approval. Who knows, there may be enough "wow" (and a reasonable approver) to get it listed.

Wish me luck,

Just don't be surprised if your cache is not accepted. The guidelines are very specific.

 

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

Right...and I only rewrote them in another thread so that they were clearer on their intentions...so I haven't read all the guidelines on virtuals myself... :P

 

Gimme a break. And the fact that they say "more than clean your hands" goes further to my point that there are a billion hoops to jump through for a virtual...and when you think you've done that, they'll just shrink the last hoop until it's too small to jump through.

Link to comment

It is very unlikely that the US government will move or destroy what I have in mind. As for maintenance, I trust that the US government will take care of both the landmark itself and the surrounding area.

 

Furthermore, I won't be surprised, disappointed, or PO'd if said cache is not approved. It will just affirm my belief that the more we narrow the guidelines as to what is considered "acceptable", the more our sport/hobby/addiction will suffer.

 

***Personal Opinion Warning***

 

I would much rather be led to a place of natural beauty, a scenic vista or a superlative panorama; than down just another cement canyon in search of a bloody Altoids breath strip container that may or may not still be there!

Cities I see every day! Show me something else! Give me a reason to go out of my way!

 

***End Personal Opinion Warning***

 

Anyway, still going on vacation, etc...

 

Have a good one!

Link to comment
It is very unlikely that the US government will move or destroy what I have in mind. As for maintenance, I trust that the US government will take care of both the landmark itself and the surrounding area.

Yes, but sometimes the government can change things (imagine that!).

 

Case in point is one of my caches approved well before guidelines were tightened up for virtual caches. There is major construction going on there and it forced me to change my questions. Fortunately I knew it was coming and have modified my questions. As construction continues I will modify it again since what they are working on IS the focus of my question.

 

So We Will Remember Them

 

It just shows that some things that you think will never change might just do that. One monument was taken out in a car wreck and was not replaced. Another was historical signs in a town that suddenly were removed. I have several examples like this at home on my computer.

 

For the place you are going on vacation, it didn't take a geocache to make you go there did it? It sounds like there are no caches there but you are going anyway. I am going to NYC soon but not for geocaches, but rather to finally go to the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan. I have no idea if there is a cache at the statue or not. I don't care to be honest. I am going for the historical nature of the visit. If there is a cache there then that is fine, but it won't stop me from going if there is not a cache there. I will hopefully be meeting some cachers while there, but I don't have to have an event cache listed to make me want to meet with them. Not everything in life is about getting a smiley. icon_smile.gif Some places don't need to have a cache just to make geocachers visit them. It is the location that makes them special, not the cache.

Link to comment
It just shows that some things that you think will never change might just do that.  One monument was taken out in a car wreck and was not replaced.  Another was historical signs in a town that suddenly were removed.  I have several examples like this at home on my computer.

 

How is that any diffrent than a regulart cache? Your options for the cache are the same ans any other. Move it, replace it or archive it.

 

For the place you are going on vacation, it didn't take a geocache to make you go there did it?  It sounds like there are no caches there but you are going anyway.  I am going to NYC soon but not for geocaches, but rather to finally go to the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan.  I have no idea if there is a cache at the statue or not.  I don't care to be honest.  I am going for the historical nature of the visit.  If there is a cache there then that is fine, but it won't stop me from going if there is not a cache there.  I will hopefully be meeting some cachers while there, but I don't have to have an event cache listed to make me want to meet with them.  Not everything in life is about getting a smiley. icon_smile.gif  Some places don't need to have a cache just to make geocachers visit them.  It is the location that makes them special, not the cache.

 

You must be the only one who doesnt get logs that say, "But for geocaching I never would have gone here." It doesnt matter what the attraction or site is. My sister lives close to DC. There are tons of stuff she never has taken the time to go see. You know how it is, if its in your back door its no big deal kind of thing. There are places around where I live that I knew were there and I always thought I would go there some day but never did, until we started caching.

 

You cant have it both ways.

Link to comment

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the cache that you used to illustrate your point illustrates one of mine as well. You clearly live well outside the DC area, yet you have a virtual cache on the mall! So, proximity to the cache and the ability of the "owner" to maintain the cache must not be a deal breaker.

As for my vacation destination, you are correct. I'm not going for the caches, but to visit my sister. There are only three (!) caches listed on GC.com within 30 miles of her place, and none of them are virtuals. So I don't see any conflicts with the 528' rule. In addition, I understand that I can't feasibly maintain a physical cache at this location, that is why I'm proposing a virtual that won't require maintenance.

 

I realize that you are trying to be helpful, but believe me, you're going about it the wrong way! Instead of raining on my harmless little parade; how about offering some suggestions that would help to insure that my proposed virtual gets approved with a minimum of fuss?

 

Leaving Saturday morning-God, it can't get here soon enough!

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

I realize that you are trying to be helpful, but believe me, you're going about it the wrong way! Instead of raining on my harmless little parade; how about offering some suggestions that would help to insure that my proposed virtual gets approved with a minimum of fuss?

 

<<SNIP>>

There will be no fuss. You will submit a vacation cache and the reviewer will deny listing it. Vacation caches that are still listed were posted before the website owners realized geocaching would grow to the point is has. As has been stated numerous times in this thread, if you can show that you either can have someone nearby check on this cache or you travel there on a regular basis your cache will not be posted Virtual or not.

 

Check the guidelines again.

Link to comment

Once again, not trying to be argumentative.

Believe me when I say that I have read the guidelines. Here's what they have to say about vacation caches.

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

 

Note that it says "may not" and not "will not". I'm guessing that it is up to the local reviewer.

Further guidelines:

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

 

1. A virtual cache must be a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. Objects in motion (such as people, vehicles) generally do not qualify as a virtual cache, unless that item can be adequately tracked and updated on the Geocaching.com web site. (For example, a link to a tracker for a vehicle might be acceptable, but contact your local approver first before posting it as a virtual cache to work out the details.) If I post the cache today, someone else should be able to find it tomorrow and the next day.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

 

2. 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. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

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. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

 

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

I feel that the virtual I am proposing can easily meet these guidelines.

 

Look: As I said before, I know that you are all trying to be helpful. But we have crossed the "helpful" line and we're well on our way to a full-on p*ssing match. Please refrain from any further replies unless you have something constructive to say.

 

Thanks,

Link to comment

Have it your way. There were 2 ways you could get your cache approved in my last post. You chose to ignore the advice and post a nasty note.

 

Just another ...........ahhhhhhhhh nevermind it's not worth it.

Edited by Harrald
Link to comment

There will come a time when an alternate site will serve the geocaching community's needs for virts, etc. Just how soon depends on how badly cachers want the features, and how many people are willing to use an alternate site.

 

If you have any virts you have been denied listing, maybe you are one of them?

 

Maybe one of us is the person to make that effort?

 

time will tell, but I can see gc.com loosing the parts of this that they are beggining to ingore - and the cachers.

Link to comment
Hope you're not holding your breath.

 

Not in the least- But I hope gc isnt banking on those users $ either-

 

The exodus hasn't happened yet.

 

AS Mtn-man says above-

 

It just shows that some things that you think will never change might just do that.

 

I agree completely-

Link to comment
Hope you're not holding your breath.

 

Not in the least- But I hope gc isnt banking on those users $ either-

 

The exodus hasn't happened yet.

 

AS Mtn-man says above-

 

It just shows that some things that you think will never change might just do that.

 

I agree completely-

Ok, have fun over there. We won't miss you

Link to comment
Note that it says "may not" and not "will not". I'm guessing that it is up to the local reviewer.

 

Clearly you seem to have overlooked the part that says "Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable."

 

As I said before, I know that you are all trying to be helpful. But we have crossed the "helpful" line and we're well on our way to a full-on p*ssing match. Please refrain from any further replies unless you have something constructive to say.

Everyone seems to just be "telling it like it is" to me. That you don't want to listen to what others have said doesn't make it a p*ssing match, as you state.

 

Like 'em or not, the rules is the rules. You can't place a virtual when you can place a physical there instead, and you can't place a cache you can't maintain, regardless of the type.

 

It's clear you're going to go ahead and submit the virtual anyway, and all you're going to get is a bunch of "I told you so"s when you come back to the forums, outraged that the approver had the nerve to deny your new cache.

 

As a side note, the explosion in the INCREASING number of caches and geocaching.com members is a true testament to everyone's frustration with these "ignored" concerns...

Link to comment
Ok, have fun over there. We won't miss you

 

I make a comment on other sites and you feel the need to make a comment like that? Attitudes like that are another reason people might not like it here.

btw- you are just another # in this big gc.com thing- you are not special- nor does

your opinion mean any more than mine. I won't miss dinks like that

Link to comment
To answer the original posters question: YES, virtuals ARE hard to get approved. They are in fact virtually banned.

 

You keep saying this. Perhaps I missed your response when Harrold posted some recently hidden virtuals. They don't seem to be as nearly banned as you say.

 

Virtual caches were added to the website. People began abusing the category. Others complained. The folks running geocaching.com addressed the complaints by setting out guidelines for what does and does not qualify. Now people complain about the enforcement of the guidelines intended to address the abuse. Oh, and we debate the subject endlessly because we're never going to please everyone.

 

Now, in parallel development, people are complaining about microcaches. Perhaps we should warn them to be careful about they wish for?

Link to comment

Harrald,

Upon re-reading your post, I realize that I misunderstood what you were saying. You were trying to help, but I read it wrong. My apologies.

 

The point that I had hoped to make was that I HAVE read the guidelines! I did not include the posted guidelines for "Virtual Cache Maintenance", but they state that (I'm paraphrasing here...) pretty much all the owner has to do is maintain the cache page and verify the emails, photos or whatever other information is necessary to claim the virtual as a "find".

 

So, I'm going to do everyone a favor and drop this. I can probably con my sister into checking on the location should anything appear to be amiss, that will most likely remove that particular stumbling block. Beyond that, it is up to the local approver.

Link to comment

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, states... "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

 

However, in modern corporations, education and particularly in government, or geocaching forums, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:

 

1. Buying a stronger whip.

 

2. Changing riders.

 

3. Threatening the horse with termination.

 

4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.

 

5. Arranging to visit other countries to see how others ride dead horses.

 

6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.

 

7. Reclassifying the dead horse as "living impaired".

 

8. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

 

9. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase the speed (or at least expectations).

 

10. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.

 

11. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.

 

12. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.

 

13. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

 

14. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Link to comment
Just don't be surprised if your cache is not accepted. The guidelines are very specific.

 

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.

Actually, I have to disagree. The guidline quoted is not specific, but rather confusing.

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable

 

This indicates to me that I can not place a vacation 'cache. It is not acceptable is equatable with "It will not be accepted". This seems rather at odds with:

 

  ...and these caches may not be approved

 

which indicates to me that there is latitude (pun fully intended) for discussion. While I don't agree with the the almost total ban on new virtuals, I accept it as a condition of doing business at GC.com. I feel however that it would be in the best interests of both Jeremy et al, and we, the customers if perhaps the rules were amended in a way which reads more like the way the policy is enforced.

Link to comment
Somehow, I don't think this attitude is going to endear the hobby to many people!

 

It needs to be refined, to include Common Sense items, which are easily overlooked by some. Private property, etc....

Refined? Come on... That statement needs to be removed entirely. If you want to start a listing site, that's cool and I wish you the best of luck, but posting such an idiotic statement as that for all the world to see is only going to serve to discredit our hobby.

Link to comment
Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable

 

"Normal caching area"

 

If 1 person can have over 500 hides approved,(all within 1 state i think) but also including 25 virtuals (in this and 2 other states) - then isn't there a Bit of

discretion in how this policy is being applied?

 

Shouldnt others get the same flexibility, to proove themselves before being denied the chance? Or is special treatment reserved only for the select few?

 

I understand this hider has been up to the task, but he was given the chance to proove himself. He did, and has been allowed to continue hiding.

Link to comment

swissperpetual.com appears to be dedicated to the sub-activity of moving caches. This topic is about virtual caches. While it is perfectly fine to point out a cache owner's right to list a virtual cache on another listing service that is set up to accept them, this new site doesn't appear to fit the bill, since virtual caches tend not to be moving caches. If anyone would like to continue the discussion of swissperpetual.com, please open a new topic. Thanks.

Link to comment
GC.com just takes an extra step to pseudo-verify and community-report anything that isn't family-friendly or legal that they don't want to list.

At least that extra step helps to eliminate 'caches that might be placed on railroad rights of way, highway medians, and in the middle of a defence establishment. I don't for a minute consider GC.com (or any listing service) responsible in any way other than perhaps morally, and I think that GC.com fulfills that reasonably well, whereas the statement I referenced... :P:P

Link to comment
The guidline quoted is not specific, but rather confusing. 
Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable

 

This indicates to me that I can not place a vacation 'cache. It is not acceptable is equatable with "It will not be accepted". This seems rather at odds with:

 

  ...and these caches may not be approved

 

which indicates to me that there is latitude (pun fully intended) for discussion.

The "may not" deal has been discussed before. Vacation virtuals, if within the guidelines, might very well be approved. I would only consider it a 1 in 10,000 chance though. You must bring the person who is going to check on the cache with you so they know the exact condition of the location so they will know what changed if something does change. They have to be willing to do the work for you on your cache basically forever. They need to register an account so they will be able to watch the cache and then get emails so they will know if something is up with the cache. They need a GPS so they can correct your bad coordinates if yours are wrong for some reason. Things like this can and in fact have happened. That is why we watch for these problems now. We have seen these issues and learned from them. Couple these issues with the other guidelines and you can see that the vacation virtual must be buttoned up pretty tight to get listed.

 

That is why the guidelines have evolved to what they are today. The guidelines were not just pulled out of thin air. They have been created as problems were identified to address those issues. More problems will probably come up in time, so new guidelines will follow.

 

To that end, I will give you the absolute final word on vacation caches from the man himself:

I have a solution, and I'll be happy to amend the vacation cache issue.

 

If you place a cache and the land owner has agreed to maintain it, you are welcome to place one on vacation. To do this you need to put the land manager's contact information (phone number or email will do) on the cache page so if it needs maintaining the geocacher can contact them.

 

Otherwise don't place caches on vacation. It's irresponsible behavior to hide something you have no intention of maintaining.

 

Never try to justify bad behavior with other bad behavior. If it is obvious that many people don't maintain their caches, why add to the problem? Maybe when you come upon one of these poorly maintained caches you replace the container, fix the logbook, etc, instead of placing your own problem on the landscape?

 

We already ask people to help repair and maintain caches they find, and leave them better than they left it. Perhaps we should start there before creating more problems.

 

If you want to do something on vacation, create travel bugs and put them in existing caches.

Link to comment
Clearly you seem to have overlooked the part that says "Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable."

 

Clearly I didn't! You just chose to leave the previous part of my quote out of your quote in an effort to make yourself look clever.

 

It's clear you're going to go ahead and submit the virtual anyway, and all you're going to get is a bunch of "I told you so"s when you come back to the forums, outraged that the approver had the nerve to deny your new cache.

 

And I will graciously accept your apology, should my cache be approved!

 

Look, I know it's a long shot, but unless any or all of you are local approvers for the area in question, then I have more of a chance than you would lead me to believe.

 

Now I'm going to drop it.

Edited by Team Flashncache
Link to comment
The guidline quoted is not specific, but rather confusing. 
Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable

 

This indicates to me that I can not place a vacation 'cache. It is not acceptable is equatable with "It will not be accepted". This seems rather at odds with:

 

  ...and these caches may not be approved

 

which indicates to me that there is latitude (pun fully intended) for discussion.

The "may not" deal has been discussed before. Vacation virtuals, if within the guidelines, might very well be approved. I would only consider it a 1 in 10,000 chance though. You must bring the person who is going to check on the cache with you so they know the exact condition of the location so they will know what changed if something does change. They have to be willing to do the work for you on your cache basically forever. They need to register an account so they will be able to watch the cache and then get emails so they will know if something is up with the cache. They need a GPS so they can correct your bad coordinates if yours are wrong for some reason. Things like this can and in fact have happened. That is why we watch for these problems now. We have seen these issues and learned from them. Couple these issues with the other guidelines and you can see that the vacation virtual must be buttoned up pretty tight to get listed.

 

That is why the guidelines have evolved to what they are today. The guidelines were not just pulled out of thin air. They have been created as problems were identified to address those issues. More problems will probably come up in time, so new guidelines will follow.

 

To that end, I will give you the absolute final word on vacation caches from the man himself:

I have a solution, and I'll be happy to amend the vacation cache issue.

 

If you place a cache and the land owner has agreed to maintain it, you are welcome to place one on vacation. To do this you need to put the land manager's contact information (phone number or email will do) on the cache page so if it needs maintaining the geocacher can contact them.

 

Otherwise don't place caches on vacation. It's irresponsible behavior to hide something you have no intention of maintaining.

 

Never try to justify bad behavior with other bad behavior. If it is obvious that many people don't maintain their caches, why add to the problem? Maybe when you come upon one of these poorly maintained caches you replace the container, fix the logbook, etc, instead of placing your own problem on the landscape?

 

We already ask people to help repair and maintain caches they find, and leave them better than they left it. Perhaps we should start there before creating more problems.

 

If you want to do something on vacation, create travel bugs and put them in existing caches.

I think perhaps the whole wording issue could be satisfied by a minor amendment, to wit: "Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is generally unacceptable" or "Caches placed outside your normal 'caching area will nor normally be approved unless... <insert circumstances here>.

 

I'm not jumping on the whole vacation/virtual bandwagon, but as a person who often deals in semantics, I think that this is a something that could use an amdendment. That's my $00.02 worth - 'nuff said by me! :P

Link to comment

Virtual caches were added to the website. People began abusing the category. Others complained. The folks running geocaching.com addressed the complaints by setting out guidelines for what does and does not qualify. Now people complain about the enforcement of the guidelines intended to address the abuse.

Not *entirely* true. Virtuals were allowed also as a means of helping to populate the database at a time when seekers were few..but hiders were even fewer.

 

*Then* the "abuses" began (aka "go see this tennis ball and tell me the brand").

 

*Then* stricter guidelines were established ("wow" factor...) to rule out tennis balls, shoes, and dead animals. BUT here's a crucial part missing from your timeline, *after* that, word came down from above that stressing the "physical" aspect of a real cache and its placement needed to be more important. The "wow" factor was going to have to be raised even higher and the crucial "can a physical be placed in the same (ahem) area" was requested.

 

Now, it's almost impossible to claim that you can't hide an Altoids container nearby and with offsets of up to a mile, it's hard to find anywhere that a "virtual" can fit the requirement of "no physicals nearby", except in the very rare cases when the cache would need to be on restricted land or the WOW factor is so amazing that the approver is in a state of delirium from the WOW-overdose and clicks "accept" instead of "archive".

 

PS - Hyperbole is for the reader's amusement...not a statement of fact.

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

Not *entirely* true. Virtuals were allowed also as a means of helping to populate the database at a time when seekers were few..but hiders were even fewer.

 

<<SNIP>>

Not *entirely* true. They were created to allow people to place caches in areas that had banned geocaching. Such as Nation Park Service controlled areas and areas that a real cache could not be placed.

Link to comment
They need to register an account so they will be able to watch the cache and then get emails so they will know if something is up with the cache. 

 

What if I told you that they had access to my e-mails? What if I told you I had a mail rule that forwarded all of my e-mails to them containing that cache's keywords in the subject line?

 

They need a GPS so they can correct your bad coordinates if yours are wrong for some reason. 

 

Considering that fixing bad coordinates should be a one time (or twice, at worst,) occurance, is it really necessary that they need a GPSr? It takes the whole community to keep this listing service aware of all of the bad things happening within and around the caches listed here. GC.com would not have nearly the pristine database of caches if it weren't for community members pointing out needs for archival of missing caches and warnings for nearby activities and removal of problematic cache items....but the community can't handle the repair of bad coordinates on a vacation-placed cache?

 

GC.com can have a rule against vacation caches and even allow for a local person to proxy maintain the cache, but that person hardly needs all of the things you proscribe to do a nominal job and stay informed of how the cache is doing in a timely manner. Instead of learning from previous experiences with vacation caches that have gone so well that you don't hear about them, you decide to learn from the experiences that haven't panned out and lead to problems and archival of caches (and yet you still let people place regular local caches, which have an abundance of problems and archivals as well).

 

Oh well, rock, rock on.

Link to comment
Not *entirely* true. They were created to allow people to place caches in areas that had banned geocaching. Such as Nation Park Service controlled areas and areas that a real cache could not be placed.

IIRC, virtual cache placement predated NPS rulings against geocaching. While it continues to be a valid, and best, option for these areas, the cache type was not *created* for them.

Link to comment
And I will graciously accept your apology, should my cache be approved!

I'll hold my breath. :P

 

I'll be the first to admit I'm NOT the approver for your area. However, based on personal experience with my own caches, I know that the approvers closely scrutinize caches that appear to be beyond your maintainable distance (as in the case of vacation hides).

 

If you can get it through the process, more power to you. Since I'm nowhere near you, odds are I'll never get out to visit the cache, though it does sound like an unusual spot. Good luck.

Link to comment
For the place you are going on vacation, it didn't take a geocache to make you go there did it?  It sounds like there are no caches there but you are going anyway.  I am going to NYC soon but not for geocaches, but rather to finally go to the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan.  I have no idea if there is a cache at the statue or not.  I don't care to be honest.  I am going for the historical nature of the visit.  If there is a cache there then that is fine, but it won't stop me from going if there is not a cache there.  I will hopefully be meeting some cachers while there, but I don't have to have an event cache listed to make me want to meet with them.  Not everything in life is about getting a smiley. icon_smile.gif  Some places don't need to have a cache just to make geocachers visit them.  It is the location that makes them special, not the cache.

 

You must be the only one who doesnt get logs that say, "But for geocaching I never would have gone here." It doesnt matter what the attraction or site is. My sister lives close to DC. There are tons of stuff she never has taken the time to go see. You know how it is, if its in your back door its no big deal kind of thing. There are places around where I live that I knew were there and I always thought I would go there some day but never did, until we started caching.

 

You cant have it both ways.

The fact is that the single most memorable log in 3.5 years of caching from all 53 of my hidden caches is on one of my virtual caches, the one listed above.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...5d-cfb9646582c8

 

Harrald posted a note for So We Will Remember Them (Virtual Cache)

 

I came here with my family at night. This was the first time in my many trips to D.C. that I've been able to walk past this memorial. There was no way I could find the information. I was a bit to emotional to think about logging a cache.

 

If it wasn't for GeoCaching I would never have been able to walk past here. Thank you for helping me find the will power to walk along this wall that never seemed to end.

 

I've never said that geocaching doesn't bring people to new places. But, you need to read my post that you quoted again. Harrald was so moved by the location that he couldn't post a find. Most people go to virtual locations, grab the answer and blow by them. The difference in an approvable virtual and just another brass plaque rivited to concrete is the "wow" factor. Do you think Harrald was "wowed"?

 

Team Flashncache, my cache in DC was in fact the 7th cache created in the District of Columbia. Imagine that -- only 6 caches on the mall when I was there at that time. I've just been around for quite a while and have seen a lot.

Link to comment
Most people go to virtual locations, grab the answer and blow by them. The difference in an approvable virtual and just another brass plaque rivited to concrete is the "wow" factor. Do you think Harrald was "wowed"?

Most people who "blow by" virtual caches are also blowing by 1/1 roadside caches too. The ability/desire/whatever for a cacher to blow by a virtual should not be considered when placing or approving a virtual cache. That doesn't speak to a "wow" factor and this is why I drafted a more informative and cogent set of virtual guidelines (that everyone seemed to like) in a thread a month or so ago.

 

In science, we have two standards for determine whether A is the absolute cause for B. Necessary and Sufficient. "Is A necessary for B (i.e., without A, B will not occur)?" and "Is A sufficient for B (i.e., can A cause B without help)?"

 

The better question than whether Harrald was "wow"ed or not is:

 

Do you (as an approver) think that his level of response, and level of "wow" that caused it, is necessary to approve a virtual cache?

 

I certainly hope it is sufficient if it can cause that level of response in anyone. I would hope that lesser "wow"s than the Wall would still be approvable, even by today's stringencies.

Link to comment
Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable

 

"Normal caching area"

 

If 1 person can have over 500 hides approved,(all within 1 state i think) but also including 25 virtuals (in this and 2 other states) - then isn't there a Bit of

discretion in how this policy is being applied?

 

Shouldnt others get the same flexibility, to proove themselves before being denied the chance? Or is special treatment reserved only for the select few?

 

I understand this hider has been up to the task, but he was given the chance to proove himself. He did, and has been allowed to continue hiding.

I see the 10 ft pole must already be in use elsewhere . . . .

understandable :(

Link to comment
To answer the original posters question: YES, virtuals ARE hard to get approved. They are in fact virtually banned.

 

You keep saying this. Perhaps I missed your response when Harrold posted some recently hidden virtuals. They don't seem to be as nearly banned as you say.

 

I would submit that it all depends on where you live, and who the local approver is.

 

Case in point..

 

Do a search for virtuals from the zip code of 07701, outwards to 30+ miles.

 

The last one approved would be within the "18 month" timeline I keep hearing bantied about where a decision was made by certain powers to NOT approve as many, if any at all.

Since then, it has been a very dry area here for new virtuals. Fine. Not a problem, there are plenty of Altoids tins to seek out, and McToys to trade too. Who needs "History". :wacko:

 

Yeah, I am a relative "NOOB" around here, not knowing the politics and in-fighting among the forums regarding this subject.

In a conscious effort to ADD to the community of a new hobby I just found, I had a series of upwards of 10 virts for my area planned, some regarding the seven Presidents of the United States that had lived and or died in my area.

Some were just local "wow" factors.

All were on land that would have prohibited ANY placement of a physical nature.

I figured, what better way to start caching, than to attempt to add something that needed ZERO maintenance, and would get people out of their cars to enjoy nature and the history of my area. (Some of which, dates back to the 1600's)

 

Long story short, after reading, reading and re-reading the 4 rules for placement of virts, and tailoring my 2 first submissions to fit said 4 rules, explaining exactly what, where, how, and why these would be virts, and how to verify through email to me you had indeed found them, not just googled up the locale, I received back rather quickly (also strange since I also keep reading about a backlog of caches needing to be approved) what I would deem a "form letter" stating I did not read said rules, spitting the rules back at me, and suggesting I re-read the rules, (did I mention I had tailored the caches to said rules? Nah..) and reply back to a different email address with my plea as to why I felt this was a wrong desicion to deny my cache submissions.

 

I did not hear back anything from my plea as to why I felt this was wrong, or WHICH rules I had violated, if any.

No problem. Scratch 10 new virt caches. I must assume that they do not want anymore virts in my area, or my submissions sucked so bad, that it did not warrant any more explanation.

 

Then I started to see the posts in the forums regarding the lack of new virts being allowed.

 

So bottom line, yes, I feel it all has to do with where you are, and who the approver is.

And I also guess New Jersey just does not contain any more "areas that had banned geocaching. Such as Nation Park Service controlled areas and areas that a real cache could not be placed." :(

 

Time to eat more Altoids, and shoot more ammo.

Link to comment
If you can get it through the process, more power to you. Since I'm nowhere near you, odds are I'll never get out to visit the cache, though it does sound like an unusual spot. Good luck.

 

If this is an olive branch, I will accept it. I didn't get involved with this hobby, etc to make lifelong enemies out of people I'll likely never meet!

 

I've had time to cool down, have a couple of drinks and re-evaluate what I was trying to accomplish, which was: Use the forums in general as a sounding board for the possible approval of a virtual cache. I apologize for adding to the controversy surrounding the "VIRTUAL CACHE SITUATION". (insert ominous music here)

 

Move along, move along. There's nothing to see here...

 

My thanks to everyone for their input.

Link to comment
To answer the original posters question: YES, virtuals ARE hard to get approved. They are in fact virtually banned.

 

You keep saying this. Perhaps I missed your response when Harrold posted some recently hidden virtuals. They don't seem to be as nearly banned as you say.

 

I would submit that it all depends on where you live, and who the local approver is.

 

Case in point..

 

Do a search for virtuals from the zip code of 07701, outwards to 30+ miles.

 

The last one approved would be within the "18 month" timeline I keep hearing bantied about where a decision was made by certain powers to NOT approve as many, if any at all.

Since then, it has been a very dry area here for new virtuals. Fine. Not a problem, there are plenty of Altoids tins to seek out, and McToys to trade too. Who needs "History". :wacko:

 

Yeah, I am a relative "NOOB" around here, not knowing the politics and in-fighting among the forums regarding this subject.

In a conscious effort to ADD to the community of a new hobby I just found, I had a series of upwards of 10 virts for my area planned, some regarding the seven Presidents of the United States that had lived and or died in my area.

Some were just local "wow" factors.

All were on land that would have prohibited ANY placement of a physical nature.

I figured, what better way to start caching, than to attempt to add something that needed ZERO maintenance, and would get people out of their cars to enjoy nature and the history of my area. (Some of which, dates back to the 1600's)

 

Long story short, after reading, reading and re-reading the 4 rules for placement of virts, and tailoring my 2 first submissions to fit said 4 rules, explaining exactly what, where, how, and why these would be virts, and how to verify through email to me you had indeed found them, not just googled up the locale, I received back rather quickly (also strange since I also keep reading about a backlog of caches needing to be approved) what I would deem a "form letter" stating I did not read said rules, spitting the rules back at me, and suggesting I re-read the rules, (did I mention I had tailored the caches to said rules? Nah..) and reply back to a different email address with my plea as to why I felt this was a wrong desicion to deny my cache submissions.

 

I did not hear back anything from my plea as to why I felt this was wrong, or WHICH rules I had violated, if any.

No problem. Scratch 10 new virt caches. I must assume that they do not want anymore virts in my area, or my submissions sucked so bad, that it did not warrant any more explanation.

 

Then I started to see the posts in the forums regarding the lack of new virts being allowed.

 

So bottom line, yes, I feel it all has to do with where you are, and who the approver is.

And I also guess New Jersey just does not contain any more "areas that had banned geocaching. Such as Nation Park Service controlled areas and areas that a real cache could not be placed." :(

 

Time to eat more Altoids, and shoot more ammo.

OK, sure, Lets look at the virtuals. However, I review caches in a much larger area then just 30 miles from your house. Since the areas we cover tends to vary as new reviewers are added (like I used to do PA before Keystone came on board) we'll stick to the areas I've done the most work in, the NY tri-state area.

In that area, there are 51 active virtuals that have been listed since the beginning of 2003. There are dozens more that were approved and and since archived for various reasons.

Lets look at all the virtuals ever submited and declined for 15 miles around your zipcode. There aren't that many.

  • 1 - "Here's a nice Virtual cache you can drive to. There isn't one of these on every corner, email me with the unusual place and the type of chili dogs they sell. Locals can probably guess the answers with out a visit but go anyway."
     
  • 2 -"Rent "Clerks" - watch it - go to that location - take pictures - nuff said"
     
  • 3 - The gravestone of the co-pilot for the "Enola Gay" WWII bomber
     
  • 4 - A boulder on the beach with the American flag painted on it.
     
  • 5 - A 135 yr old church
     
  • 6 - "a monument honoring the death place of President Garfield in Elberon, NJ in 1881. The monument rests two feet from the edge of a very quiet street. Geocachers may see and possibly read the monument from the comfort of their vehicles. "
     
  • 7 - "Marker is a granite headstone commemorating the passing of James A. Garfield, Twentieth President of the United States, who died on this very spot." (same spot as previous virtual)
     
  • 8 - A picnic table in a state park (there are dozens of physical caches in this same park)
     
  • 9 - "Perfect spectator viewing area for watching any attempts on xxxxxx cache. Bleacher seating available, binoculars are a help. This is actually virtual cache, email me the numbers which appear on the structure to log a find. "
     
  • 10 - A park bench with a dedication plaque on it.

That's all of them. Every single declined virtual in your area ever submitted since the birth of geocaching. Which ones did I judge unfairly?

Link to comment

  •  
     
  • 2 -"Rent "Clerks" - watch it - go to that location - take pictures - nuff said"
     

<SNIP>

 

Which ones did I judge unfairly?

Awww man, I could've gone and played street hockey on the roof of the convenience store AND gotten credit for a find?! I beg you to reconsider that one. :(

Edited by Team PerkyPerks
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...