Jump to content

Virtual Caches


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

None should have been appv'd, IMO...but

 

5 - A 135 yr old church

 

If I lived in the area, chances are I might have already logged it as "historic places" Reverse Locationless (done the research, found it myself)

So, If anyone had already logged it, wouldnt/shouldnt it be automatically eliminated from being a virtual, since it had already been posted as a find(a requirement similar to one often used by owners of RLC's, not gc.com)?

Link to comment
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.

Once again, it would help if you actually read and comprehend my entire post. I said: "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 <snip>". I never said that it was the only log that made the cache worthy of being a virtual cache. I said, "The difference in an approvable virtual and just another brass plaque riveted to concrete is the "wow" factor." By all means take the time to read through the cache logs on that cache. All who visit the area at night as I suggest are wowed. So are most of the people who come during the day. There are those logs that you can tell are "blow and go" logs, but the overall sentiment is one of reverence and awe. That's a good virtual cache.

 

I get the feeling from your post in these forums over time that you would like to have the chili dog stand, the picnic table in the state park or the bleachers observation area that NJ Admin mentioned as virtual caches. It just doesn't inspire awe for me.

Link to comment
Once again, it would help if you actually read and comprehend my entire post.

 

I never said that it was the only log that made the cache worthy of being a virtual cache. I said, "The difference in an approvable virtual and just another brass plaque riveted to concrete is the "wow" factor." By all means take the time to read through the cache logs on that cache. All who visit the area at night as I suggest are wowed. So are most of the people who come during the day.

 

There are those logs that you can tell are "blow and go" logs, but the overall sentiment is one of reverence and awe. That's a good virtual cache.

Read and comprehended. You asked if we thought "Harrald was wowed". I said that your question is pointless. I proposed a better question. Instead of answering it, you thought to fight me from the same direction of what I said (at what level of 'wow' do you as an approver give the virtual its due? what level of wow is necessary and sufficient for approval? Hopefully it is not the level that the Viet Vet Memorial inspires). Notice in that paraphrase (and the original post) that I do not make any suggestion that you require that level of 'wow' only questioning what level you *do* require.

 

I get the feeling from your post in these forums over time that you would like to have the chili dog stand, the picnic table in the state park or the bleachers observation area that NJ Admin mentioned as virtual caches.  It just doesn't inspire awe for me.

 

You are completely incorrect and bring into question your own ability to read, comprehend, AND remember what anyone has said in the past. There has been *nothing* in my posts on virtuals over time that has stated that I want a return to overly mundane virtuals of tennis balls, chili stands, and picnic tables.

 

Since you seem to be incapable of looking up my rewritten virtual cache guidelines that I've reference above (one of my posts over time where I don't say *anything* about the equivalent of picnic tables and still advocate an impression factor), I'll cut-n-paste them here for you to read:

 

(ju66l3r @ May 27 2004, 12:24 PM)

------------------------------

 

Virtual cache:

 

There are two kinds of virtual caches. The first kind is a particular spot that would be perfect for inclusion in a more traditional cache hunt but is currently in an area that restricts geocaching (e.g., NPS land). These virtuals can be considered "stake points" for future geocaches if restrictions were to be lifted. The second kind of virtual cache is to highlight something out of the ordinary even in a place where a normal geocache might fit. The purpose is to bring attention to some of the more subtle landmarks and sublime experiences or facts for your area. Often a number of these smaller points of interest can be strung together to tell a story about your locality. Because of the subjectivity involved, your submission for this type of cache must meet a number of requirements:

 

1) Is your submission unique? Is it peculiar to your specific location? (i.e., no animal carcasses or tennis shoes in the woods)

 

2) Can someone solve your validation information without actually going to the site? (if so, then you can not be approved)

 

3) Whether interested in the topic or not, will the seeker have gained a particular insight, knowledge, or appreciation from having completed your cache?

 

Remember that not every virtual is approved because the system can not currently maintain the difference between virtual hides and traditional hides. To preserve more area and system resources for the physical placement of caches, you may be asked to use your virtual as the beginning of an offset cache instead. The final decision is for the approver to determine and the dismissal of your virtual will require you to consider improving any one of the above criteria before it will be considered again.

 

-------------------

 

I think "Wow" may better be summarized as the ability to impress someone with their find even if they were not initially interested in the topic. Of course, the way it is phrased does not mean that *everyone* needs to come away with an appreciation for what they've been shown (just like park'n'cache traditionals don't instill some sort of appreciation for me to do them either)...but the subject or way in which the virtual is accomplished should give the seeker at the very minimum a trivia fact to quote to someone a day later.

 

I think that is a more pragmatic approach to defining a virtual than "wow". Finding a historical marker denoting the flanking point of General Hammersham in the Battle of Gettysburg....doesn't instill the person with anything. Finding every historical marker that follows the Union army's advance on the Confederacy over a 3 mile distance....instills at the minimum an appreciation for how far the soldiers had to go in the few days that the Battle took. And so on... 

Link to comment
only questioning what level you *do* require.

I simply follow the guidelines. If I feel a cache is borderline then I ask all the other reviewers what they think. We all do that. That way we get a concensus of opinion.

 

I know exactly where that post was. That was a great topic where Hydee and I asked people to propose guidelines that was derailed by the Chattanooga Choo Choo virtual guy (saw the road signs for it this past weekend again), just as this topic has been derailed from the original post. I won't contribute to this train wreck any more.

 

:(

Link to comment

I recently had my first (and probably only) virtual cache turned down. I did read the guidelines, and still think the object for my cache meets them:

1. 4000 years old rock carvings do have a wow factor!

2. It's on private property, but the landowner gave his permission of a virtual cache.

3. The rock carvings are surrounded by private gardens and there are also a lot of children playing in the area, that's the reason for not placing a physical cache.

 

Luckily, the approver for this area didn't just say no, he gave me the advice of making it the first stage of a Multicache.

This is not the way I would prefer to do it, but it is a solution and the choise is mine: show the world the carvings or leave the idea.

 

:(

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?

Uh...it was a play on words there....virtuals, virtually banned...get it?

 

No, I do not keep saying that. But I do defend virtuals and locationless and micros and ALL types of caches.

 

But yes, I do think that. As I implied in the rest of that post, the 'guidelines' are so vague and arbitrarily applied that in fact in some areas they are banned. That part was in response partly to Harrald's post. Yes, some do get approved in some areas, but as has been shown many do not, even after people jump thru hoops and still they get denied. The other most often stated thing about them is to use them as a stage in a multi or offset, I seriously doubt that there is a SINGLE virtual, approved or denied, that that cannot be done with. This is another way to deny them.

 

The part about micros I do think people should watch out- after those, what ones will be next?

Edited by Corp Of Discovery
Link to comment
<snip>

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?

Let's see. 2,3, 5 and 6/7 I think would all make decent virtuals. If there were more details, some of the others also might. Again, it all comes down to opinions, yours said no they won't while mine says yes they do.

Link to comment
I recently had my first (and probably only) virtual cache turned down. I did read the guidelines, and still think the object for my cache meets them:

1. 4000 years old rock carvings do have a wow factor!

2. It's on private property, but the landowner gave his permission of a virtual cache.

3. The rock carvings are surrounded by private gardens and there are also a lot of children playing in the area, that's the reason for not placing a physical cache.

 

Luckily, the approver for this area didn't just say no, he gave me the advice of making it the first stage of a Multicache.

This is not the way I would prefer to do it, but it is a solution and the choise is mine: show the world the carvings or leave the idea.

 

:(

This is a perfect example of someone doing all the right things then being told 'use it in a leg of a multi'. This total dilutes the intent of someone wanting to hlghlight THIS specific spot as a virtual. Now many cachers will just get the info they need and then move on, not taking the time to truly enjoy it as much as they may if it was a stand alone virtual.

Link to comment
<snip>

 

[*]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

 

[*]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)?

Let's see. 2,3, 5 and 6/7 I think would all make decent virtuals. If there were more details, some of the others also might. Again, it all comes down to opinions, yours said no they won't while mine says yes they do.

Well, since I used to live near the zip code in question, let me put a little local perspective on things.

 

#2 is a convience store. Big whoop, they are on almost every corner in central NJ, nothing unusual about it, looks like any other convience store in the country.

 

#3 As a history buff, #3 sounds mildly interesting, but pretty much specifically excluded in the guidelines as a valid virtual cache subject. NJ is an old state, there are millions of semi-famous people buried here. Certainly no WOW. Find a Grave Obituary

 

#5 Again, old state. 135yrs is nothing for a church in an area that was settled over 300yrs ago. I would venture to say MOST churches in the area date back to the 1800's. Zero WOW.

 

#6/#7 Stuff like this is easily googled, so does the picture below really wow you? That's all there is.

 

garfieldmonument.jpg

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
#6/#7 Stuff like this is easily googled, so does the picture below really wow you? That's all there is.

Aw darn it, now you've gone and given away the answer! Now it CAN't be used.

 

I don't see any wow. No wow no how.

 

but Nov 19, 1831 Orange Ohio, and Sept 19, 1881 on this site! Do I get a smiley anyway?

(edit to take out the picture repeat for dial up users.)

Edited by Planet
Link to comment

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?

Glad you asked.

 

I can answer with exactly what I received as an answer when I inquired to exactly what was wrong, or what rule I did not follow on my submissions when they were denied, and was told I could appeal directly.

 

 

 

Lack of info can only lead to speculation on all sides.

 

Also, let's be fair.. was all that info listed for the caches above IN the cache description as to WHAT to look for so one could just google?

 

Regardless...

Yes, I realize that an approver is busy, etc..etc..etc..

Just seems strange that there are plenty wondering as to the current status of how hard it is to get one approved.

I think the point is being missed here, trying to defend both sides.

Topic was "Virtual Caches, hard to get approved?"

I shared my experience.

Further examples were given as to why they sucked.

Thanks. We are all a bit wiser for that.

 

It appears that the answer to virtuals now comes down to..

1.) "WOW" factor, and

2.) The approvers' personal opinion in addition to the rules.

Fine. At least let the current rules reflect that now.

 

Also, I did not realize that it was 100% possible to google every virtual from the safety of ones home, without all the pertinent info included in the descriptions NJ admin gave above, since at least I know, I did not give out any of the details listed above, just coordinates, and clues of what to look for. (Unless you count the notes to the approver that do not get shown in the description)

If it came down to the info could have been googled, I guess it could have been adjusted to look for extra/different clues onsite that could NOT have been googled.

Again, whatever.

 

and lastly...

 

#2 above currently IS a virtual.

 

"WoW", indeed. :(

 

Thanks for letting us gain a tad more more info as to how and what is required to get a virt approved these days.

 

You will hear no more from me regarding this topic. :wacko:

Link to comment
Now many cachers will just get the info they need and then move on, not taking the time to truly enjoy it as  much as they may if it was a stand alone virtual.

Those people would just get the information for a virtual and move on anyway.

Actually, no. Well, some. Some are just into the numbers or another notch on the GPS. These are the type of people who don't care where a cache is be it a dumpster or a waterfall.

 

Then there are those who hunt to just be out and see the sights. These are the ones that really care about where the hunt takes them. The cache is secondary. As long as the hunt in interesting, they don't really care about the sequence of things because they'll see it all anyway and most likely more than the cache placer intended to boot.

 

Then there are those that tend to be goal oriented and follow the hunt to the end, but don't just jump in their car and head to the next one if there is something interesting to see.

 

For this later group, the idea of making an interesting spot the first step of a multi is contrary to how they hunt. If the interesting spot was last or very near the last stage, they'd likely get more out of it because they've found the cache and will hang around to enjoy the area.

 

My previous thinking of you can make any interesting spot into a multi was wrong headed. Sometimes the spot in itself should be the hunt. Sure, you should ask yourself if you can possibly put a cache nearby, but don't make walk too far away or I might not enjoy the spot you intended me to enjoy.

Link to comment
2.) The approvers' personal opinion in addition to the rules.

 

Dont forget being an approvers Good Buddy doesnt hurt when getting things approved either.

 

#2 above currently IS a virtual.

 

Wonder who approved it?

 

Edited to remove filth :(

Edited by Pto
Link to comment
2.) The approvers' personal opinion in addition to the rules.

 

Dont forget being an approvers Power Brown Noser doesnt hurt when getting things approved either.

 

#2 above currently IS a virtual.

 

Wonder who approved it?

In response to your first point, I would remind you to keep the Forum Guidelines in mind when posting. In discussing virtual caches, stick to facts and pertinent examples, rather than resorting to personal attacks.

 

In response to your second point, the virtual cache about the movie "Clerks" was reviewed and listed on the website on August 31, 2002. This was long before the current rules regarding virtual caches came into effect. It would not be listed if submitted today. The reviewer who listed the cache is one of the most senior members of the volunteer team. Interestingly, he generally dislikes virtual caches. I am sure, however, that he listed this cache because it complied with the listing guidelines *as in effect at that time.* We are likewise happy to list virtual caches today, if they comply with the listing guidelines currently in effect.

Link to comment
In response to your first point, I would remind you to keep the Forum Guidelines in mind when posting.

 

I apologize, I didnt realize bn'r was "bad" Ive seen far worse thrown around here, so I thought I was safe- I stand corrected and will edit.

 

In discussing virtual caches, stick to facts and pertinent examples, rather than resorting to personal attacks.

 

Personal experience has shown me that being close with the local approver does in fact help with approvals- whether virtual or regular. Pertinent examples were not included, as I didnt intend to point fingers.

 

I was Not referring to you, so I apologize if you thought this was directed at you.

Link to comment

Well, I think the finger has already been pointed, although not at me, as you noted, since I do not review cache submissions in the area where you live.

 

Volunteer reviewers are obligated to apply the listing guidelines fairly to all geocachers, whether the cache owner is a personal caching buddy, the state's leading hider, a newbie, or a person who often thinks outside the box and pushes the edge of the guidelines. Many of us go out of our way to avoid even an appearance of impropriety in this regard. If anything, I am *harder* on my personal friends when enforcing the cache listing requirements, for this very reason. Our reviewer's forum has a number of topics asking for second opinions along the following lines: "I like this cache with a unique twist and I want to list it, but I want to check with the rest of you because the owner is a personal friend of mine..." We are also well aware that any adverse decision we make carries with it the potential to spawn a new forum thread with a title like "I can't believe my virtual cache wasn't approved."

 

If at any time you believe that any volunteer reviewer is not fairly applying the geocache listing guidelines, please write to our boss with complete details by sending an e-mail to approvers at geocaching dot com.

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

I was Not referring to you, so I apologize if you thought this was directed at you.

Then whom exactly were you directing it at? If you have some information spit it out. I would love to read some of your examples. In fact I would love to read even one of your examples.

Link to comment
We are likewise happy to list virtual caches today, if they comply with the listing guidelines currently in effect.

AKA...

 

If you can pull a golfball through a garden hose, we'll applaude you when you're done. In the meantime, just remember "Deep breaths...deep breaths".

 

:D

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

 

It is on Page 2, posted twice. and ignored both time. I live in MN - do the math,

 

Lunch time

The only thing I saw you post on the second page of this thread was a few nasty comments obout this website, spam for your new web site and a few snide comments. Point out what you're talking about chief. Don't play word games. Unless of course you're just the latest in a long line of trolls to pass through here.

Link to comment
<<SNIP>>

 

It is on Page 2, posted twice. and ignored both time.  I live in MN - do the math,

 

Lunch time

The only thing I saw you post on the second page of this thread was a few nasty comments obout this website, spam for your new web site and a few snide comments. Point out what you're talking about chief. Don't play word games. Unless of course you're just the latest in a long line of trolls to pass through here.

troll.jpg

Link to comment
I would love to read some of your examples. In fact I would love to read even one of your examples.

 

It is on Page 2, posted twice. and ignored both time. I live in MN - do the math,

 

Lunch time

Oh, sorry. Since I review caches in MN your personal attacks using vague accusations were directed to me. Please email specific information to approvers at geocaching dotcom. I would like Hydee to see it and let me know if I have done something wrong. If you do not have specific information then do not make personal attacks with vague accusations in the forums.

Link to comment
I would love to read some of your examples. In fact I would love to read even one of your examples.

 

It is on Page 2, posted twice. and ignored both time. I live in MN - do the math,

 

Lunch time

I hate math, but this is pretty easy. Since there only seems to be one person in MN with 500 hides, 25 which are virtuals, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same one. Since this topic is about virtual caches, the 475 physicals are off-topic here (I'd love to know how one maintains that many, though!). That leaves the 25 virtuals. Of those 25, only 4 were listed since 2002. One of those appears to actually be a locationless cache, and the virtual was quickly archived. That leaves 3 left. 2 of those were placed in January 2003, and the third March 2003. Doesn't look like he's had any virtual caches approved since they started cracking down on them, so if he's "brown-nosing the reviewer" as you accused, it doesn't look like it did him any good.

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.

These changes were all put in place for a reason. TPTB thought they were good enough reasons at the time and haven't had a good enough reasons to change back. I highly doubt it will go back the way it was, so you might as well get used to the idea that this site prefers physical caches above all others.

 

Why?

 

It could be money. You can buy items to place inside physical caches, but not virtuals. Since this is a business, that's all the reason they need. Physical caches make much more sense (and cents) than virtuals.

 

If you want to start a site just like this in order to promote virtuals then go right ahead. If you want your site to not be about the money then go right ahead.

Link to comment

It could be money. You can buy items to place inside physical caches, but not virtuals. Since this is a business, that's all the reason they need. Physical caches make much more sense (and cents) than virtuals.

 

If you want to start a site just like this in order to promote virtuals then go right ahead. If you want your site to not be about the money then go right ahead.

I guess that's a theory, but then that wouldn't really explain promoting a micro over a virtual. Smaller caches are less likely to include trade items, or have fancy log book or labels. If it was all about the money, we would have guidelines that said we couldn't hide a micro if there's room for tupperware, or that all caches must have an "official" label. And where's the profit in webcam caches? Or event caches for that matter?

Link to comment

It could be money. You can buy items to place inside physical caches, but not virtuals. Since this is a business, that's all the reason they need. Physical caches make much more sense (and cents) than virtuals.

 

If you want to start a site just like this in order to promote virtuals then go right ahead. If you want your site to not be about the money then go right ahead.

I guess that's a theory, but then that wouldn't really explain promoting a micro over a virtual. Smaller caches are less likely to include trade items, or have fancy log book or labels. If it was all about the money, we would have guidelines that said we couldn't hide a micro if there's room for tupperware, or that all caches must have an "official" label. And where's the profit in webcam caches? Or event caches for that matter?

That's the reason I said "could"

 

However, you can buy microcache stickers and logbooks but nothing for virtuals. The size of the container doesn't matter much, since there are both large and small versions of logbooks and stickers. Event caches frequently have prizes, some of which are purchased from the Groundspeak store.

Link to comment

TO CLARIFY:

In context, Back when the comments on page 2 were made, it was just after

The whole "The guidelines are very specific" arguement put forth by mtn-man.

 

When I quoted;

 

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

 

My Point Was this:

 

"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.

 

Get it?

 

This is NOT meant to be any kind of personal attack on mtn-man or anyone else.

My Point was, Everyone is quick to beat us over the head with the Guidelines. Strict guidelines, that do not bend.

 

Here is an example of descretion being used. I thought that could show GOOD EXAMPLE of Good judgement by mtn-man. Allowing the cacher to show they are up to the task, not just banging on the "strict guidelines" drumand denying him the chance.

 

I thought it would show that things CAN work, despite the fact that they

would appear impossible(500 caches) He gets lots of help, so most of them stay active - it works. It CAN be done

BUT isnt this beyond the "Strict Guidelines"?

 

Why not allow a few more border line ideas? I think its GREAT that mtn-man has allowed some flexibility. I think ALL approvers should try this way.

 

But it should be consistent.

 

I start to question things when on one hand its Strict Guidelines, but on the other its flexibility Either its 1 way - OR its the other but it cant be BOTH. I prefer mtn-mans felxibility, over mtn-mans observance of the strict guidelines.

 

I guess I am pointing out the double standard- but I did Not mean to make it out to be a personal attack on mtn-man.

 

One cacher gets special treatment - so I threw in the brownxxxxx comment.

That was a jab, but more so towards the hider not mtn-man. (How else could he get the special treatment?)

 

I apologize for the comment, and the fact I even "went there"

Link to comment

Ok, I will try to explain this slowly so you understand.

 

Cacher A has a job that makes him travel in a large (say 500 mile) area on a regular basis. He has found caches in that area over time and has shown he travels there often.

 

Cacher B has found a bunch of caches in the area around his house. He goes to see some friends (500 miles away) and plants a cache. When asked about maintaining the newly placed vacation cache he says "Huh? If there are any problems I'll just archive it."

 

You don't get the benefit of the doubt right off the bat. You can "SAY" anything. Doing it is another story.

Link to comment

I apologize for the comment, and the fact I even "went there"

Gotcha, and understood.

You're getting into the vacation cache issue (Woodsters should be posting any moment now) where that part of the guidelines isn't quite subjective as you might think. Obviously only the hider and reviewer know this for sure, but I'm pretty sure the hider didn't just dump 500 caches out there at one time. As each new cache was hid, the reviewer looked at his other finds and hides to see if there was a problem. I saw a thread earlier today where the same reviewer (mtn-man) was slammed for not approving a cache in MN because the the hider lived 300 miles away and wasn't maintaining his other caches. The reviewers usually already have some hard facts to go on when they allow one guy to hide a cache 300 miles from home an not another. It's really not a matter of giving someone a chance.

Link to comment
I apologize for the comment, and the fact I even "went there"

I appreciate your detailed explaination and comments. I sincerely thank you very much for them.

 

One thing I will note...

He uses a tag line of "The King of Cache Density". That is a quote from me in an email from a long time ago. I have corresponded with him quite a bit over time. Some of them have been notes that are pushing him on certain issues. I have made special efforts to visit some of his caches to see what they look like too, both in the city and outside of the city. Overall he does a great job. I have caches that need work too so I am careful about casting stones. I do know that for the most part he does maintain those caches so I let him go to it. He has missed some proximity issues for example and I call him on it (I wonder if he is just testing me sometimes). He always responds very quickly. The MN Cachers are one heck of a group and he is a great part of that community.

Link to comment

Agreed- Please understand, I feel lucky to have you as an approver as I have seen you in action and feel you are very fair, and very thorough. I appreciate the hiders efforts, as they provide me with all the caches I could possibly want to search for.

Its not about "he gets to, why cant I" I personally couldnt do it, so I wouldnt even try.

It was just about the point. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot-

 

He uses a tag line of "The King of Cache Density".

 

For a brief time, he also used a tagline of "Bug hotel rent-a-cop" too from an exchange we had -but that one isnt as true.

Link to comment
<snip>

Well, since I used to live near the zip code in question, let me put a little local perspective on things.

<snip>

Again, those are your OPINIONS, others opinions may be different. I'm sure someone who worked in the twin towers everyday may have thought they were pretty ordinary after a while, but to someone who had never seen them they would most likely be a WOW. After the events of 9-11, even tho they are no longer there, I think even jaded could not help but think WOW. It is the arbitrary quality of WOW that more than a few of us see as the problem with the current 'guidelines'.

 

Note: edited quote simply to save space.

Link to comment

When you return there next, bring the following items:

 

Shovel

1 5ft tall pole painted blue

1 bucket with a tight-fitting lid

Asst'd goodies

Logbook

2 pencils

 

... Erect them so as to "blend in" with the rest & construct a normal cache

 

^_^

 

 

East isn't on top of ALL maps?

Link to comment

I have a virtual cache idea, I would like to hear opinions about it. The site is the oldest tree in a big city. It's about 300 years old, quite huge and there is a plaque on it saying this is the oldest tree. It's in a residential area close to downtown and it's mostly unknown to people. I don't see any good place to put a physical cache there, it's just an old street with nice, old houses, cars parking on the street.

Edited by as77
Link to comment
I have a virtual cache idea, I would like to hear opinions about it. The site is the oldest tree in a big city. It's about 300 years old, quite huge and there is a plaque on it saying this is the oldest tree. It's in a residential area close to downtown and it's mostly unknown to people. I don't see any good place to put a physical cache there, it's just an old street with nice, old houses, cars parking on the street.

yawn.gif

Link to comment
I have a virtual cache idea, I would like to hear opinions about it. The site is the oldest tree in a big city. It's about 300 years old, quite huge and there is a plaque on it saying this is the oldest tree. It's in a residential area close to downtown and it's mostly unknown to people. I don't see any good place to put a physical cache there, it's just an old street with nice, old houses, cars parking on the street.

Attach an altoids container to the plaque with a rubber band. It probably wouldn't last, but that's OK. Once it is gone, temporarily allow the finders to log it virtually. It will only cost you a few rubber bands and empty film canisters a year, at most, to keep it. It will only cost me another slap-on-a-wrist PM from CO Admin, at most, to suggest it.

Link to comment
I have a virtual cache idea, I would like to hear opinions about it. The site is the oldest tree in a big city. It's about 300 years old, quite huge and there is a plaque on it saying this is the oldest tree. It's in a residential area close to downtown and it's mostly unknown to people. I don't see any good place to put a physical cache there, it's just an old street with nice, old houses, cars parking on the street.

Is it made out of actual wood?

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...