You Have All Read It A 1000 Times.

2.3k · July 23, 2004

What have you read 1000 times? The answer is: "The cache approver will not approve my virtual cache .

Yep, and we will read it 1000 more times, and 1000 more still, until one day, something finally snaps around here and cachers start listing elsewhere.

1.2k · July 23, 2004

Quote by Sax

I'll be driving through Southern Arizona (again, I might add) on August 2nd. How close is this to I-8 or I-10?

40 miles DUE south of Benson. probably 60-70 miles to drive it. Benson is on I-10 between east border and Tucson

Edited July 23, 2004 by Lapaglia

July 23, 2004

But, I have, as of yet, not received one good response from an approver. Three down...

-WJ

Fire tower, eh.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=20738

Already a cache. Feel free to log your find there.

I even went to the trouble to see if any of the 320 fire towers that have already been logged were the one you have marked. It has not been found yet.

Is this a good enough response yet?

You are THE MAN! Mtn-Man! Bagging a smiley for the recalcitrant virt poster! That is truly a peace offering if ever I saw one. I for one would've taken the proffered smiley and thanked you profusely (and then went out and hunted some unique historical tidbit for said tower HINT HINT Javelina).

Jim

P.S. it was nice meeting you at GeoWoodstock.... or was that the OTHER Mtn-Man, or the other one, or the other one..... ad nauseum

7.2k · July 23, 2004

P.S. it was nice meeting you at GeoWoodstock.... or was that the OTHER Mtn-Man, or the other one, or the other one..... ad nauseum

He he, you had to be there! It was great to meet you too.

1.4k · July 23, 2004

I'll bite.

I looked up the coords for this cache in my mapping software. I also used the driving directions to see where the parking for the trail head should be. Looks like the trailhead is outside the wilderness area.

I see a potential for a win/win situation here. Place a physical cache near the trailhead outside the wilderness area, make it the final stage of a multi cache that requires the hunter to get some information from the sumit to complete the final coords for the physical. You can bring cachers to this great spot and let them experience the beauty that this spot has to offer while still giving them a physical cache to find as a celebration at the end of a long hike.

7.3k · July 23, 2004

It's almost midnight!

Does someone have to be in here 24 hours? When do you guys sleep?

July 23, 2004

My point is that there already is a cache covering the fire tower you are trying to get approved. Log it.

No thanks, I'll pass on logging it. I would hate to perminently close it out to other as a possible virutal find.

If you want to argue the view part, well, I go back to the guidelines:

I am tired of the guidlines being thrown in my face and none of the approvers following them. Yes, maybe one or two caches may have slipped through. And yes a previous cache being approved is not the basis for future approavals. But, if you look at all of my virtual finds (in particular most the 4 most recent finds) and virtual hides, the majority are are exactly the same as the Miller Peak Virtual. Difficult to reach locations with a very satisfing view as a reward, nothing else. Hmmmm, Wonder how they all got approved? Miller Peak is as good as the ones I've found and the ones that I've placed. Furthermore, it has the added benifit of a historic lookout tower on top.

I do not feel that I have to justify the Virtual beyond what I've done in the cache description. It is as good or better than the others that I have found or submitted. I feel that this is a great cache and it not being approved is preventing it from being experiencd by the rest of the geocaching community as a geocache.

And thank you to Mtn Man for taking the time to do a little research and reply to my questions and badgering in a calm and intelligent manner.

You will hear from me no more on this specific subject.

-WJ

7.2k · July 23, 2004

Please don't automatically dismiss this because some of my other non-conforming views.

I wouldn't approve this on several levels.

As mentioned before, if virts are okay in this area it would make it harder to convince some land managers to allow physicals "because virts are just as good." The arguement "they're not" won't fly because a segment of the users are pushing the site to make them easier to place. The land manager would just think "well, my land will be just another one where only virts are allowed."
The cache as it stands is vague on a specific point to find and what point there is, is the remains of a fire tower. Not much of a WOW factor. Remember the WOW that keeps getting quoted is the view from the mountain top, not the ruins.
This game is about finding things with a GPS. Miller Peak and the fire tower are marked on the USGS topo map. Seen here. Both objects can be found without the aid of coordinates or GPS.

So, as it reads, this is not in the spirit of the game. Not saying it wouldn't be something I'd enjoy as it sounds like my all-time favorite cache Panther Tail Perch. Only PTP has a physical there.

Summit Registers: I'm not familiar with these. Would like to hear from some approvers if this would be an acceptable form of verification. I would probably argue against it if the only thing to find is the register because these can be found without aid of coords. But with the combnation of some other form of a hunt... Just bringing it up out of curiosity.

Edited July 23, 2004 by CoyoteRed

7.2k · July 23, 2004

I am tired of the guidlines being thrown in my face and none of the approvers following them.

And thank you to Mtn Man for taking the time to do a little research and reply to my questions and badgering in a calm and intelligent manner.

Excuse me?

Raven Cliffs First Cache

I did *exactly* what Team Misguided suggested you do YEARS ago. People still get to see the falls and there is an ammo box just outside the wilderness area.

Frankly, I am personally insulted that you would throw accusations at me. I deserve an apology. I'm sorry your cache was denied. I am sorry you can't accept it. You had no right to accuse me of not following the guidelines. That was totally uncalled for.

We will see if the caches you have ferreted need to be archived.

July 23, 2004

If I was an approver, I'd approve it!

(Unless there is something going on here that I am unaware of.)

I love virtuals in NPS. We can't have any other cache there, and when I am on vacation, I like to do caches!

So do I. Especially when there are the remains of some significant structure.

2.3k · July 23, 2004

We will see if the caches you have ferreted need to be archived.

1.4k · July 23, 2004

What have you read 1000 times? The answer is: "The cache approver will not approve my virtual cache .

Yep, and we will read it 1000 more times, and 1000 more still, until one day, something finally snaps around here and cachers start listing elsewhere.

There's the best answer yet!!!! This is just getting silly all the people putting so much effort into VIRTS. It's just a set of coords. If you want people to go there tell them about it and let them go there. You don't need to list the coords for people to enjoy it. Makes me start wishing that they would get rid of virts all together and just go back to it has to be a can with beans in it to get approved.

July 23, 2004

The purpose of geocaching to me is to take me somewhere I haven't been before. The cache itself is second.

Although I am no longer in AZ this is the kind of cache location I prefer. A nice hike to an area I would not have traveled to if it where not for the cache.

By not allowing the virtual you have taken away the opportunity for other cachers to learn of this spot. SInce physical caches are not allowed here there is no other way to make this a cache.

Think about it. If a physical could be placed here it would be approved in an instance. For that reason alone the virtual should be approved since that is all that can be placed.

There are many physical caches that get approved only for the fact that there is a physical cache there. They are only a number in my find count as they have no appeal or WOW to them. On the other hand this one will take you to a nice place with a great view.

Team Sand Dollar

38.2k · July 23, 2004

One thing I haven't seen addressed was whether a real cache would automaticaly be rejected here. As I understand it, some, but not all wilderness areas have bans on geocaches. If this is one that bans them, then you can ignore this, but if it doesn't, then why not a real cache at the site?

July 23, 2004

Well, its the top of a mountain. Are mountain tops unusual?
Sorry, but I've seen a lot of mountain tops. That answer would be no.

It is not even the highest mountain in AZ. It is only the 10th highest mountain. So, do we make virtual caches out of the other 9 too? What about the hundreds of thousands of mountain tops across the globe?

You say it has a great view. A view is not a geocache. It is just a view. I've seen thousands of places that have had great views as I have hiked. Are they geocaches? No, they are not."

I am new to geocaching and have never done a virtual.....but isnt the point of geocaching to see new stuff and get out and go places...not just swap a trinket at a box??? I guess my question is "what makes a geocache".....

If geocaches require a physical box, etc with trinkets and a log, then why are ANY virtuals or web cam caches approved???

I guess I dont quite understand yet the whole idea of virtuals...but this one seemd like one that would be cool to do......I, for one, have not seen the tops of many mountains and would love to try this one if I lived closer...

After reading the whole thread, I can understand why some are concerned....virts could "theoretically" take over Geocaching.....I doubt it would, though.....Finding a box of stuff is pretty cool....But Iwouldnt be objectionable to going on a hunt for a GPS coordinate just to find old ruins, etc that I am interested in.....

In any reagrd, Team Misguided's suggestion seems the best.....place the cache at thetrailhead and have the hike and tower somehow be part of finding the cache....

Just a noobies $.02

shadango

Edited July 23, 2004 by shadango

22k · July 23, 2004

but isnt the point of geocaching to see new stuff and get out and go places...not just swap a trinket at a box???

No, not really. If I am looking for a trail, or a park, or a 'destination' to visit, I'll go to those websites that give sufficient information about the trail, park, etc. Geocaching and gc.com (et al) isn't geared or expected to be a vacation tour guide.

Now in regards to virtuals, I'm am out geocaching to find 'the virtual'. If it's an old fire tower my log would probably be along the lines of: "Enjoyed the hike and the view, but the virtual isn't really worth visiting."

Sorry, that's just how I see it.

Edited July 23, 2004 by Elf Danach

July 23, 2004

No, not really. If I am looking for a trail, or a park, or a 'destination' to visit, I'll go to those websites that give sufficient information about the trail, park, etc. Geocaching and gc.com (et al) isn't geared or expected to be a vacation tour guide.

Now in regards to virtuals, I'm am out geocaching to find 'the virtual'. If it's an old fire tower my log would probably be along the lines of: "Enjoyed the hike and the view, but the virtual isn't really worth visiting."

Sorry, that's just how I see it.

How do I look up a " trail, or a park, or a 'destination' to visit" if I don't know about it.

Geocaching takes me to places I don't know about but that someone else finds interesting.

While caching in NC a couple of week ago the cache took me to a waterfall that I would have never of seen without caching. In this case there was a physical cache but it would have been a shame if physicals where not allowed and it was disapproved just because there where other waterfall caches.

Team Sand Dollar

July 23, 2004

The purpose of geocaching to me is to take me somewhere I haven't been before. The cache itself is second.

Since when?? The purpose of geocaching is to find something that someone has hidden. A nice view or a nice hike should be considered a bonus. You have it a little backwards.

2.3k · July 23, 2004

If it's an old fire tower my log would probably be along the lines of: "Enjoyed the hike and the view, but the virtual isn't really worth visiting."

Sorry, that's just how I see it.

Not to flame, but you HAVEN'T seen it...so how can you already say that's what you would write?

I will dream of a better time, when cachers are free to submit the types of caches they choose, and instead of being denied approval based on the opinion of a single person and a set of pre-established guidelines, are allowed to stand ON THEIR OWN merits. Let the online logs from the other cachers be the REAL judges of the quality of the caches. We are not so mindless that we need some form of "Cache Government" to look out for our "best interests" and reject caches they don't think we would like. If there are enough negative listings on the cache page, cachers will get the hint, not search out the cache, and it will eventually get archived. That's what online logs (feedback) and the "needs to be archived" button are for...Natures "Survival of the Fittest" rules apply to caches, too, and the ones that simply suck will soon be gone.

You know, here we go again with the Virt thing...the guidelines even state that a Virt can only exist if a real cache can't be placed there, so then what happens? You submit a Virt and it STILL gets turned down...come on, let's face it, we all know it: VIRTS ARE DEAD ON THIS SITE. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.

2.3k · July 23, 2004

The purpose of geocaching to me is to take me somewhere I haven't been before. The cache itself is second.

Since when?? The purpose of geocaching is to find something that someone has hidden. A nice view or a nice hike should be considered a bonus. You have it a little backwards.

You are BOTH right...geocaching is WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE...that's why we NEED different types of caches, to accomodate everyone. Do you want to eat the same thing, every day, for the rest of your life? NO! Variety is good, variety is necessary, and we should welcome a change now and then.

If you don't want to hike up to see the tower, then don't do this cache...read the cache page before doing the hike and make a choice, but at least you have a CHOICE TO MAKE!

22k · July 23, 2004

No, not really. If I am looking for a trail, or a park, or a 'destination' to visit, I'll go to those websites that give sufficient information about the trail, park, etc. Geocaching and gc.com (et al) isn't geared or expected to be a vacation tour guide.

Now in regards to virtuals, I'm am out geocaching to find 'the virtual'. If it's an old fire tower my log would probably be along the lines of: "Enjoyed the hike and the view, but the virtual isn't really worth visiting."

Sorry, that's just how I see it.

How do I look up a " trail, or a park, or a 'destination' to visit" if I don't know about it.

Geocaching takes me to places I don't know about but that someone else finds interesting.

While caching in NC a couple of week ago the cache took me to a waterfall that I would have never of seen without caching. In this case there was a physical cache but it would have been a shame if physicals where not allowed and it was disapproved just because there where other waterfall caches.

Team Sand Dollar

Sorry if this comes across as patronizing, it’s not meant to.

The point of Geocaching is to place a box in a woods, post the waypoints and let people find it. Over simplified I know, but really that’s what it is. At some point they decided that, for whatever reason, if you couldn’t place a box you used something to take its place. A virtual.

Now “good” geocaches can be ones that incorporate locations that are interesting to visit but still the point is to find the box. It seems to me that somewhere these two goals switched priority. Now the point is to visit interesting locations. People want ratings so they know what cache has a great view. Then it morphs into ‘is the point of Geocaching really to find a box?’ ‘My geocache is the view’.

The goal should be to ‘place’ something for people to find.

Edited July 23, 2004 by Elf Danach

2.3k · July 23, 2004

Are there any variations in the game?

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

UH HUH.

22k · July 23, 2004

If it's an old fire tower my log would probably be along the lines of: "Enjoyed the hike and the view, but the virtual isn't really worth visiting."

Sorry, that's just how I see it.

Not to flame, but you HAVEN'T seen it...so how can you already say that's what you would write?

I will dream of a better time, when cachers are free to submit the types of caches they choose, and instead of being denied approval based on the opinion of a single person and a set of pre-established guidelines, are allowed to stand ON THEIR OWN merits. Let the online logs from the other cachers be the REAL judges of the quality of the caches. We are not so mindless that we need some form of "Cache Government" to look out for our "best interests" and reject caches they don't think we would like. If there are enough negative listings on the cache page, cachers will get the hint, not search out the cache, and it will eventually get archived. That's what online logs (feedback) and the "needs to be archived" button are for...Natures "Survival of the Fittest" rules apply to caches, too, and the ones that simply suck will soon be gone.

You know, here we go again with the Virt thing...the guidelines even state that a Virt can only exist if a real cache can't be placed there, so then what happens? You submit a Virt and it STILL gets turned down...come on, let's face it, we all know it: VIRTS ARE DEAD ON THIS SITE. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.

Hence the word 'probably' and I think I've been alive long enough to have a pretty good idea how I would react to an old fire tower considering how many I have seen. It's called an opinion.

7.2k · July 23, 2004

The Elf nailed it.

Everything except for the ratings part, anyway.

1.4k · July 23, 2004

The purpose of geocaching to me is to take me somewhere I haven't been before. The cache itself is second.

Although I am no longer in AZ this is the kind of cache location I prefer. A nice hike to an area I would not have traveled to if it where not for the cache.

By not allowing the virtual you have taken away the opportunity for other cachers to learn of this spot. SInce physical caches are not allowed here there is no other way to make this a cache.

Think about it. If a physical could be placed here it would be approved in an instance. For that reason alone the virtual should be approved since that is all that can be placed.

Ya mmmmm, geocaching is usally about THE CACHE! Otherwise you can find many other websites that just point out points of interest and some even with coords so you can use your GPS.

By not approving the cache there is no other way for people to know there is a trail there and there is a hill you can look from?

And lastly, they allow caches under light poles in parking lots. Does that mean in a natural parks they need to allow virtual light pole caches? There are much tougher restrictions on virts to avoid just such a thing.

July 23, 2004

Frankly, I am personally insulted that you would throw accusations at me. I deserve an apology. I'm sorry your cache was denied. I am sorry you can't accept it. You had no right to accuse me of not following the guidelines. That was totally uncalled for.

Well, I had to respond to this one. After this response I take back all the nice things that I've ever said about you. I did not accuse you of not following the guidelines.

What I meant was that geocaching.com has a set of guidelines. Now, several and how much within this set of guidelines a cache submittal falls is entirely up to the approver. For instance, a virtual cache at the Grand Canyon may only have nice views and does not satisfy the guideline requirements, but since it is in a NP it automatically gets approved.

We will see if the caches you have ferreted need to be archived.

Threats are not appropriate and this is not the proper behavior for a cache admin. You owe us an apology. I in no way ferreted out any caches and in no way implied that they should be archived. Do not try and put this on my shoulders.

2.3k · July 23, 2004

Hence the word 'probably' and I think I've been alive long enough to have a pretty good idea how I would react to an old fire tower considering how many I have seen. It's called an opinion.

An opinion. Yes, you are entitled to have one here. What about Wily Javelinas opinion of the cache they want to place? Doesn't that count for something, too? After all, they actually WENT to the spot and thought it interesting enough to make a cache. Good to see it get turned down from hundreds of miles away.

July 23, 2004

I do perfer a box over a virtual generally. This is evident with having over 1200 Traditional and Multi Cache finds vs 124 Virtual finds. What I'm saying is that I perfer the location to the box. I would perfer a virtual on a mountain top over a Tic-Tac container with log sheet attached to a power box in the middle of town. If a container can be hid it should, but Virtuals have there place. And they are geocaching as I have to use the coords to get where I am supposed to be.

Team Sand Dollar

22k · July 23, 2004

Everything except for the ratings part, anyway.

oops!

Edited July 23, 2004 by Elf Danach

July 23, 2004

July 20 by Wily Javelina (388 found)

Okay 9key,

If this is the way that you would like to communicate. We may as well archive the whole conversation, instead of the tidbits of your choice.

First of all you did not answer my question on what differentiates this from the Mica Mountain Cache (GCJX6T)?

Secondly, there is not a reasonable way to make this an offset. In order to make it an offset I would have to leave some kind of media containing the offset...may a well leave a cache. There was nothing already at the site that contains a means to relay an offset, either. I already considered this idea.

Thirdly, there is not a good or reasonable place to leave the final cache, that is, without cooking up some klugey, hacked up, forced location. The trailhead starts out on National ParkLand (Coronado National Memorial) and then transitions directly to Wilderness Area. So, there is no good place near the start. The other trailhead is on the Fort Huachuca Military Base. In between there are already many caches. The logical place to locate the final cache is near the trailhead.

Fourthly, what differentiates between a historical lookout tower on one of Arizona's most prominent peaks and say a old movie theatre, an old post office, a large brass plaque on a concrete dias...the difference is purely subjective and individual.

Quit being such a tough guy and just approve the cache.

-WJ

-- Copy of email sent to 9Key --

I do not understand why you folks will not approve this cache. First of

all, the peak is not the main objective of the virtual, the lookout

tower on the summit is, read the description. Secondly, this is a

wilderness area and in this one, in particular, physical caches are not

allowed. Thirdly, I do not see what is different about this cache GCJX6T Mica

Mountain

(visit link)

which was just recently approved. I can list many. So your argument

about a peak not being a valid virtual does not hold water. I guess it

depends on who you know, who you are, which approver you get and thier

current state of mind, etc.

-WJ

July 23, 2004

I can see both sides of this topic. I understand the approvers reasoning as well as the placers thoughts.

Personally I believe that there should be a seperate site dedicated for just Virtual Caches and there be fewer rules for that site. I for one like finding Historical Markets, old buildings and great views.

I think though that the approvers do the best they can with the time and resources that they have to approve caches in a fair and consistant manner.

1.4k · July 23, 2004

You asked and here you go!!!!!!!!!!

www.waypoint.org

<<SNIP>>
Personally I believe that there should be a seperate site dedicated for just Virtual Caches and there be fewer rules for that site. I for one like finding Historical Markets, old buildings and great views.

<<SNIP>>

1.5k · July 23, 2004

There is no 'right' answer. I too can see both sides, and while I like virts, and this sounds like a good one to me, TPTB aren't looking kindly on them right now - that's life, get over it! That said, I think that the puzzle/multi-cache idea with a physical outside the protected boundary and utilizing something from the tower site is an excellent work-around!

22k · July 23, 2004

I do perfer a box over a virtual generally. This is evident with having over 1200 Traditional and Multi Cache finds vs 124 Virtual finds. What I'm saying is that I perfer the location to the box. I would perfer a virtual on a mountain top over a Tic-Tac container with log sheet attached to a power box in the middle of town. If a container can be hid it should, but Virtuals have there place. And they are geocaching as I have to use the coords to get where I am supposed to be.

Team Sand Dollar

I completely agree and I am not against virtuals. I'm just pointing out, as others have, that the goal should be to place a container or virtual in this interesting location.

Tictacs containers on a power box? Sorry I can't give you my opinion about that until I have visited it. Or so I'm told.

Addendum:

"I perfer the location to the box."

I completely agree that I prefer location when comparing two geocaches.

Edited July 23, 2004 by Elf Danach

2.3k · July 23, 2004

Tictacs containers on a power box? Sorry I can't give you my opinion about that until I have visited it. Or so I'm told.

I said-

"Not to flame, but you HAVEN'T seen it...so how can you already say that's what you would write?

I even started out with "Not to flame"...I tried to be nice.

I didn't tell you to shut up, or keep your opinion to yourself...I only asked you how you can form an opinion about this cache without having been to the spot.

21.9k · July 23, 2004

I did not accuse you of not following the guidelines.

I believe that mtn-man was reacting to this earlier statement that you made:

I am tired of the guidlines being thrown in my face and none of the approvers following them.

I have difficulty interpreting that statement as anything other than "none of the approvers follow the guidelines."

You do need to tone your statements down a notch if you wish for this topic to continue. Thanks.

July 23, 2004

Man, just let it go. There has been too much energy spent on this. If an approver says no, just accept it like an adult and move on.

1.4k · July 23, 2004

<<SNIP>>

I even started out with "Not to flame"...I tried to be nice.

Not a very good try.

I didn't tell you to shut up, or keep your opinion to yourself...I only asked you how you can form an opinion about this cache without having been to the spot.

Lets see. The guy has been caching for about 14 months, found over 100 caches and placed a few himself. Doesn't look like a 4 find noob that show up knowing everything. Looks to me like someone who speaks from experience.

22k · July 23, 2004

Tictacs containers on a power box? Sorry I can't give you my opinion about that until I have visited it. Or so I'm told.

I said-

"Not to flame, but you HAVEN'T seen it...so how can you already say that's what you would write?

I even started out with "Not to flame"...I tried to be nice.

I didn't tell you to shut up, or keep your opinion to yourself...I only asked you how you can form an opinion about this cache without having been to the spot.

by presuming and prejudging. The same way I decide to do any cache. Now if there were ratings………

6.5k · July 23, 2004

The Elf nailed it.

Everything except for the ratings part, anyway.

Not exactly. Yes the main focus of geocaching should always be 'find a hidden box somewhere using your GPSr.' Yes- a 'virtual should only be placed when there is no way a traditional container could be placed there or nearby, making 'there' stage one of a multi. Nowhere in the guidelines does it state that you must be taken somewhere nice, scenic, breathtaking unique etc. It is suggested just not required.:

Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache.

This fire tower cache being discussed sounds pretty good to me. It just needs to have some unique historical info added to the cache page to comply with the posted guidelines. A great hike and view are expected bonuses for anyone going after this one for the description given so far.

I have no problem finding caches under lightpoles, stuck to power boxes, even in storm drains. I have found many like that, and will continue to look for them when that is what I'm in the mood for, and can tell from the cache page that is what to expect. That's all the ratings I need to see. I'll also hike 3 miles slog through a swamp, or climb a mountain if I want to find that cache.

Just PLEASE don't make your cache sound like the coolest, most scenic location if it's behind the pizza shop dumpster hidden in PI and Sasquatch is diving for dinner while I'm caching there.

I do agree with some other posters here and elsewhere that gc.com is becoming more restrictive not less which contridicts this statement in the guidelines:

Geocaching is a constantly changing and evolving sport, and as a result these guidelines are subject to change as the sport progresses

But that's a bit OT.

7.2k · July 23, 2004

I did not accuse you of not following the guidelines.

I believe that mtn-man was reacting to this earlier statement that you made:

I am tired of the guidlines being thrown in my face and none of the approvers following them.

I have difficulty interpreting that statement as anything other than "none of the approvers follow the guidelines."

You do need to tone your statements down a notch if you wish for this topic to continue. Thanks.

Yes, exactly. I am offended that you said that I don't follow the guidelines.

That is 100 percent incorrect.

You know, some time ago, people were trying to make virtual caches out of benchmarks. Benchmarks are common like mountain tops are. The site decided to split benchmarks off into their own section. You don't get a tick on your smiley count if you find a benchmark. You know what; only a few cachers do benchmarks. I think it is because you don't get a smiley. Yes, the ones you have found do show up on the stats section of your profile page, but you don't get a regular smiley.

There has been a lot of talk in these forums about splitting virtuals into their own section of the site. I have not really wanted to do that myself because I would imagine that if that happens you will no longer get a smiley tick on your find count if you find one. I think the bickering over virtual caches is going to make this move a reality though. I have said many times that I like *good* virtual caches. Just look at my stats page. I log them. But, just as locationless caches became right before the moratorium, virtual caches are now just a hassle. They are a hassle for the person who tries to get them approved and for the reviewer that has to spend so much time defending their decision.

This is not a threat by any means. It is just an observation and a reality check. I like virtual caches and I do defend their place as a geocache to get a smiley when they follow the guidelines. This topic may have changed that position for me. The accusations thrown around just to get one cache approved are ridiculous. I was a champion for the cause for virtuals, but not this one because it does not conform to the guidelines. I just don't know if it is worth defending any of them anymore when I get thrown under the bus by someone as I have in this topic.

I will predict this. If you were to split virtual caches out into their own section and remove the smiley for finding them then I would bet that people will not log them since there will be no smiley for them. That is why www.waypoint.org is not successful.

I now hope the site will split them off just like benchmarks. You could then submit any mountain top you want. I will be curious how many people will seek them if they don't get a smiley for them.

</general comment>

Edited July 23, 2004 by mtn-man

2.3k · July 23, 2004

<<SNIP>>

I even started out with "Not to flame"...I tried to be nice.

Not a very good try.

Perhaps I should put a 3-page legal disclaimer in front of my every post? Would that suffice?

We all can't be perfect like you (thank God)....

What else you got, tough guy?

22k · July 23, 2004

<<SNIP>>

I even started out with "Not to flame"...I tried to be nice.

Not a very good try.

Perhaps I should put a 3-page legal disclaimer in front of my every post? Would that suffice?

We all can't be perfect like you (thank God)....

What else you got, tough guy?

Easy now. You and I did trade shots. I just had to wonder if you would have said the same thing to me if I had said it sounded like a good cache.

Peace and drugs, brother. I mean peace and love.

This is my last post on the subject, you can take the parting shot.

Edited July 23, 2004 by Elf Danach

21.9k · July 23, 2004

This is my last post on the subject, you can take the parting shot.

Or better yet, send a Private Message and remove your personal debate from the larger thread. Thanks.

July 23, 2004

Go KA

July 23, 2004

You don't get a tick on your smiley count if you find a benchmark. You know what; only a few cachers do benchmarks. I think it is because you don't get a smiley.

I don't agree with this.

This isn't on topic, and I apologize, but mtn-man started it!

Personally I don't do benchmarks because there is no physical box of trinkets with a logbook to find. Its the same reason I generally steer away from vituals, locationless and the like.

Sure, I've been known to log a locationless, virtual, etc., but generally, its about finding the box of junk that makes it fun.

Not the smileys, IMHO.

So, I would imagine that THAT is a more common reason for not doing benchmarks than "no smiley."

Another reason, I would think, is because benchmarks really weren't placed for their aesthetic value, or consideration for the finder that was going to come behind you. You can as easily find a benchmark at Town Hall in the center of Nowheresville, Massachusetts (boring), as you can the center of some prickerbush scrubland in northern Vermont (painful). Caches (one would hope) are placed with forethought on the aesthetic location, benchmarks, as I understand it, were not.

Put a fork in me.

Pan

July 23, 2004

I don't normally have input to these topics that hadn't already been covered extensively, but in this case I would like to share a recent experience. Several weeks ago I visited a site that I thought would make a fantastic virtual. I reviewed the guidelines and made the determination that my virtual would have a “WOW” factor, but I needed to do more research before writing it up. My wife and I were going somewhere later that took us within 15 miles of the site, and I intended to take her there and share it. The closer that I got to the exit, the less willing I was to spend the 30 mile round trip for something that I was not sure that she would be wowed by, so I guess it didn’t have as much WOW factor as I originally thought. I now use this as my personal guideline for a worthy virtual. Would I go out of my way to bring someone back there to share the site?

7.2k · July 23, 2004

Thank you Pan. That was a very good post.

1.4k · July 23, 2004

You don't get a tick on your smiley count if you find a benchmark. You know what; only a few cachers do benchmarks. I think it is because you don't get a smiley.

I don't agree with this.

This isn't on topic, and I apologize, but mtn-man started it!

Personally I don't do benchmarks because there is no physical box of trinkets with a logbook to find. Its the same reason I generally steer away from vituals, locationless and the like.

Sure, I've been known to log a locationless, virtual, etc., but generally, its about finding the box of junk that makes it fun.

Not the smileys, IMHO.

So, I would imagine that THAT is a more common reason for not doing benchmarks than "no smiley."

Another reason, I would think, is because benchmarks really weren't placed for their aesthetic value, or consideration for the finder that was going to come behind you. You can as easily find a benchmark at Town Hall in the center of Nowheresville, Massachusetts (boring), as you can the center of some prickerbush scrubland in northern Vermont (painful). Caches (one would hope) are placed with forethought on the aesthetic location, benchmarks, as I understand it, were not.

Put a fork in me.

Pan

Na, I agree with MM. I'm a couch potato and it's the little smiley that motivates me to get out and do a cache. If I got a smiley I'd stop and log a benchmark. There is one that I drive by several times a week that I won't pull over and take a pic of because it doesn't mean anything. There are caches in areas that smell like human waste and some in light poles, so it doesn't always have to do with the view. I do virts when I'm close to them because I get the little smiley, but I'd much much rather find the ammo box behind a tree. If they took away the smiley I'd get my PQs without the virts.

Edited July 23, 2004 by Nurse Dave

9.4k · July 23, 2004

Would you really want to blanket a wilderness area with virtuals every 528 feet? No, virtuals must be reserved for truly special places. Places that make you say, "WOW!"

You obviously have not been to southern Arizona and bagged some of our desert islands. Anybody that stands on this peak, I guarantee, well shout WOW!

I'll be driving through Southern Arizona (again, I might add) on August 2nd. How close is this to I-8 or I-10?

Sierra Viast is located about an hours drive from Tucson. It is about 25 miles south of I-10, from the Benson exit. From Sierra Vista, follow AZ92 south for about 15 miles, then turn right on the Coronado National Memorial road. Continue 8.2 miles to Montezuma Pass, this is where the trailhead is located.

Hmmm...I may just look for some of your Tucson caches this trip. It depends on when I get in to town.

You Have All Read It A 1000 Times.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment