Jump to content

You Have All Read It A 1000 Times.

Wily Javelina
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Sparky-Watts

+Sparky-Watts

Posted
Posted
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...

 

Oh, yeah! I'm sure there are millions of lamp posts in Wal Mart parking lots across the country that I need to see! Wow! I've really been missing out by hiking in the woods looking for ammo cans!!!!!!! :o

Link to comment
El Diablo

+El Diablo

Posted
Posted
Can we all have a group hug and put this to bed? :o  Where's Saxman to join in? :D

 

El Diablo

The power went out. It was probably a warning from God after I agreed with Ju66l3r about something. :D

 

I took advantage of the computer-free time by DNF'ing a cache this evening.

See...I keep telling you. Anyways welcome back to the forums. I know it must have been torture not knowing what was going on. :huh:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Sparky-Watts

+Sparky-Watts

Posted
Posted
If the land management issues denying traditional caches being placed in the two locations are identical, he raises a fair question in why one was approved and the other was not. If there are substantive differences in land management issues between the two sites, I haven't really seen that addressed in depth in this thread.

 

In comparing the description of Mica Mountain with Wily's proposed cache on Miller Peak, I feel they have the same relative value of the enigmatic "WOW value." Whether the "WOW value" is enough or not, the two caches seem to have the same amount.

 

In short, if I were to compare them with an unbiased eye, they either should both have been approved or neither. And I think that's the crux of what Wily Javelina's getting at.

 

I know where there are twin smokestacks at a power plant, a little over .1 miles apart. The stacks are identical. There is a great history as to how they came to be, and also how they were built by hand, brick by brick. So, then, by your logic, if Cacher X managed to get the east stack approved as a virt, I could have the west stack approved as a virt, also, because they are exactly the same, right? Yeah, that argument doesn't work either, does it? :o

Link to comment
Team GPSaxophone

+Team GPSaxophone

Posted
Posted
Can we all have a group hug and put this to bed? :huh:  Where's Saxman to join in? :D

 

El Diablo

The power went out. It was probably a warning from God after I agreed with Ju66l3r about something. :D

 

I took advantage of the computer-free time by DNF'ing a cache this evening.

See...I keep telling you. Anyways welcome back to the forums. I know it must have been torture not knowing what was going on. :o

 

El Diablo

It was the longest 2 hours of my life :o

Link to comment
Wily Javelina

+Wily Javelina

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
There still has been no coherent explaination of why Mica Mountain is more deserving of a virtual cache than any other peak in Arizona/The USA/The World.

 

On May 22 I attempted to create a  virtual cache on Pine Mountain, in the Pine Mountain Wilderness Area (GCJGVG). Finders were required to sign the summit register and upload a photo, just as  GCJX6T, and I even requested some additional information from a nearby survey disk from another agency. I modeled the requirements on another, similar cache, but the rules had changed and COadmin denied the listing as just another mountaintop view.

 

OK, fine.

 

I asked, and was told it would be satisfactory to put a micro inside the hiker's log ammo can, and returned to do so (a 10 mile hike I enjoyed just as much the second time around!). Now there is a physical cache, with it's own logsheet there and everyone is happy.

 

Imagine my disbelief when I notice a newly approved mountaintop virtual (GCJX6T) with the same logging requirements that weren't quite good enough for my cache.

 

So? What is my point?

 

It seems to me the 'rules' are not being applied equally, and if GCK0QC (Miller Peak) can't  be approved, then GCJX6T (Mica Mountain) should be archived, unless a Geocacher's log is provided there.

 

Don't try to tell me the mountaintop views are that much more impressive if it's in a National Park.

 

I feel that Wily's point about comparing the approval/non-approval of his cache with the recently approved Mica Mountain cache IS valid, due to the fact it was approved less than three weeks ago. It's not exactly like Mica Mountain was grandfathered in. If the land management issues denying traditional caches being placed in the two locations are identical, he raises a fair question in why one was approved and the other was not. If there are substantive differences in land management issues between the two sites, I haven't really seen that addressed in depth in this thread.

 

In comparing the description of Mica Mountain with Wily's proposed cache on Miller Peak, I feel they have the same relative value of the enigmatic "WOW value." Whether the "WOW value" is enough or not, the two caches seem to have the same amount.

 

 

Thank you AZcachmeister and Team Cowspots, well put and exactly my point.

 

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

Mountain 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.

Edited by Wily Javelina
Link to comment
mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted (edited)

You have been given several explainations. You simply won't accept them.

 

I'll take a good stab at this one more time. I don't think you will accept it, but here goes.

 

The Mica Mountain Cache is in a National Park. It is *the* highest point in the Saguaro National Park. Highpointer did a great job on his description.

 

Your is just a high mountain. It is not the highest peak in AZ or the higest peak in the Arizona State National Forest (they happen to be the same). There is already a virtual cache for the highest peak in the Arizona State National Forest. You logged that cache, but ironically you didn't even log that cache correctly. The cache description states that you are supposed to take a picture of you by the summit marker. You only took a picture of the marker without you in the photo. Not a big deal, but it shows that you might have trouble following written instructions.

 

OK. You basically copied another cacher's idea for a virtual cache. Yours is neither original nor is the target unique. Maybe if there was something unique about this mountain then your cache might have been approved. Duplicating another cacher's virtual and using a target that is not unique or noteworthy is not virtual cache material. The guidelines have been quoted enough in this topic so I'm not going to quote them again.

 

Wily, you have insulted all of the approvers in this topic. You can either stay mad or get over it and move on. It's your choice. I still have high respect for you and would be happy to visit caches you have placed. I never insulted you in this topic but have only dealt with facts. You would do well to stick to the facts and not get personal in the future.

 

Debating this further in this topic is pointless.

Take any further appeals to approvers at geocaching dot com.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
MOCKBA

MOCKBA

Posted
Posted
I am a an armchair Forester and strive to visit all the lookout towers in AZ. Not all towers towers made it to the historic register and have been removed or left to decay (e.g., from a wilderness area or NP), like the ones on Mica Mtn, Miller Peak and Mt Wrigtson (GCC2C1), just to name a few.

See the following web page for more info on fire towers throughout the US. http://www.firetower.org/presorted/byState/USA_Arizona.html. Visiting an old lookout tower on a remote peak is very exciting to me.

 

-WJ

Wily,

 

I think you write-up should have included these links, and also state that there aren't any lookout tower virts within so many hundred miles, therefore this one is unique.

A few weeks back, I got a designated wilderness virt approved - which was essentially a view cache, plus a specific GPS target. I wrote in detail just why this view is unique ( you could see the biggest killer avalanche path in our mountains, all of it, and such kind of a view hasn't been used in a virt anywhere around).

 

Just to underscore the procedure which worked for me: write the description with the gildelines in mind. Be explicit: it can't be a trad because the area is off limits. It can't be an offset/multi because the wider area is off limits too. It is a specific GPS target because ... It is unique because ...

Link to comment
MOCKBA

MOCKBA

Posted
Posted
MOCKBA, as I explained on page one, there is already a cache dedicated to fire towers.

Thanks, mtn-man, interesting link.

Not that if proves much with about Wily's submission... 'cuz it isn't local to AZ (by definition), and not even a virtual. If a locationless would supercede virts and strip them of any WOW factor, then we could never see any highpoint virts approved. And of course Mica is a perfect counterexample.

BTW I should have qualified that I didn't know for a fact if Wily's particular fire tower was unique, in its own wide geographical area. If it wasn't, then he could have dug a bit deeper in history, in case if there is something unique about his target object. Was it the oldest? The tallest? Any stories about it?

My point is, demonstrate it to the approvers first. It's much harder to argue after it's been denied. Even harder after a forums spat.

OT BTW Wily - I just found another Orthocenter cache by your San Diego fan, TucsonThompsen. Very nice terrain variation :blink:

Link to comment
Wily Javelina

+Wily Javelina

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You have been given several explainations.  You simply won't accept them.

 

I'll take a good stab at this one more time.  I don't think you will accept it, but here goes.

 

You are exactly correct. I do not except this one. This is as lame as any of the others. Not only in content but in tone.

 

The Mica Mountain Cache is in a National Park.

 

:P

 

  It is *the* highest point in the Saguaro National Park.  Highpointer did a great job on his description.

 

Your is just a high mountain.  It is not the highest peak in AZ or the higest peak in the Arizona State National Forest (they happen to be the same).  There is already a virtual cache for the highest peak in the Arizona State National Forest.

 

Yep, Mica is the Highest point in the Saguaro National Park or more correctly, the Rincons. Miller Peak is the higest peak in the Huachuca Mtns it tops out at 9466 ft. BTW, Mica Peak is 8664 ft almost 1000 ft lower! Get your facts strait. Furthermore, there is no view from the summit of Mica, the view is obscured entirely by Pondersa pines. Not that I am taking anything away from this peak, the experince of reaching the summit is enough. Hence no summit photo only photos of the approach.

 

The cache description states that you are supposed to take a picture of you by the summit marker. 

 

Well, my log hasn't been deleted, yet. I always let a good try like that one pass for all of my virtuals, this is just a game and we are all out having fun.

 

Not a big deal, but it shows that you might have trouble following written instructions.

 

Very cacher approver like of you to say such a thing. This is the type of crap that I refuse to put up with. A blatant stab (Insult #1)

 

OK.  You basically copied another cacher's idea for a virtual cache.  Yours is neither original nor is the target unique. 

 

Lets get the fact strait, now. I submitted the exact Miller Peak Cache back on April 26 2004. Not sure who's cache I am copying. Again, get your fact straitened out. (Insult #2)

 

Maybe if there was something unique about this mountain then your cache might have been approved.  Duplicating another cacher's virtual and using a target that is not unique or noteworthy is not virtual cache material. 

 

Boy, your good. Why don't you look at all of the caches that I've hidden on peaks and try to make that statement again.

 

Here are two relatively old peak caches the predate the Mica one by a over a year and a half. I will only include the virtuals:

 

[url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=29f11f86-2b26-42b7-8555-a5e5e1323e04 Wasson Peak:

 

 

[url=http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ca147c04-ddd6-4002-9d40-8e3b13584795 The Window

 

( Big Insult #3)

 

Yours is neither original nor is the target unique.  Maybe if there was something unique about this mountain then your cache might have been approved.  Duplicating another cacher's virtual and using a target that is not unique or noteworthy is not virtual cache material.

 

:(:P:D:blink::lol: Your killing me. Also, if you rifle through this thread you will see than many many disagree with you. This is a unique and noteworthy virtual. (Insult #4)

 

Wily, you have insulted all of the approvers in this topic. 

 

I am so sorry. Please accept my appology.

 

I never insulted you in this topic but have only dealt with facts.  You would do well to stick to the facts and not get personal in the future.

 

:lol::P:D:D:cry: Are you serious, no, your kidding, right?

 

Take any further appeals to approvers at geocaching dot com.

 

Nope, I'll pass. I went above their heads and went to the geocaching community. I no longer desire to make Miller Peak a virtual, and if you read my posts I gave up on that a long time ago. But, I will keep defending myself.

 

You still did not answer my question.

 

-WJ

Link to comment
Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted (edited)

Since the topic originator states that he no longer wants Miller Peak to be a virtual cache, it is time to close this topic.

 

The topic originator is once again advised to use the approvers at geocaching dot com address if he wishes to pursue this matter further.

Edited by Keystone Approver
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...