Virtual Caches

[+mustanglx]

Is anyone else having any trouble getting a virtual approved or is it just me?

I had a cool idea that came to me a few weeks ago for doing a series of caches on the history of Perry county, PA. This is where I call home.

There is a lot of Historic makers around the county and I decide that it would be neat to do a series of caches that would tell, in more detail, the history of Perry County.

I knew from the beginning that some of them would have to be virtual because of the location. Some of these markers are in peoples front yards.

It just so happen that the first 3 that I submitted for approval were virtuals, and guess what, they were all disapproved!!

I was told that they were not unique enough to justify a virtual! How much more unique can you get to a one of a kind Historic Marker.

Well any way I was told that I should try and make a multi out of it so it would end in a physical cache.

The problem that I see is that it will take away the effect of the Historic Marker because once you get the info you are off to the other part of the multi.

I wanted to get the caches to look and read the Historic Marker and make that the main purpose of the cache not the physical cache at the end of a multi.

The other thing that gets me is that just recently a virtual nearby was just approved. How did they get approval? GCK11M

I am not trying to a whole series of virtuals when ever possible I would put a physical caches.

Well sorry for the rant, I was just curious if anyone else had the same problem.

Edited August 13, 2004 by mustanglx

[+sept1c_tank]

[+Mopar]

Is anyone else having any trouble getting a virtual approved or is it just me?

I had a cool idea that came to me a few weeks ago for doing a series of caches on the history of Perry county, PA. This is where I call home.

There is a lot of Historic makers around the county and I decide that it would be neat to do a series of caches that would tell, in more detail, the history of Perry County.

I knew from the beginning  that some of them would have to be virtual because of the location.  Some of these markers are in peoples front yards.

It just so happen that the first 3 that I submitted for approval were virtuals, and guess what, they were all disapproved!!

I was told that they were not unique enough to justify a virtual! How much more unique can you get to a one of a kind Historic Marker.

Well any way I was told that I should try and make a multi out of it so it would end in a physical cache.

The problem that I see is that it will take away the effect of the Historic Marker because once you get the info you are off to the other part of the multi.

I wanted to get the caches to look and read the Historic Marker and make that the main purpose of the cache not the physical cache at the end of a multi.

The other thing that gets me is that just recently a virtual nearby was just approved. How did they get approval? GCK11M

I am not trying to a whole series of virtuals when ever possible I would put a physical caches.

Well sorry for the rant, I was just curious if anyone else had the same problem.

Ya mean like one of THESE markers? WOW! There's only 1800 of them in PA.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Mopar

[+Muirwoody]

I think the first log on the page helps explain it. A physical cache isn't allowed there. Maybe a physical cache is allowed at the places you selected. You will have to have a very solid argument to show the approver that you can't make it a physical cache. Lot's of topics on virtuals lately...might want to scan through them.

[Keystone]

I was just curious if anyone else had the same problem.

Yes, anyone else who did not read this section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines for Virtual Caches will have the same problem. Historic marker virtuals will pretty much be automatically archived.

 

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.  Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples.

 

I added the boldfacing.

 

The other cache you cited to as a recently listed virtual cache is an excellent example. This cache highlights a unique feature (I won't give it away) that is so special that the State of Pennsylvania has declared the entire surrounding area to be a natural area. No physical caches are allowed here; in fact, there used to be one, but it was archived when the Pennsylvania DCNR adopted its geocaching policy. THAT is what virtual caches are for.

 

Perry County has a lot of open country, and it deserves more geocaches. Heck, it is so rural and green, it is the only county in Pennsylvania that doesn't have a single traffic light in it! Surely you can find a nearby location for a physical cache? I would encourage you to hide a multicache that featured the historical markers you found. One of the best caches I've ever found here in Western PA had me drive *past* the historic marker to a spot more than a mile off the road, where I found the ruins of the old iron furnace that was mentioned on the marker. I learned some history AND I got to climb around on it firsthand. Set up some caches like that and I will make another road trip to your area, like I did last weekend when I found some caches along the Appalachian Trail just across the river from Perry County.

[+CO Admin]

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past approval of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the approval of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed.

Thanks

CO Admin

Edited August 13, 2004 by CO Admin

[+Renegade Knight]

Virtual caches are a hard sell. My own personal opinion on historical markers is that history is better served not at the roadsign sign that is placed a couple of miles over from the historical location but at the location itself. Even if you do put your virtual at the location they are a hard sell to get them approved.

 

It starts with "Can you at all in any way place a physical cache there, and barring that can you somehow use the site as a leg in a multi cache" Normally the answer is yes because about anything can be made into a lame multi cache from what would have been a perfectly good virtual.

 

Next is WOW factor. You have to make a bunch of reviewers who have heard all and seen all say "WOW that is a great virtual". If you read the guidelines you will notice a list of what isn't WOW which covers most everything on this planet except Paulina Poritzkova who to this day still makes me say WOW.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If I want to visit historic places, I'll get a tourbook from AAA. Every single one of those "unique" markers will likely be listed.

 

Now, if I want to find containers hidden in the same area, I'll visit geocaching.com. I hear they specialize in listing things like that.

[Keystone]

Next is WOW factor. You have to make a bunch of reviewers who have heard all and seen all say "WOW that is a great virtual". If you read the guidelines you will notice a list of what isn't WOW which covers most everything on this planet except Paulina Poritzkova who to this day still makes me say WOW.

Sorry, but Paulina Porizkova would be considered a moving cache, and therefore could not be listed.

 

Unless of course you have her tied up somewhere?

 

I'd log that in a heartbeat.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'll add the Virtuals that I did in Yellowstone took me to parts of the park that I would normally overlook. Well worth it even if the WOW factor was lacking and even though they both led me to signs. Signs are the easiest form of verification for a visit. That's not always easy to work around.

 

Caches have a purpose beyond the prefrences of one individual or even one site. That's why there is no universially lame cache, and why this topic will come up again and again and again. While people can hate that the topic does come up, that it does illistrates the bigger picture. Something that this site has not chosen to participate in. The truly ironic thing is that I really don't care all that much for virtuals, but I do see the bigger picture. Like it or not embracing the entire spectrum of geocaching would only help this site.

 

Next time I'll post more traditional "get rid of the WOW factor" posts so everyone can post their normal "You are trying to force your vision on the site" posts. That way nobody has to think and they can get back to cutting and pasting replies to topics like this one.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[Keystone]

You are trying to force your vision on the site, and it's been getting pretty tiring.

 

Until now.

 

I propose that we drop the "wow factor" test entirely. From now on, the test that I will follow is, "would I rather look at this virtual target, or Paulina Porizkova?"

 

Same result, mind you. But a far more pleasant test.

[+CO Admin]

You are trying to force your vision on the site, and it's been getting pretty tiring.

 

Until now.

 

I propose that we drop the "wow factor" test entirely. From now on, the test that I will follow is, "would I rather look at this virtual target, or Paulina Porizkova?"

 

Same result, mind you. But a far more pleasant test.

WOW

 

[+sept1c_tank]

Virtual, smirtual.

Don't know about this topic,

but I think I've been derailed.

I'm going to take a shower!

[+Kealia]

Hey! She stole my loin cloth!

[Cholo]

 

"So Jeremy, is this how we play leap frog?"

[+briansnat]

How about using information from each of the signs to give the cordinates to a real cache in the area. The cache would be approved and you'll have your historic tour of Perry County.

[+Robespierre]

Put HER in a chache, please!

[Captain Chaoss]

Put HER in a chache, please!

Umm, can she play " hide the cache" with me ? PLEASE !!!!!!!

[+wimseyguy]

Wouldn't that make Rick Ocasek the MEFF as well as a very lucky dude?

choochoochugachugachuga craaaaashhh

I would like to suggest that this become the new official sound of a derailing thread.

Edited August 13, 2004 by wimseyguy

[+BlueDeuce]

geez, I never thought I'd have to hide my gc.com forum reading from my wife.

 

Sorry, what was the question again?

[+mustanglx]

They sure must have changed what they approve then.

Just south of me in the town of Carlisle there is a lot of virtuals that are all at Historic Markers.

And that cache that I referanced in the original post it's location doesn't do much for me, then again it is just up the road from me and I see it all the time.

 

I guess I will have to try and find a way to make them a phsyical caches. It will be tough. Since our area is very rural there is not much public land near the Historic Markers that I wanted to use.

 

Thanks everyone for replies, oh yea thanks for that pic very nice, I had to really study it.

[+SixDogTeam]

Is the Paula virtual a Russian?

[+Shawn&Holly]

I think we may have found a month for the calendar!

[+cudlecub]

Being new to this I was all excited about mixing my love of scuba with my new found passion of geocaching. There is an underwater marker in honor / memory of the first person to recreationally dive the lake I live at. I wanted to set this up as a virtual and got positive feedback from one person when I e-mailed them here to see if I should expend the time and energy of creating this. After spending the better part of the day checking and rechecking coordinates, preparing the info on the cache, etc. . . It was shot down when I officially submitted it. Yeah, the venting is getting some steam out and nothing more, but it's frustrating to get positive feed back about an idea and then a "I am sorry but you will have to ask nate to approve it for you I will not" as a reply when asking what needs to change.

Then I considered the placement of some other caches that are top side in the national forest that surrounds this site. According to the regional director of the forest service, there is to be nothing of the likeness of a geocache on federal property, so what's a person to do? Maybe I'll just put one nest to the mailbox in my front yard, wait, technically that is a right of way for the road. Hmmm I wonder if I can get approval from the state to place a cache there?

 

Venting about a Virtual

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Being new to this I was all excited about mixing my love of scuba with my new found passion of geocaching.  There is an underwater marker in honor / memory of the first person to recreationally dive the lake I live at.  I wanted to set this up as a virtual and got positive feedback from one person when I e-mailed them here to see if I should expend the time and energy of creating this.  After spending the better part of the day checking and rechecking coordinates, preparing the info on the cache, etc. . .  It was shot down when I officially submitted it.

There's your problem, you asked another cacher for help on a virtual. The only ones that can help you setup a virt are the approvers. You need to ask one of them before wasting time setting up a virt.

[+TeamJiffy]

There is no point in re-examining this topic.

 

In my view, Geocaching.com is not run as a business, it is run as a passion. And my belief (not knowledge) is that the owner of the site does not have a passion over supporting virtuals, else they would still be approved at the same rate as they had been before. Reasons are given, of course. One is that placing a virtual blocks the ability to place a physical cache nearby. But, you see, if Jeremy valued a virtual as much as a physical cache, this wouldn't be a problem - because both would be viewed as equally good. But virtuals are seen as a "lesser form" of cache, so if a virtual blocks a physical placement, we have a less good result. Therefore, virtuals are to be controlled to not let this happen.

 

Don't flame me re: the business vs. passion concept. If the site were run as a business, the decision would be based on market interests, and there would be some statement along the lines of "we have found the majority of cachers prefer...". I, at least, haven't seen any information of this sort. The only concession to virtuals I see is that they haven't been shut down entirely.

 

Again, the clampdown on virtuals seems to me to be based on a vision of what geocaching should be about, and about the relative merit of different types of caches.

 

Tough luck if you don't share the same vision as Jeremy or of the people who influence him. As so many have pointed out, this is his site, so get used to it.

 

-Jif

Edited August 16, 2004 by TeamJiffy

[+Mopar]

Then I considered the placement of some other caches that are top side in the national forest that surrounds this site. According to the regional director of the forest service, there is to be nothing of the likeness of a geocache on federal property

This is generally false. Again, follow the sax-playing smuf's advice of checking with your local cache reviewer first, but in general, there are no problems placing caches in national forests. Many of them actively encourage responsible geocaching as an acceptable use of our lands.

Here is just one example.

[+IV_Warrior]

They sure must have changed what they approve then.

Just south of me in the town of Carlisle there is a lot of virtuals that are all at Historic Markers.

Yes, they did and updated the guidelines when the change went into effect. There is also a provision in the guidelines that basically states there is no precedence for caches, just because one exists, doesn't mean they'll approve another similar to it.

 

I guess I will have to try and find a way to make them a phsyical caches. It will be tough. Since our area is very rural there is not much public land near the Historic Markers that I wanted to use.

 

Thanks everyone for replies, oh yea thanks for that pic very nice, I had to really study it.

Please try to make them into Multicaches using the Markers for starting points. Perry county needs more caches (although, get too many down there, and the increased caching traffic may require the county to install it's first traffic light )

Edited August 17, 2004 by IV_Warrior