Conflicts With Virtual Caches

[+geofred]

I have been asked to move the end stage of a multistage real cache because it ends within less than 300feet of a Virtual cache. If Virtuals are considered unwanted trash why would a perfectly good real cache be suborned to a worthless virtual? Is this a common problem with cache approval?

[+Renegade Knight]

The 528' rule is a common issue with cache approval. While I don't agree that your cache should be blocked by the existance of the vitual, that's how things play out just now.

 

Insofar as a viable and approved virtual being worthless and your cache being perfectly good, that's subjective.

[umc]

I have been asked to move the end stage of a multistage real cache because it ends within less than 300feet of a Virtual cache. If Virtuals are considered unwanted trash why would a perfectly good real cache be suborned to a worthless virtual? Is this a common problem with cache approval?

I don't think virtuals are considered unwanted trash. Really it's a first come first serve thing even though not too many virtuals are approved anymore and yet it is a common problem.

[Keystone]

Because the 528 foot proximity guideline applies to all cache types, including virtual caches, this is one of the reasons why the standards for listing virtual caches have been stricter than in the past. If people place a virtual cache in a location where a physical cache could have been hidden, that space is then blocked from what would otherwise have been a very nice spot for a traditional cache. While traditional caches are given priority, if and when a virtual is listed it is treated the same as any other cache.

 

And yes, this issue does surface frequently during the review process.

 

I hope that this explanation is helpful.

[+briansnat]

Hmmm, where did you get the idea that virtuals are "unwanted trash"?

[+BlueDeuce]

Is this a common problem with cache approval?

 

unproductive response so...Nevermind

Edited August 26, 2004 by Elf Danach

[umc]

Is this a common problem with cache approval?

 

No. most people are aware of the proximity of other caches.

You'd be surprised.

[+BlueDeuce]

Yeah, that and I really wasn't adding anything to the thread, so I had hoped to delete it before anyone noticed.

Edited August 26, 2004 by Elf Danach

[Tahosa and Sons]

Fred - give us a link to the multi in question and the so called worthless virtual, so the caching community can put their .02 into your cache dilemma.

Talk to COADMIN and you will probably get an approval. I have a micro and virtual within 93 ft. of each other, so things can be worked out without much hassle.

 

And if virtuals are worthless, why have you found 40 of them and hid 3. And 8 out of those 40 were my virtuals.

[+Team Perks]

And if virtuals are worthless, why have you found 40 of them and hid 3. And 8 out of those 40 were my virtuals.

That's easy: They're worthless now that they're interfering with his cache!

 

Seriously though...As much as I am in support of the 528' rule (and am not a HUGE fan of virtuals, though I'm not above finding/logging them), I'm of the personal opinion as well that it could be relaxed when a physical cache is in conflict with a virtual cache. But since I've never wanted to place a cache within .1 mile of a virtual, it's never become a personal issue for me.

[Keystone]

Fred - give us a link to the multi in question and the so called worthless virtual, so the caching community can put their .02 into your cache dilemma.

Talk to COADMIN and you will probably get an approval. I have a micro and virtual within 93 ft. of each other, so things can be worked out without much hassle.

 

And if virtuals are worthless, why have you found 40 of them and hid 3. And 8 out of those 40 were my virtuals.

We cannot link to the multicache because it was never listed, thus it is only accessible to the owner and to cache reviewers and admins.

 

I looked at the nearby virtual cache. It receives fairly decent reviews in the logs, including one from the original poster.

 

Tahosa, you are correct in stating that the reviewers are happy to work with cache owners for variances in the guidelines. CO Admin always speaks highly of you, and through your good dialogue you are able to convince him when an exception is the "right thing to do." In this case, however, the cache owner flat out refused to consider moving the end point of his cache and was otherwise uncooperative in his responses to CO Admin. It is difficult to discuss the justification for a variance under those circumstances.

[Tahosa and Sons]

We cannot link to the multicache because it was never listed, thus it is only accessible to the owner and to cache reviewers and admins.

 

I looked at the nearby virtual cache.  It receives fairly decent reviews in the logs, including one from the original poster.

 

Well could you give us a hint as to which one is the worthless VIRTUAL

 

What this topic does show is the importance of doing your research before you place a cache. Then the potential hider would know if there could be a problem and see if it can be fixed or negotiated prior to submission.

[+Sagefox]

If Virtuals are considered unwanted trash...

You have information that this opinion is universal?

 

why would a perfectly good real cache be suborned to a worthless virtual?

 

Real cache? You must be referring to a "physical" container cache.

 

There is consensus that the nearby virtual is worthless?

[Keystone]

I have not identified the virtual cache that is near the original poster's multicache submission. This is done out of respect for the owner of that virtual, who has done nothing wrong. If I was the owner I would not appreciate my innocent little virtual, which was listed under the standards applicable at the time of its submission, being dragged through the mud. It is not the world's greatest virtual, but it is not a simple historical marker by the side of the road either. I will say that it is not one of yours, Tahosa... some of which fall into the "very cool" category.

[Tahosa and Sons]

I will say that it is not one of yours, Tahosa... some of which fall into the "very cool" category.

Thanks your professionalism is to be lauded. Cache on.

[+The Commissar!]

Funny thing...If we talk, we can work things out, if we b*** and whine...nothing gets done. One of those things that makes you go hummm?

[+geofred]

I used worthless in relation to virtual caches because of my experience in trying to get them approved. I the PTB want physical caches attached to what is reasonably a virtual. I like creating little know historical site virtuals. I have too many hassles getting approval. I do not create them anymore. I guess the PTB win that round.

 

The current multistage cache ends within less than .1 mile of a local historical virtual. I believe it was approved before the PTB became HA about virtuals. I do not consider it to be a worthless virtual. I do not believe my ending near it (if you properly solve the intervening stages) impinges on that virtual. The rule seems to want to avoid cachers showing up at a site and being confused about which cache they are at. That would not be an issue for a family doing my multistage. I ended it, and want to keep it there, because it ends at a family friendly location. That is why I object to moving it merely because someone solving it might say, "how about that, over there is the X virtual site. Someone who had never done or looked at doing the X virtual site would not know they were near a virtual. I, a veteran geocacher, would say, "oh look, over there would be a great virtual, but the PTB wouldn't allow me to create it!" I know I would say that because I have come across several historical sites which would, but for the PTB, be great virtuals but I will no longer invest the time to fight with PTB. That's my story.

Edited August 26, 2004 by geofred

[+joefrog]

The only problem I've had with a virtual cache is a local one. I wanted to use it as a stage for a multi of mine with a football theme, even though it already existed as a virtual. The multi is called "Path of the Bear" and uses various local landmarks relating to Paul W. "Bear" Bryant. The virtual in question is the site of the first Alabama vs. Auburn football game.

 

It would've been a GREAT addition, in my opinion... but no go. I added it to the multi page as a "bonus location" and linked it.

[+planetrobert]

Is this a common problem with cache approval?

 

No. most people are aware of the proximity of other caches.

You'd be surprised.

when i have hidden caches since the section528-b part Q rule has come into effect i alwoys have ALL the caches in the area loaded into my palm and do a nearest search just incase there is one around that i forgot about.

 

it just makes sence to do that.

[+The Jester]

Is this a common problem with cache approval?

 

No. most people are aware of the proximity of other caches.

You'd be surprised.

when i have hidden caches since the section528-b part Q rule has come into effect i alwoys have ALL the caches in the area loaded into my palm and do a nearest search just incase there is one around that i forgot about.

 

it just makes sence to do that.

Some (maybe all I don't know) GPSr's have proximity waypoints. You can set the distance to keep away from it. I set mine to .1 mile when placing caches near where others are - I've loaded all caches nearby to the GPSr - then just watch the map screen to be sure I'm outside the range.

 

The other area that can cause problems is puzzle caches. Often the listed co-ords have nothing to do with the real cache site, but should they block a cache from being there?