Jump to content

I Wonder What Was So Bad About The Name


unclerojelio

Recommended Posts

<snip>

2. 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.

 

<snip>

 

  My gripe and or complaint about this is two fold...

  First, the assumption on the part of the approver that "The guidelines are pretty clear on not being to use monuments and memorials as virtual caches." Your guidelines NEVER state that, in fact they state "Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."...  so where in the guidelines is he getting the information to make this statement??

I think you answered your own question. You even quoted where is says it for heavens sake.

 

  My second issue is that he states that the only way this can be approved is if its used as part of a multi... To me, stating that was gross misinterpretation of the guidelines which state "Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?”  Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate." I dont see it stated anywhere in the guidelines that there MUST be a cache container somewhere... I was given permission to use this as a cache so long as there wasnt a container placed there, and having someone cross the street and grab a container out of the bushes would take away from feeling you get from this... In all honesty, the only real log to ANY cache is the one on the cache page at GC or any of the other sites where caches get listed....

The problem is that your target is not unique. I have seen pieces of the WTC used as memorials several times, including one that was approved as a virtual cache before the tightening up on virtual caches a couple of years ago. While they may have been approved in the past, as these memorials have become commonplace they are no longer a unique find.

Link to comment
While they may have been approved in the past, as these memorials have become commonplace they are no longer a unique find.

Here's another example.

 

Unique. Unique to what? The only one to exist? Unique to a country? An area?

 

Just because it is commonplace in one area doesn't mean it wouldn't be unique and fascinating in a another.

Link to comment

Have to comment:

 

Since geocaching is an emerging sport there needs to be rules of play for this sport. In other sports there is typically an agency or association that decides the rules of the sport.

 

Take the PGA for example for golf. Golf has an extremely complex rulebook that defines not only how play occurs, but also how to score the game.

 

Grievances, changes, etc. are handled by changes to the agreed upon rulebook as cases come up, e.g. advances in club technology that allow for longer drives, golf carts being introduced, etc.

 

To take a quote from the PGA website:

 

The PGA of America is a not-for-profit organization that promotes the game of golf while continuing to enhance the standards of the profession. The Association is comprised of more than 28,000 men and women PGA Professionals who are dedicated to growing participation in the game of golf.

 

Something similar is needed here.

 

Another sort of new sport (I think) is that of disc golf e.g. and the list goes on.

 

What is needed is a geocaching association that is independent of any one company, website, etc.

 

Agreed?

Edited by inspectorgadget
Link to comment

 

Grajek did what he felt he needed to do and GC.com responded in about the only way it could. Archive the cache, change the name and ban Grajek for a day.

There is the rub. The person chose a totally inappropriate way to resolve an issue that has methods to correct them.

 

That many seem to want to come out and support that sort of inappropriate behavior fits with anarchy. No surprise there. Texas has always wanted to secede from something. Though I am certain most texans disagree.

No I didn't. I got the desired effect. End of story. You have wasted 2 days of your life debating Centex and others problems. Had I not changed the name of my cache none of this would have happened. The problems would have continued to be emailed to the account no reads or at least no one responds to. We have been having these problems for a long time and others that are much more tactful than me have used the proper channels and nothing was ever resolved and in many cases no response was ever received.

 

Guess What. Reponses abound. Didn't like the name of my cache and thought it was inappropriate? Tough, it worked the way I wanted it to. The communication is now open. Some like yourself have used it as a way to dog people and call people names. You have even gone so far as to signup on the Centex group to stir the pot. Guess What? We aint buying it. Think we are whiners? Good. Think we are anarchist? Good. Think we are just a bunch of dumb Texans? Even better.

 

I hope you are yours have a happy holiday. If you ever make it to Austin look us up we would, with all sincerity, love to show you around and give you a tour of the beautiful vistas in the hill country. We hold no ill toward you any others do not agree.

Link to comment
While they may have been approved in the past, as these memorials have become commonplace they are no longer a unique find.

Here's another example.

 

Unique. Unique to what? The only one to exist? Unique to a country? An area?

 

Just because it is commonplace in one area doesn't mean it wouldn't be unique and fascinating in a another.

One entry found for unique.

 

Main Entry: unique

Pronunciation: yu-'nEk

Function: adjective

Etymology: French, from Latin unicus, from unus one -- more at ONE

1 : being the only one : SOLE <his unique concern was his own comfort> <I can't walk away with a unique copy. Suppose I lost it? -- Kingsley Amis> <the unique factorization of a number into prime factors>

2 a : being without a like or equal : UNEQUALED <could stare at the flames, each one new, violent, unique -- Robert Coover> b : distinctively characteristic : PECULIAR 1 <this is not a condition unique to California -- Ronald Reagan>

3 : UNUSUAL <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch -- J. D. Salinger>

Link to comment

Yep I did check out the centex yahoogroup. wanted to see what else the flap was over. much ado about little in the end.

 

wasted time.. nope.. lots of viewpoints.. very spirited .. and sometimes interesting discussion.

 

Possibly some changes may be necessary.. that is upto gc.com and Groundspeak to evaluate the inputs.. both good and bad.

Link to comment
Have to comment:

 

Since geocaching is an emerging sport there needs to be rules of play for this sport. In other sports there is typically an agency or association that decides the rules of the sport.

 

Take the PGA for example for golf. Golf has an extremely complex rulebook that defines not only how play occurs, but also how to score the game.

 

Grievances, changes, etc. are handled by changes to the agreed upon rulebook as cases come up, e.g. advances in club technology that allow for longer drives, golf carts being introduced, etc.

 

To take a quote from the PGA website:

 

The PGA of America is a not-for-profit organization that promotes the game of golf while continuing to enhance the standards of the profession. The Association is comprised of more than 28,000 men and women PGA Professionals who are dedicated to growing participation in the game of golf.

 

Something similar is needed here.

 

Another sort of new sport (I think) is that of disc golf e.g. and the list goes on.

 

What is needed is a geocaching association that is independent of any one company, website, etc.

 

Agreed?

I have no idea how big the PGA rulebook is. Amazon sells a 168 page hardcover book just to explain how to read the PGA rulebook?

You really want it that defined? And say we did, then what? We have simple guidelines now, and people break them all the time. How you going to handle a rule infraction? Fine them $10,000 like they do in the PGA? Kick them out of the "club"?

Link to comment
This thread has strayed all over the place. If you want to discuss something that is not a part of the original topic please start a new thread.

Thank you

I agree. It's loike going to a fair ground and seeing a dozen things going on at once. It's gotten so cunfusing that I don't know if I'm responding to the Texas situation, moving to the other place, or problems with approvers. :cool:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
<snip>

2. 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.

 

<snip>

 

  My gripe and or complaint about this is two fold...

  First, the assumption on the part of the approver that "The guidelines are pretty clear on not being to use monuments and memorials as virtual caches." Your guidelines NEVER state that, in fact they state "Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."...  so where in the guidelines is he getting the information to make this statement??

I think you answered your own question. You even quoted where is says it for heavens sake.

 

  My second issue is that he states that the only way this can be approved is if its used as part of a multi... To me, stating that was gross misinterpretation of the guidelines which state "Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?”  Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate." I dont see it stated anywhere in the guidelines that there MUST be a cache container somewhere... I was given permission to use this as a cache so long as there wasnt a container placed there, and having someone cross the street and grab a container out of the bushes would take away from feeling you get from this... In all honesty, the only real log to ANY cache is the one on the cache page at GC or any of the other sites where caches get listed....

The problem is that your target is not unique. I have seen pieces of the WTC used as memorials several times, including one that was approved as a virtual cache before the tightening up on virtual caches a couple of years ago. While they may have been approved in the past, as these memorials have become commonplace they are no longer a unique find.

I'm sorry, but either you failed to read my quote, or you purposely chose to ignore parts of it... the term generally does not mean never... never has and never will... and where you are from, a piece of the world trade center might not be unique, you might see one on every street corner... but it is here in Texas (Or in any of the parts of Texas where I have been) and it holds a special significance to an important part of the community here in Lampasas... I have never seen one nor has anyone else that I have asked... You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, but just remember that not everyone has the same opinions or beliefs you do... Nor should they, thats what makes us different and what makes caching fun for people...

I was asked to post about a cache that wasnt approved that I thought had fit within the guidelines, thats is what I did... Your name isn't Jeremy, nor did you identify yourself as an approver, and what I wrote seems to have offended you... For that I am sorry, that was not my intent... I am however a paying customer of GC.coms information service, and in that capacity I am entitled to voice my complaints... Which is how this discussion started in the first place.... my whole point which seems to have been overlooked in its entirety, is that words like "generally, may, might, could ect ect" do not arbitrarily mean no you cant.... if they do, then a revision of the guidelines needs to be made to reflect said changes...

Hopefully, I have clarified myself without causing further offence

Link to comment
No I didn't. I got the desired effect. End of story. You have wasted 2 days of your life debating Centex and others problems.

Man. What an ego. Actually no. The same topic would have come up by someone who didn't deface his own cache listing. All we got out of the intial post was how disgusting the tactic was.

 

Which leads us back to the original topic. The listing title was edited because you defaced your post with foul language. You essentially fouled your own living space. What a great way to give a first impression.

Link to comment

Which part of the guideline that says that "if you submit a memorial it's likely to get rejected" don't you get? Being a paying member of gc.com doesn't guarantee your virtual is going to get approved--that's not what you're paying for. My virtuals get rejected all the time--you don't see me in here whining and wingeing and wringing my hands about how lousy my approvers are and trotting out my 30 bucks for all to see. I can't name a seasoned cacher that hasn't had a virtual rejected.

 

Work within the guidelines and you should be fine. Don't profane your cache page and you should be fine. Roll with the punches and play by the rules--what is so complicated about that?

Edited by Team Doggiewoggie
Link to comment
Which part of the guideline that says that if you submit a memorial it's likely to get rejected don't you get? Being a paying member of gc.com doesn't guarantee your virtual is going to get approved--that's not what you're paying for. My virtuals get rejected all the time--you don't see me in here whining and wingeing and wringing my hands about how lousy my approvers are and trotting out my 30 bucks for all to see. I can't name a seasoned cacher that hasn't had a virtual rejected.

 

Work within the guidelines and you should be fine. Don't profane your cache page and you should be fine. Roll with the punches and play by the rules--what is so complicated about that?

This is exactly why I didnt want to come in here and say anything.... I knew that no matter what is said, the approver is right, so everyone else MUST be wrong

Link to comment

Yesterday, I read a page or so of this thread. It accurred to me that it was basically just unfocosed anger instead of calm, pointed discussion. Since it was all over the map, and I was very tired, I ignored the thread.

 

Noticing that it was surprisingly still alive, I read the last page and a half. The thread doesn't even still be about the issue as stated in the original post.

 

My advise is to kill off this thread and start a new one(s?) that are specific to your individual problems. The only thing I get from this one is that there are some unknown number of cachers in the great state of Texas that are tweaked. That's it.

 

Since I doubt that it is all the cachers in Texas, and I don't understand what the specific complaints are, this thread bores me. Please start another to calmly and rationally discuss issues and I'm sure that many will be happy to discuss these issues. Heck, you might even foster the change that you desire.

Link to comment
(Prepares for the invoking of Godwin's Law)

Ok, I'm calling Nazi Yathzee!

 

TPTB have been made aware of the issues (and which ones of us are naughty or nice) and have offered some proposed modifications to the administration of the game ("supreme court", updating of the guidelines, Hydee's review of individual complaints, etc.). The best course of action from here IMHO is for the TPTB to summarize what they are able/willing to do and to propose a timeframe for implementation. If they need anymore "help" from the community I'm sure they can work with the local geocaching associations.

 

Thanks for playing, cache on!

Link to comment
(Prepares for the invoking of Godwin's Law)

Ok, I'm calling Nazi Yathzee!

 

TPTB have been made aware of the issues (and which ones of us are naughty or nice) and have offered some proposed modifications to the administration of the game ("supreme court", updating of the guidelines, Hydee's review of individual complaints, etc.). The best course of action from here IMHO is for the TPTB to summarize what they are able/willing to do and to propose a timeframe for implementation. If they need anymore "help" from the community I'm sure they can work with the local geocaching associations.

 

Thanks for playing, cache on!

Well said!

Link to comment

All this thread has given me is a massive headache.

 

When I decided to get into stash hunting, I chose the geocaching.com website. I cannot fault the powers that be for anything that they have long established that I don't like.

 

The texans have voiced that there is a sour taste in their mouths over all of this, but the fact that their examples and now the issues being brought up aren't the issues that were first at hand in this topic make me wonder if you are out to get matters solved or if you are out to add fuel to the fire.

 

The issues with 9key over the selector don't belong here. Quite frankly, I didn't even know there were issues with 9key over the selector until this thread. Obviously it's not on the same level (note I didn't say not important, it's just not the same type of issue) as caches not being approved for whatever reason. Nine times out of 10 a cache that isn't approved isn't approved because it shouldn't be. When the cache that isn't approved falls into that 10th time, then yes, there is an issue at hand, but it isn't automatically a massive issue.

 

The main issues that are being discussed now (or the best I can tell through my headache buzz) is that the guidelines are being interpereted as hard and fast rules. My question is: what are those of you trying to skirt these guidelines - wherever you are - doing to let the approvers know an exception should be made? Seriously, lets use the river example. Did you list your cache and not say anything about it? Or did you let your approver know when you placed your cache - in the description/approvers note log - that there was a 180 foot wide river in the way? Was there ever a note that said that while the caches may be 200 feet apart as the crow flies that they're really seventeen miles apart by any acceptable means to get from one to the other?

 

Most of the issues seem to stem from people forgetting that the reviewers are human. We have discourse with people so we automatically get defensive. "He doesn't like me" or "I said his cache should be archived so he won't approve mine" or whatever other excuse we can pull up for whatever we did - that we thought was great - to be denied.

 

You people keep bringing terracachers into this, doubtful that the listings over there will be perfect, either. Whether we like it or not, we're a post-9/11 society. The first time you place a cache near the tracks or a government building or an airport it's not going to matter where you list it. People are paranoid. Because of that you have to think outside of your world. If you didn't know about any form of caching, had never heard of any listing site, etc, what would you think when someone was walking around with some odd electronic device near a sensitive area? Terrorists used our airplanes as explosives with the single intent on creating distruction. They chose to get onto aircraft, use it as attack weapons, and completely demolish the trade centers, crash down part of the pentagon, and anybody who thinks that it's perfectly okay to hide a cache at an airport where cachers - by choice - will sneak around and look suspicious while hunting for something that nobody else can see seriously needs to think again.

 

Paranoia exists whether or not any cache listing site puts up a rule to protect people from it. It's not going to matter whether you're here, at TC, at navacache, or anywhere else. The non-caching people are still the same, and that is what many of the rules here protect.

Link to comment
tc.com will allow us to place what we want and to hunt what we want. I guess in the end its all about freedom.

Sounds like a real utopia. Have fun with that.

ROTFLMAO! Geocaching utopia. Mmmmmmmm.......

 

I'll have 10,000 finds in no time and the world will be a better place.

 

:lol: December 14 by Quest Master (9687 found)

This was the 17th of 36 finds at this Wal-Mart. I found 26 of the 28 light poles (2 were missing), six virtuals, 2 locationless (thought I'd never find that green Dodge or blue Chevy), and two bonus finds for putting 50 cents into the Salvation Army kettle (one for each quarter). TNLN. TFTC.

Link to comment
:o  December 14 by Quest Master (9687 found)

This was the 17th of 36 finds at this Wal-Mart.  I found 26 of the 28 light poles (2 were missing), six virtuals, 2 locationless (thought I'd never find that green Dodge or blue Chevy), and two bonus finds for putting 50 cents into the Salvation Army kettle (one for each quarter).  TNLN.  TFTC.

Don't forget that you ran into me at the 33rd cache, so make sure you log the extra event cache too! :lol:

Edited by Team PerkyPerks
Link to comment
QUOTE (Essiar @ Dec 16 2004, 08:32 AM)

QUOTE 

 

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

 

If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple! 

 

In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine?

No Smerf, it means follow the state and federal and county laws and you'll be fine, it doesn't mean follow Jeremy and PA's laws.

Uh, no. If I want a cache listed on this site then I have to follow the guidelines of this site.

Link to comment
If it's LEGAL you CAN place it, period! If it's not, you can't. Simple!
In other words, follow the guidelines and you'll be fine? :lol:

There are major difference between the laws of the land and the listing guidelines of this site. Let's not try to insinuate they the one and the same.

I think you're missing the point, but I'm not surprised by that.

 

GC.com's guidelines are more strict than the laws made my the government (local, state, federal, etc). Is that wrong?

Actually, I didn't miss your point, but you've missed mine.

 

What could consitute a perfectly safe, legal, and ethical cache is different than what can be listed on gc.com. The two don't jive.

 

That's my point.

 

Yours seems to be if it can't be listed on gc.com then it shouldn't exist. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. If a cache does not meet GC.COM's guidelines, it shouldn't be listed here. If it meets another site's guidelines, then it should be listed there instead. I just hope these other "less restrictive sites" don't give all of geocaching a black eye by ignoring the relationships GC.COM has already built with land managers around the world.

Or is your point every site is going ot have some form of guidelines?  Yes, of course, but don't insinuate they are going to be any more or less strict than gc.com thus question the point of going over there.  The point is you have more freedom to do what you feel is right.

The whole issue with these other sites proposing to be "the answer" or "the cure" for all of GC.COM's problems is that GC.COM is viewed as too restrictive and these other sites will have fewer restrictions. I'll insinuate what I want.

Link to comment
This may be off topic, and honestly I do not have a dog in most of these fights but I do have a point to raise that I have raised before.

 

The rules or guidelines or whatever you want to call them all exist for a reason, they were created as a direct response to an incident of some sort. While it is nice to be idealistic and say that your way of caching will only have common sense guides and will be less restrictive, it is unrealistic. You will start the same way this site did and then you will have to react and respond to real world concerns and it will be necessary to enact some guidelines, before long you have become what you have mocked. This website wants as many caches approved a possible, but it must proceed in a responsible manner. The volunteer cache reviewers approach caches with the intent to approve them if they are compliant with the guidelines that this site has found it necessary to enact. Sure a couple of them let their opinions influence their judgement, but they are human and volunteers.

 

Nearly every time that someone comes here complaining that their cache was not approved it turns out that they had violated the posted guidelines in some way. I know that the only cache I ahve ever had denied for approval, should have been. I was trying to skirt a rule and challenge some language, but I knew what I was doing, and did not get angry when they did not let me get away with it. In other cases I have been able to get special permission from Groundspeak for caches that did not necessarily follow the letter of the guideline, but who fell clearly inside of the spirit of the guideline.

 

I have dealt with many of the reviewers and with others in the organization and have always been treated fairly. Like most of the rest of life, if you begin your discussion with respect and honesty, you will often end it the same way. I realize that many of you "know" what is wrong with this site and how to fix it, but try to look at the big picture. Groundspeak is not trying to be oppressive, they have worked hard as stewards of this sport we all love, but in the real world that we are forced to live in you have to place some constraints. Trust me there are many among our ranks who would hide a cache on the railroad tracks full of knives and porn, near a school. It has happened before, that is why we now have guidelines to stop that sort of thing. Just try to remember that for every guideline that we have now, there was an incident that made it necessary. It happened here and it will happen in your world too.

Very well said, Monkeybrad. I agree completely

Link to comment
  My gripe and or complaint about this is two fold...

  First, the assumption on the part of the approver that "The guidelines are pretty clear on not being to use monuments and memorials as virtual caches." Your guidelines NEVER state that, in fact they state "Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."...  so where in the guidelines is he getting the information to make this statement??

Um, where's he getting it? Duh, you even quoted it! Let me bold the exact words:

in fact they state "Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

Your cache was a memorial, right? Well, memorials...are too common to qualify as virtual caches

Link to comment
The rules or guidelines or whatever you want to call them all exist for a reason...

With all due respect, not all of the responses to some incidences are logical.

 

For instance, buried caches are not allowed because of the NPS concerns. But because the NPS does want caches to be buried and thus have banned caches from their stewardships, then all buried caches are banned?

 

I know all of the arguments, however why couldn't a person with full permission from the owner of the property dig a hole to place a cache in a way the finder can easily leave the area as they found it? I'd say such a cache is perfectly within the spirit of goecaching. However, it is forbidden here.

 

Sure the rules are there for a reason, but were they the appropriate response? In some cases, I'd have to say, "no."

The impression land managers get when they read the guidelines is very important to geocaching (any site). If they think that buried caches are ok in some instances, they're liable to not allow geocaching (any site) on the land they manage. That's why the guidelines are written the way they are.

Link to comment
Which part of the guideline that says that "if you submit a memorial it's likely to get rejected" don't you get? Being a paying member of gc.com doesn't guarantee your virtual is going to get approved--that's not what you're paying for. My virtuals get rejected all the time--you don't see me in here whining and wingeing and wringing my hands about how lousy my approvers are and trotting out my 30 bucks for all to see. I can't name a seasoned cacher that hasn't had a virtual rejected.

 

Work within the guidelines and you should be fine. Don't profane your cache page and you should be fine. Roll with the punches and play by the rules--what is so complicated about that?

For the record, I've never had a virtual cache rejected

 

 

 

 

 

of course, I've never submitted one either :lol:

Link to comment
I'm sorry, but either you failed to read my quote, or you purposely chose to ignore parts of it... the term generally does not mean never... never has and never will...  and where you are from, a piece of the world trade center might not be unique, you might see one on every street corner... but it is here in Texas (Or in any of the parts of Texas where I have been) and it holds a special significance to an important part of the community here in Lampasas... I have never seen one nor has anyone else that I have asked...  You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, but just remember that not everyone has the same opinions or beliefs you do... Nor should they, thats what makes us different and what makes caching fun for people...

  I was asked to post about a cache that wasnt approved that I thought had fit within the guidelines, thats is what I did... Your name isn't Jeremy, nor did you identify yourself as an approver, and what I wrote seems to have offended you... For that I am sorry, that was not my intent... I am however a paying customer of GC.coms information service, and in that capacity I am entitled to voice my complaints... Which is how this discussion started in the first place....  my whole point which seems to have been overlooked in its entirety, is that words like "generally, may, might, could ect ect" do not arbitrarily mean no you cant.... if they do, then a revision of the guidelines needs to be made to reflect said changes...

  Hopefully, I have clarified myself without causing further offence

Well, my signature line says that I am a cache reviewer. It is there every time I post. (A gem of a quote from Woodsters. :lol: Good to see you post the other day Brian.) I am sorry you did not notice that on my post, but I guess you figured it out somehow.

 

Actually, you were told in this topic *not* to post complaints about specific caches, and specifically by Jeremy himself. I would only guess that you might not have read this topic in its entirety before posting and just flew into the forums to pile on. You *are* more than free to post your opinions. I am also more than free to reply and rebut them aren't I? What you wrote did not offend me in the slightest, but since you posted it you should expect a reply.

 

To reply to your point, yes there is leeway in the guidelines. Your specific example is about piece from the most well known event of this generation. There are several of these pieces that are either stationary or move throughout the country. You could even buy a coin that was cast with metal that had parts of the WTC mixed into the molten metal material. I only explained why your example would be rejected. In general terms the answer is yes, but for your specific example the answer is no. (FYI, here is one that I photographed a little while back.)

 

To drive the point home, let me give you an example. This cache is for Delicate Arch. There are hundreds of thousands of arches, but this one is probably the most famous. It was approved recently as a virtual cache since it is so famous and because it is in the middle of a National Park. A comparative piece relating to the WTC would be the globe that was in the center promenade that was recovered from the ruins of the WTC and was then moved to Battery Park. It would be the most special part of the recovery and could qualify for a virtual cache. I am not surprised that PA did not approve your cache. I would not have either. The reason why is because those beams are being sent all over the country and abroad. The globe was held in NYC and almost immediately displayed as the most special part of the WTC and as the ultimate memorial to what was left from the complex after its destruction.

 

I hope this explaination helps.

Link to comment

I've not encountered many problems with cache approvals (other than a couple of minor tussles over event listings) and both of our Florida approvers, Crow T Robot and the new Florida Cacher are exemplary in the performance of their duties.

 

Having said that, this system WILL evolve into one that allows more local input and control into guidlines and cache approval. It'll happen. It's just a question of whether it will happen because it is reconginzed as the next logical step or becuase it is forced by competitive forces.

 

It will happen because it just doesn't make sense for someone in the Pacific Northwest to decide what constitutes an event in Jax Beach Florida. It doesn't make sense for an area that has an organizational structure in place not to assume more control. Central power will be decentralized.

Edited by IceCreamMan
Link to comment
The impression land managers get when they read the guidelines is very important to geocaching (any site). If they think that buried caches are ok in some instances, they're liable to not allow geocaching (any site) on the land they manage. That's why the guidelines are written the way they are.

This is exactly to one size fits all mentality I'm talking about.

 

You're letting what some stewards might do control what is acceptable, even to the point you remove the option from other stewards.

 

If it's written to show the NPS how sincere we are, well, we've done without them this long. We don't need them. I fail to the logic to try to bend to the will of an organization who won't let us in anyway.

 

Besides, your statement is kind of insulting towards land managers implying they can't think beyond what's in front their noses. Considering many park systems are going to some sort of permit system, don't you think they would have a handle on it? There's no need for us to tell them what is allowed and what isn't.

 

Besides, gc.com could implement a "buried cache permit" system of their own. Create a form to fill out, get land stewards' information, cache information, fax it in, viola, you're in business. The idea needs some tweaking, I'm sure, I just thought it up. Shows you how easy it can be to fix a problem if you just think about it.

 

But, if TPTB simply don't want to list buried caches, that's fine, don't fault other sites if they do implement a sensible guideline for them.

Link to comment
The impression land managers get when they read the guidelines is very important to geocaching (any site). If they think that buried caches are ok in some instances, they're liable to not allow geocaching (any site) on the land they manage. That's why the guidelines are written the way they are.

This is exactly to one size fits all mentality I'm talking about.

<snip>

Besides, your statement is kind of insulting towards land managers implying they can't think beyond what's in front their noses. Considering many park systems are going to some sort of permit system, don't you think they would have a handle on it? There's no need for us to tell them what is allowed and what isn't.

<snip>

How is it insulting? We've already addressed the main issues land managers have. When I spoke with rangers with the New Mexico State Parks Department earlier this year, I was able to point to the guidelines and show them we've thought ahead. All of their concerns were already addressed in the guidelines. There are no restrictions on caching in New Mexico State Parks outside of the GC.COM guidelines.

Link to comment

I think it's safe to say that the guidelines are just that, guidelines. It's up to every geocacher that places a cache to check what the local rules/guidelines are in his or her area and follow those. gc.c has a good set of general guidelines but if you dig deeper in your area you may find out that there are additional guidelines that need to be followed.

Link to comment
How is it insulting?

It's insulting because it implies that they can't understand a statement where buried caches are okay in some instances and not others.

 

I will direct you to a few posts above where Jeremy said that buried cache are, in fact, not forbidden. Hell, you know how much I'm in the forums and that was news to me.

 

What's to happen if someone points a Ranger to the above referenced post? Where's your guidelines, then?

 

I know I'm not the best communicator, but can't you see where I'm going with this?

 

What's wrong with approaching a steward who has concerns with buried caches and saying, "if you don't want them buried here, we won't list them." I mean, it is part of The Code to follow landowner's wishes.

Link to comment

Ditto, and we have shown that buried caches exist and have been approved under special circumstances. Are you tweaked because one of your own was denied, or is this a deep heartfelt belief that what this game needs is more people with shovels tearing up an area.

 

An additional problem with buried caches, beyond the NPS issue, is that if people come to expect caches to be buried then when a cache is missing, you might have some of the overzealous excavating an area "to make sure it is really missing". Buried caches are bad for this game in general, but at least our GUIDELINES allow the fleexibility to approve them in limited cases.

Link to comment
An additional problem with buried caches, beyond the NPS issue, is that if people come to expect caches to be buried then when a cache is missing, you might have some of the overzealous excavating an area "to make sure it is really missing".

Exactly.

Heck, I just had someone tell me that they took apart a sprinkler because my 1* difficulty micro was missing. Can you imagine the land damage that would be caused if caches could be buried?

Link to comment

Actually, it's nice to know there is that flexibility.

 

Upon reflection, I think my goal has not been stated properly.

 

I never really intended for it to sound like I advocated having to dig up a cache using a pointy tool. Using your hands on the beach sounds like it is still approvable. (Though I don't really know.) I think my issue, if you boil it down, is the "made hole" versus "found hole" issue.

 

First, I'm against placing a cache that you have to dig up if you can't put it back exactly how you found it. I challenge anyone in a caching situation in a forest to dig a hole and then put it back just like you found it. It can't be done. If The Code is adopted, this would go counter to it.

 

Really, it sounds like what I'm after is already allowed in limited form, but just not advertised. Yes, I understand why. Though, maybe all of the approvers need to get on the same page and the moderators need to steer a complainant a bit to keep forum ruckus down a bit.

 

...or am I still clueless? :o

Link to comment

I see what you are saying and tend to agree that things should be consistent from area to area. We just happened to get into an area that I had some experience in. My "buried cache" is in a hole that I dug, but that is not the end of the story. I dug the hole for a fence post to go in and hit big rock about 18 inches down, rather than getting out the compressor and jackhammering and blasting (although I love playing with dynamite) I opted to just change the fence line a little and put the gate elsewhere. I now had a perfectly lovely hole that I needed to fill back in for obvious safety reasons. We had been caching for a couple of months so I decided to get creative with how I filled the hole back in. I created a cache that has a metal plate covering it, the plate is in plain sight and when you lift it you find what looks like a broken meter covered in mud. If you grab the meter and lift a full size cache comes out. The cache is on my property near a parking area right within 75 of the road. It gets hit only occassionally, because it is very difficult to find and it is in the middle of nowhere. In this case I, as the property owner, could care less if the area gets torn up, but I think that in many other cases buried caches are a bad thing. I should aslo point out that the coords on this one are probably the best I have ever shot. There are no trees for hundreds of feet, no hills in sight and I averaged them for 14 hours so I got 2 feet of accuracy. I have never had anyone who found it complain about the coords being off.

Link to comment

I also meant to say...

 

I really believe that the guidelines are just that and that if you can show a compelling reason why your cache should be approved or how it is in agreement with the spirit of the guidelines if not the letter. I do not think it should necessarily be advertised that you don't have to follow them, but I think that if people would take the time to email their approver before they try to do something "different" and work with them, that we would not have nearly as much of this angst. In a couple of cases I have had my reviewer explain to me why what I wanted to do was against the rules and I understood and then did not submit the cache. This is defintiely true regarding virtuals, while I have never had one not approved, I have had lots of ideas shot down before i even submitted them. In some cases I have worked with my local approver, in others I have worked with other reviewers around the country, but I have always found them to be respectful and willing to work with me. Of course, I have always approached them with respect for both the job they do and the fact that they are using their free time to work with me. It makes a huge difference whether you approach people with respect and understanding, or with a sense of entitlement. If you will work with them they will work with you and in my experience, anything that is safe and reasonable, is possible.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...