Virtual Question

[+G'n,G]

I think that it would make a great virtual cache. That statues not something that you see everyday. I say go for it!

 

[CoyoteRed]

I will give it another thumbs up vote.

Looks like you should list it over on Mikie's site. He'll list anything

Yeah, I can get Jeremy to list 100 lame micros here, so what's your point?

 

I'd much rather see a sculpture such as this and not sign a log, than sign a damp strip of paper found in a film can under a lamp post in a Walmart parking lot, ANY DAY!

 

I vote with two thumbs up.

[+OzGuff]

TPsTB are supposedly watching this thread to see which way the wind blows. To make it easier for them:

 

Thumbs Down

 

El Diablo

Shop99er

Team GPSaxophone

mtn-man

Team Doggiewoggie

ShadowAce

IV Warrior

ibycus

Mopar

Radman Version 4.0

Mushtang

Navdog

Hogarth

Monkeybrad

workerofwood

Maddawg351

teamguzbach.org

erik88l-r

planet

Nurse Dave

 

Thumbs Up

 

wimseyguy

BigHank

Renegade Knight

GEO.JOE

Lazyboy & Mitye Mite

PC Medic

sept1c tank

woodsters

Ltljon

nittany dave

MountainMudBug

ZackJones

G'n.G

CoyoteRed

OzGuff

satxbiker

cacheKidds

In Search of Faeries

TEAM 360

 

Unsure of Vote

 

BlueDeuce

clearpath

Prime Suspect

BDC

Hemlock

kc8hnz

The Blind Acorn

CO Admin

 

If I have mis-represented your feelings/vote please let me know.

 

[Edited to correct someone's name and to add later votes.]

 

[Added this: Votes from reviewers and forum moderators are taken -- by me -- with a grain of salt. I know that they are volunteers -- and thanks to all of them for what they do -- but there is a certain status to the position and I assume most won't endanger the source of their "virtual" butter.]

Edited December 21, 2004 by OzGuff

[satxbiker]

Here is another vote for the virtual. When I travel to someplace new I always try to see if there are any virtuals. I love the fact they make me read the info at the site. If I had to spend my time digging around for something I know I would be too concerned with people watching me to actually enjoy the site. Good Luck

[+cacheKidds]

Thank Heaven we have been protected from this sinister cache!

I'm with you OzGuff. Thumbs up!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

TPsTB are supposedly watching this thread to see which way the wind blows. To make it easier for them:

 

Thumbs Down

 

El Diablo

Shop99er

Team GPSaxaphone

<snip>

 

If I have mis-represented your feelings/vote please let me know.

You misrepresented the spelling of my name

[+OzGuff]

You misrepresented the spelling of my name

Taken care of. Sorry it took me 32 minutes to correct this egregious error.

Edited December 20, 2004 by OzGuff

[+Navdog]

This website explains what the statue is about. It honestly doesn't look like anything unique. It is a piece of art that the artist is trying to promote as something special. It has nothing to do with real Native American history. The artist saw something in a piece of stone in Italy and thought it would make a good statue.

 

Soryy, I have to vote a thumbs down.

[Hogarth]

There's a few too many virtuals caches out there and if it is even remotely possible, a micro cache should be placed. I like it when I find something that I can put my hands on. It's so much more gratifying when you locate the cache.

Edited December 20, 2004 by Hogarth

[+Monkeybrad]

I personally like virtuals and think that the current guidelines are a little too tight. However, under the current guidelines I do not think that this one meets the test. Wow is subjective, but a touring copy does not sound like a Wow to me. So my answer is thumbs down, based on the guidelines, even though I think that they are too restrictive.

[+OzGuff]

Thanks to everyone for voicing their opinions. I'm not sure what sort of response TPsTB are looking for but will leave this thread open for others to chime in.

 

With regard to the "replica" nature of this statue I want to stress that though the statue is cool it is the idea behind the statue that I really want folks to experience. The statue is the physical manifestation of the idea. Or at least it is the statue that you stop to look at and then the adjacent display boards let you read about the idea behind it. The plan is for the traveling statue to move about the country visiting Native American sites.

 

Don't confuse the original statue with the replica -- they have different purposes. (Or least that is the way I read it...)

[+Doggiewoggie]

Though the statue is cool it is the idea behind the statue that I really want folks to experience. The statue is the physical manifestation of the idea.

If you play basketball, does that make you Michael Jordan? If you're a statue with a positive message, does that make you a Michelangelo?

 

Virtuals are the cream of the crop. They shouldn't just provoke thought--they should blow your mind.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Team Doggiewoggie

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Though the statue is cool it is the idea behind the statue that I really want folks to experience. The statue is the physical manifestation of the idea.

If you play basketball, does that make you Michael Jordan? If you're a statue with a spiritual message, does that make you a Michelangelo?

 

Virtuals are the cream of the crop. They shouldn't just provoke thought--they should blow you mind.

Actually, I thought virtuals were like a cesspool. It's gotta be something really important for me to go there and see it.

 

Reminds me of the joke where a guy saw a dime in a urinal and threw 2 quarters in on top of it. His buddy gave him a strange look until he said, "I'm not reaching in there for only 10 cents"

[+OzGuff]

It is great then that reasonable people can agree to disagree.

 

Hwever, if virtuals ARE the cream of the crop then why is there a virtual (sorry) moratorium on them? Why are traditionals given prioroty?

 

Sorry -- I have gone OT in my own thread.

[+workerofwood]

Got to chime in with a vote against. My reading of the guidelines says no, and can't see a compelling reason to make an exception for this one. I AM biased against virtuals, and don't mind micros, so can't really see a reason for it.

[+Doggiewoggie]

Why are traditionals given prioroty?

Traditionals are given priority because the point of this game is to find a container--like an easter egg hunt for adults. Otherwise, it's very close to waypointing--which is cool, but it's not geocaching the way TPTB have determined it (if I'm not making a wrong assumption). So, virtuals are kind of a concession for places that can't accommodate a physical cache. If you're gonna make a concession, it better be for something darn special.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Team Doggiewoggie

[+OzGuff]

So, virtuals are kind of a concession for places that can't accommodate a physical cache. If you're gonna make a concession, it better be for something darn special.

Therein lies the rub. Who decides what is "special"? TPsTB be would be better off -- IMHO -- to eliminate virtual caches rather than have them exist in an imbroglio of inconsistent guidelines. Or get the guidelines in order.

 

What would happen if TPsTB decided that hunting micros was to be given priority? Or that all traditional caches have to take us somewhere "special"? I understand that the abandoned-car-at-the-dump virtual holds no appeal for most but there must be some middle ground between all and none.

[+Doggiewoggie]

Well, that's why we have guidelines and a system of approval. You might not always agree with the approvers, and they are human, but you have to roll with the punches and deal with their decisions--kind of like with referees.

[+woodsters]

Traditionals are given priority because the point of this game is to find a container--like an easter egg hunt for adults. Otherwise, it's very close to waypointing--which is cool, but it's not geocaching the way TPTB have determined it (if I'm not making a wrong assumption). So, virtuals are kind of a concession for places that can't accommodate a physical cache. If you're gonna make a concession, it better be for something darn special.

In other words, you can't put something physically here, and the point of the game is for something physical. Why bother with them at all then? i say do away with them, if that's the way they are looked upon. There would be no disagreement. Well, there shouldn't be.

[+woodsters]

Well, that's why we have guidelines and a system of approval. You might not always agree with the approvers, and they are human, but you have to roll with the punches and deal with their decisions--kind of like with referees.

Yes they have guidelines. They are subjective. Subjective being that each and every person and/or approver reads and engages them to fit their needs.

 

I would not call it a system though. There are some approvers that approve this very virt. Others won't. It's subjective. And like you said, they are human. So they all will have different opinions.

[+Maddawg351]

What you seem to want is to share the "idea behind" the statue.

This is mostly dependant on the cacher and not the hider.

 

For example:

1: If the cacher is only about the numbers, either a virtual or a physical would accomplish the same thing: A snapshot or a quick TNLNSL, one more smiley, in and out in 5 mins.

2: If the cacher is more interested in the hunt or the locations take them to, either would do the same thing. A virtual would bring the cacher in and they would stick around for an indefinate time. A Physical would bring in the cacher they would sign the log and still stick arround to view the site.

 

Also on a side note I find more enjoyment from finding a hidden object that over 99% of the population is oblivious to. Therefore a virtual no matter what the "WOW" factor is, is a turn off for me. I'll get one if I'm At a location anyway, but I'll make a special trip for a Traditional.

 

To get your Idea noticed I suggest you put a container out there somewhere. That will get the cache listed, and people will see it, or not as THEY choose. Fighting for a virtual just wastes time until its listed (if at all).

 

So a Thumbs Down vote for me

Edited December 21, 2004 by Maddawg351

[+woodsters]

Let's be honest....what would constitute a "wow" factor? Any virtual would probably be more of "wow, I can't believe I wasted my time for this". But would it be a waste? Probably about 50/50. Most would do it for the smiley. We can say no, I do it because i want to see new and exciting things. That's bularkey for the most part. We want the smiley. of course we will see things we never saw before and even something that really interests us. But do those things fit within GC's definition of "wow"?

[+clearpath]

A couple of the virts I've done were cool... most were not. I can't say any of the virts were a challenge to find. Now, I avoid them because they seem to be cheap and easy finds. The traditional caches are more fun, IMO. I don't have a problem with other people finding virts, whatever floats their boat. I wish now I could delete all the virt finds from my cache totals ... I'm way more proud of my traditional cache finds than the virts. But thats just me, YMMV.

[+CO Admin]

A couple of the virts I've done were cool... most were not. I can't say any of the virts were a challenge to find. Now, I avoid them because they seem to be cheap and easy finds. The traditional caches are more fun, IMO. I don't have a problem with other people finding virts, whatever floats their boat. I wish now I could delete all the virt finds from my cache totals ... I'm way more proud of my traditional cache finds than the virts. But thats just me, YMMV.

You can, go back to the virts and change your found it to a note.

[+In Search Of Faeries]

If it were approved and I lived nearby, I would definately go check it out.

 

Thumbs up here.

[+º]

Does it have the WOW-factor? Maybe

Is it impossible to place a cache nearby? No

 

>> Thumbs Down

 

btw.: This one is the only virtual I found which accords with the guidelines

[CoyoteRed]

... but there must be some middle ground between all and none.

Yes, but in reality it would take a major overhaul of the site and considering how slowly things move around here, if it was started now, we'd see it finished sometime in the next decade.

 

I think it boils down to a couple of things, but the core seems to be the sheer magnitude of the number of waypoints that is coming into existance. There has to be a way to cut through the chaffe. Just in my own stomping grounds--which now begins 50 miles out, I have nearly 4000 unfound (by my team) caches excluding LCs and events. This is aprroximately a 200 mile radius with extra PQs to the Upstate and Western NC, and then more to get NE Florida. I include unavailabe caches in my PQ, but weed out the caches that have not been updated in a month or so, assuming they've been archived.

 

In order to see which ones are worthy, I have to read the discription of each and everyone one of them. If I want to know what others think about it, I have to read each and every log.

 

I'm sorry, Oz, but this site favors quantity and physicals with minimum standards over quality with tabulated feedback. There's no way for a user to easily judge the quality of a cache, the reviewers have to do that for you.

 

Don't misconstrue this as a slam on the reviewers, they have to work within the system, too. If you're going to blame anything, blame the system. It's the system that is broken.

[+erik88l-r]

I'll add my thumbs down.

 

I won't belabor the reasons, they've been stated by those who preceeded me.

 

For those who said they'd rather find a good virt than another micro at the base of a lamp post, I agree with you in principal. I won't bother to look for a micro if I know it's going to be another lame one under another lamp post collar. Besides, I hate the way those collars squeck when you slide them up.

 

However, an example of another lame cache genre doesn't help the argument in favor of lame virtual caches. No offense to the example in this thread, but the the guidelines specifically say that monuments, graves, historic plaques, and the like, are too common to be considered. As a cache reviewer I would be happy to supply examples of virtuals I have approved and would approve again, but suffice it to say that they involved much more than just driving to a location and proving that you were there.

 

~erik~

[+woodsters]

The answer to all this, may be within the guidelines! It says caches with codewords or objects for verification are not allowed and that caches at a minimum, must have a logbook. I would define that as virtuals shouldn't be allowed. Put a physical cache as close to the "subject of the virtual" and reference to it in the cache. Perhaps you can list the coordinates to some great places within the area that the cache can't be placed.

[+OzGuff]

Part of the problem is that I believe I fulfilled all of the requirements to have this virtual cache listed. I answered all of the published guidelines. Sure, there is the subjective "WOW" factor, but if you read the guidelines, and then the guidelines for virtuals specifically, I covered all the bases. Words such as "typically" and "priority" are used, none of which preclude this existing as a virtual.

 

I understand that I CAN place a micro nearby and get this listed as a traditional cache. But would you be happy if TPTB mandated that no micros can be placed in locations where regular-sized containers can fit? (Of course you might agree with that if you don't like micros!) Whether or not this virtual is listed isn't all that important to me (though I would like it to be) -- I have more than enough hides to keep me busy. But as a user/client of GC.com I would at least like an answer to my question based on the published guidelines. I still haven't received one.

 

IMHO -- the guidelines need to be updated and TPTB need to decide if virtuals should continue to be listed.

[+TEAM 360]

Same old argument, and same old replies- "Put a micro there", "Make it a multi"...blablablabla....DON'T YOU GET IT? THE CACHE HIDER WANTS IT A VIRT! LET THE HIDER CHOOSE AND QUIT TRYING TO FORCE IT INTO ANOTHER CATEGORY!!

Ask yourself: "Why was the 'Virtual' category created in the first place?"...to allow these types of caches! How BORING this game will get if only ammo boxes are allowed...do you want to eat the same food everyday for the rest of your life? Do you want to find the same exact container, over and over and over again, ad nauseum, for the rest of your geocaching career? Without even thinking about it, the answer is simply "NO!!!". So I say APPROVE IT and move on!

Jesus, people, listen: If you don't like this type of cache, simply don't go looking for it, but quit trying to force your skewed sense of 'proper caches' onto others! Cachers have enough sense to decide what kinds of caches they want to go hunt and can make that decision by themselves! ALL types of caches should be listed here, allowing everyone to enjoy the game in their own way!

[+Mopar]

Part of the problem is that I believe I fulfilled all of the requirements to have this virtual cache listed. I answered all of the published guidelines. Sure, there is the subjective "WOW" factor, but if you read the guidelines, and then the guidelines for virtuals specifically, I covered all the bases. Words such as "typically" and "priority" are used, none of which preclude this existing as a virtual.

 

I understand that I CAN place a micro nearby and get this listed as a traditional cache. But would you be happy if TPTB mandated that no micros can be placed in locations where regular-sized containers can fit? (Of course you might agree with that if you don't like micros!) Whether or not this virtual is listed isn't all that important to me (though I would like it to be) -- I have more than enough hides to keep me busy. But as a user/client of GC.com I would at least like an answer to my question based on the published guidelines. I still haven't received one.

 

IMHO -- the guidelines need to be updated and TPTB need to decide if virtuals should continue to be listed.

Well, I guess that's the rub. Half the people in this thread don't think it meets all the guidelines. Even if you take away the "wow" part, I still think it fails on other levels.

Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page.

 

Note:  Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it.  Please keep that in mind when submitting your cache report. 

A memorial is not out of the ordinary. The guidelines make that pretty clear here:

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

In more then one place in the guidelines, you find this statement:

Note:  Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it.  Please keep in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report. 

You've said you COULD put a micro there, or make it offset to a nearby cache location, so it fails the guideline for inaccessibility.

 

The statue itself is not unique. It's just a copy of another statue somewhere else. But you said "With regard to the "replica" nature of this statue I want to stress that though the statue is cool it is the idea behind the statue that I really want folks to experience. The statue is the physical manifestation of the idea". Again, a failing point in the guidelines:

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are.

A cool idea or experience is not a a virtual cache.

 

You say the statue moves. Best I can tell from reading, there is no way to tell how long it will stay. It seems to be based on how quickly funds are raised for the next move. Some of it's previous locations have only been a few months.

Cache Permanence

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time.

I remember when they still listed locationless there was discussion on semi-temp traveling art exhibits like the painted cows. If I remember right, those were not allowed then because of their temp status.

 

To me, it seems the ONLY guideline it MIGHT pass is the highly subjective "wow" factor, and it also seems the thumbs up you got in this thread are based only on that. The problem is a cache (any cache) needs to meet all the guidelines, not just the ones that suit you. Since this fails on so many other levels besides "WOW", I think it was rightly declined as a virtual.

 

As far as the cool virtual vs lame micro comments. A cache is what you put into it. I can see plenty of ways to make that statue part of a cool physical cache, it doesn't have to be a soggy listerine strips container under a garbage can.

[+Mopar]

Ask yourself: "Why was the 'Virtual' category created in the first place?"...to allow these types of caches!

Note:  Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it.   Please keep in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report. 

[+Planet]

I got about halfway through reading this, I stopped when I found out how the Native Americans feel about the statue, and though the sculpture is nice, I'm not wowed. I think it could be used for an offset cache, part of a multi, what have you.

 

My vote is with the reviewers.

 

There is a statue in Charlemont MA, a tribute to all Native American Tribes. There is a cache placed there, and after finding the cache we spent some amount of time just reading all the plaques. Having the cache set off to the side did not make it any less wow-able. Being first to find and not even being from that state was kind of a wow for me though, hehehe.

 

I say find yourself a nice little container. As far as the statue being there until 2005, that's just two weeks away, how long into 2005 will it be there?

[CoyoteRed]

I challenge anyone to list me a virtual that I can't make part of a multi. Go ahead, I dare you.

 

Here's a hint. I'll just make whatever verification required part of a remote puzzle in order to find the physical final stage. (...or something found onsite otherwise.)

 

That's not to mention I believe the guideline for permanence is 3 months, not forever.

 

While there might be several of one particular type of object to exist, there very well might be only one near me. That's unique enough in my book.

 

While a cache can't be an idea or experience, most of the enjoyable caches certainly have that attached to them and are lauded for it.

 

...or is it really only about a physical cache? So, a site filled with nothing but lame, drive-by, micros would be perfectly acceptable, while a single virt which is one of two objects is not. Wow, what a concept. I'm certain you all are glad that's the way this site is going.

Edited December 21, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

On second thought, how about we apply the "Wow Factor" to all caches?

 

...and the existing ones are only grandfathered for a year, then they must be upgraded with "wow" or be archived.

 

What say you?

[+Nurse Dave]

I thought I'd add my opinion since I'm always right.

 

I think basically it's an unfair situation the TPTB put hiders and approvers in for virtuals. Since it is true that ANY virtual placement could be used as an offset no matter it be 6 feet or 2 miles away, it's a little wishy washy on when it's determined it can't be. And unless caching is not allowed you can put a breathstrip micro just about anywhere. So how do you determine when there isn't a place for a traditional.

 

It seems that TPTB realized they opened a can of worms with the whole virtual category and are trying to put it back in the bottle. I have done virts and don't mind them. Seen some neat stuff, but it isn't geocaching since there isn't a cache. I fall on the side of keeping geocaching involving an actual cache. There are already other websites set-up for posting coords to neat stuff. You don't get a little yellow smiley, but that's the way the ball bounces. Heck, I wouldn't cry if they decided to make a rule where every cache had to be big enough to fit a can of beans in.

 

<<This message brought to you by Geocacher for Actually Finding a Cache>>

[+OzGuff]

I got about halfway through reading this, I stopped when I found out how the Native Americans feel about the statue,

If you had read the referenced article ShadowAce to which ShadowAce linked it says that "some" Native Americans were not happy with the statue. The fact that it has traveled to a number of Native American locations and currently sits on land owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians seems to indicate that some Native Americans are OK with it.

[+Planet]

I got about halfway through reading this,  I stopped when I found out how the Native Americans feel about the statue,

If you had read the referenced article ShadowAce to which ShadowAce linked it says that "some" Native Americans were not happy with the statue. The fact that it has traveled to a number of Native American locations and currently sits on land owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians seems to indicate that some Native Americans are OK with it.

That's not what made me stop reading. I did go further, after posting, and read the articles. What made me stop was the ad nauseum feeling I was getting in my stomach. These same issues have been talked about over and over in other threads, as well. And now I get the feeling it's just plain stubborness or not wanting to maintain a physical cache that keeps this thread going. I'm still saying thumbs down, no matter how many replies come in. If that picture posted of the staute is the actual location, I can see some places to hide a cache. Not saying where, that would be a spoiler now wouldn't it?

[+OzGuff]

And now I get the feeling it's just plain stubborness or not wanting to maintain a physical cache that keeps this thread going.

Stubbornness, yes, but not because I don't want to maintain a physical cache in the area. (I have 4 or 5 within a few miles of this location and a total of over 130 active physical caches.) The stubbornness comes from being given an answer that is inconsistent with the published guidelines.

[+Nurse Dave]

Dude, read between the lines. TPTB want real caches because that's what caching is all about. You have to bend over backwards to get a virt approved and still then you might not get it approved and then you're just bent. Besides approvers there have been many people here that have said, "yup, nice statue, but a statue isn't a virt". Bottom line, it needs to be way more special than a statue YOU find interesting and there is absolutly NO possible way it can have a real cache ANYWHERE close to it and you have to live somewhat close to it and it has to be stationary AND the approver has to be in a good mood.

[+ibycus]

I can think of one, and only one good reason for not placing a cache nearby or making it part of multi/offset cache. If/when the statue moves (and it will), then what do you do? Get someone to hide a new micro/offset at the new location....

I think Mopar's post was probably the best one so far as far as why this shouldn't be approved goes.

That being said, I also agree with the feeling that this thread is running round in circles. How many pages do we need of "I like it" "I don't like it" "It doesn't fit the guidelines because" or "The guidelines be damned, I'd hunt it."?

 

** edit hit post too soon, and didn't finish an idea **

Edited December 21, 2004 by ibycus

[+cacheKidds]

Great post Team 360!

[+OzGuff]

NurseDave:

 

I enjoyed your post and chuckled a bit. I understand all that you said. The appeal process for caches that are turned down is to (1) discuss it with the reviewer, (2) discuss it with someone higher (that is, "TPTB") and (3) open discussion on the forums.

 

As you can see I have reached the third stage and am waiting for a reply from TPTB to see what a 50/50 split means to them.

 

My point is that I answered all the questions and based on the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE PUBLISHED GUIDELINES -- which have a few areas that are gray/grey -- see no reason why this wasn't listed. Sure I could make this an offset, but that is not what I submitted because I didn't need/want to. If TPTB could tell me why this can't be listed based on the guidelines, I will walk away from this listing. I may even re-submit it as a traditional.

[ju66l3r]

Dude, read between the lines.  TPTB want real caches because that's what geocaching.com is all about.

 

Just to keep things correct.

[+OzGuff]

Dude, read between the lines.  TPTB want real caches because that's what geocaching.com is all about.

 

Just to keep things correct.

[+OzGuff]

I can think of one, and only one good reason for not placing a cache nearby or making it part of multi/offset cache. If/when the statue moves (and it will), then what do you do? Get someone to hide a new micro/offset at the new location....

As I said in a previous Page 1 post:

 

The folks at the statue's current location (Cherokee, NC) have told me it should be there through 2005. My plan was to deactivate the cache while it is being moved and then ask a local cacher at the next location to get the coordinates and reactivate it. (Assuming it still meets all then-current GC.com guidelines.)

[+Hemlock]

As you can see I have reached the third stage and am waiting for a reply from TPTB to see what a 50/50 split means to them.

Don't hold your breath. Even though there's a split on the subjective part of the guidelines, this cache still fails to meet the objective part. That is, a physical cache can still be placed at or nearby to this statue. That makes all those opinions on WOW expressed above, moot. But thanks for trying.

 

You expended a whole lot of effort into your posts and arguments here. If you would have expended that same effort in making a physical cache work, it would be placed and approved by now.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Hemlock

[+ibycus]

I can think of one, and only one good reason for not placing a cache nearby or making it part of multi/offset cache. If/when the statue moves (and it will), then what do you do? Get someone to hide a new micro/offset at the new location....

As I said in a previous Page 1 post:

 

The folks at the statue's current location (Cherokee, NC) have told me it should be there through 2005. My plan was to deactivate the cache while it is being moved and then ask a local cacher at the next location to get the coordinates and reactivate it. (Assuming it still meets all then-current GC.com guidelines.)

Yep I read that. What I was saying though, is if you WERE to hide a micro etc. at its current location, when it does move eventually (say late 2005), reactivating it at the new location wouldn't be so straight forward.

[Keystone]

I'm with Hemlock. You've now heard opinions from five volunteer reviewers (counting your local reviewer, who went through the guidelines in great detail). You've also heard back from Groundspeak in response to your e-mail to the contact address. I'm not sure what you are looking for by way of a "definitive statement" about why your cache doesn't meet the guidelines, but Hemlock's comes very close to what mine would have been. A multicache ending nearby could easily incorporate information from this statue. There are, presumably, other locations in Cherokee of great interest from a Native American history perspective. String them together into a multicache. Or, just a simple offset cache from this spot. There is a beautiful park less than 2,000 feet from the statue's coordinates. You have a cache hidden there, one of four caches you've hidden within 8,000 feet of the statue. I'd be delighted to find two caches in that riverside park -- and the second one would also show me the statue you wanted to share.

 

I will not make someone put together a multicache with the stages 15 miles apart, just for the sake of getting outside of a National Park or other area where a physical cache is prohibited. This doesn't appear to be the case here, though.