New Virtual Cache Regulations?

[+Rubiconlwb]

I recently submitted a virtual cache which is a historical marker alongside a secondary highway here in Wyoming. It marks the spot where the Oregon trail crosses this highway and indicates the crossing of the Platte River is 9 miles to the west of that location. I have been to several virtual caches which were basically identical to this cache except for, of course, the location. Mine was disapproved and I was told the reason was because a cache should be one where a 'hike' is involved and that virtual caches can only be approved if they have some 'significance' about them. If these criteria have always been in place, how have the others been approved? I specifically wanted this to be an easy cache so it could be accessible all year round and handicapped people could enjoy it as well. This marker is not only of historical significance but also of scenic significance as one has a beautiful view of several 12,000 to 14,000 elevation peaks from it's location. I was bewildered as to why this cache was archived and I attempted on a couple occasions to get the reviewer to at least give me a compelling reason. I was turned down each time. I personally feel it is a case of a reviewer taking himself way to seriously and who is far too anal. Any ideas?

Edited January 16, 2005 by Rubiconlwb

[+BigHank]

I seriously doubt that the reviewer is taking himself too seriously or is being too anal in turning this cache down. From the admittedly limited dealings I have had with two approvers, they WANT to approve caches, after all, it is the way the game grows.

 

However, they have to go by what they are told to do as far as following the guidelines. The guidelines for caches are just that, guidelines, and they can be loosened and tightened in their application as TPTB see fit. A while back there was a real tightening on virtual cases, and the reviewers have to follow what they are told. So getting a virtual approved now is virtually impossible. Those that already existed were "grandfathered" and allowed to continute to exist, that is why some similar to yours are listed. That is my perspective on it, and if any of the reviewers want to correct that, please do so.

 

I also do think that the reviewers should have given you an explanation of why that particular cache wasn't approved that goes beyond just quoting the guidelines, because the guidelines, as I said, can be interpreted loosely or tightly, and for someone who doesn't know the current policy on interpreting them, it can seem like you are well within the guidelines they are telling you are the reason they are not approving it.

 

Hank

[+Rubiconlwb]

Ya, I'm sure you are right and basically that's what the reviewer said but that fact needs to be made much clearer in the the guidelines. I read them several times and from my perspective this cache fit well within the current guidelines. I think the thing that set me off was the statement that a 'hike' of some sort should be involved and that would almost surely leave out anybody in a wheelchair. I realize that the reviewers have to do as they are instructed but this seems a little nit-picky to me at the time. I asked if it might be approved if I converted it to a traditional cache but he hasn't gotten back to me yet. I'll know the restriction now and won't bother with virtuals in the future. Thanks for the comments!

[+Renegade Knight]

If you read the guidelines about virtuals you would quickly realize that the examples they give on what's not approvable rules out almost everthing there is that could be submitted as a virtual.

 

You will have better luck if traditional caches can't be placed for some reason or another.

[+Mopar]

Just a few quotes from the guidelines:

 

Guidelines last updated 11/05/03

Not exactly something "new".

 

Virtual and Reverse Virtual (or Locationless) Caches

 

These are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log. While previous guidelines for these categories were somewhat loose to encourage innovation, it is now appropriate to add clarification.

 

Some earlier postings do not meet these clarified guidelines, although they are allowed to stay as grandfathered caches. They will not be considered as justification or as precedents for future submissions.

 

The overall intent for virtual and reverse virtual caches is to focus on the unique as opposed to the commonplace or mundane. 

 

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. 

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. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

 

I think the guidelines are pretty clear.

 

Keep your virtual in mind. The owners of the site have hinted that a new section just for virtuals and locationless caches is just around the corner. Maybe your historical marker will fit in there when that happens.

[+Ladybug Kids]

The Ladybug Kids had a virtual in New York turned down by the New York Admin . We live in Alaska and the virtual would have been for the memorial of William H. Seward, who bought Alaska from Russia. We thought it was an interesting memorial that qualified under the guidelines for a virtual and would have been a great way to tie us in Alaska to the area where Mommy Ladybug was born and grew up. Placing a physical cache was impractical because of the distance involved (>3000 miles) for maintenance and the fact that we get back to see Grandma and Grandpa once a year or so.

 

Where am I going with this??? It has a happy ending!!!

 

After several swapped e-mails with the New York Admin., I saw his (her?) point about a large part of caching being a cache with a log to sign. The NY Admin spent a lot of time responding to my questions in detail and was always polite during the process . He pointed out that the location would support a micro cache or could be the first stage of a mulit- or offset cache using data from the memorial plaques to find the physical cache. I contacted a local New York cacher whose caches we had enjoyed finding during our October visit and asked if he/they would be willing to help set up a physical cache. It turns out that the cacher went to the school adjacent to the memorial and was very familiar with Seward's actual birthplace building (now a storage building) and he quickly agreed to help. I provided the html for the cache page and Alaska-themed trade goods, and he is working out the details of the multi-cache.

 

In the end, we'll get the tie to New York that we wanted through a cache, got to meet (at least through e-mail and some of their caches) a top-notch caching family, and a physical cache will be placed in an area of relatively low cache density. As a result, I feel that we and the Orange County, New York, caching community came out ahead .

 

Lesson learned: There is more than one way to place a cache at a neat location without going the virtual route. From what I've seen, the Approvers are being consistent across the country about approving (or not) virtual caches and it's consistency that's important .

 

Stay tuned for the placement of "Seward's Folly!"

 

--Daddy Ladybug

[arbalo]

Any ideas?

yes, submit the cache to www.navicache.com!

 

or if this place is geological interessting, submit it too www.earthcache.com

Edited January 16, 2005 by arbalo

[+briansnat]

Any ideas?

yes, submit the cache to www.navicache.com!

 

I think he actually wants people to find it.

[+tirediron]

Any ideas?

Why not use info from the marker/plaque as input for a puzzle/offset cache?

[+robert]

Any ideas?

Why not use info from the marker/plaque as input for a puzzle/offset cache?

Good idea. You could use any numbers or letters on the marker to factor into finding the actual hide (if there is no such place near the marker). Or you could use it as a point to get to and then project a waypoint from that spot. That way you get people to see what you think is interesting and visually pleasing, while at the same time getting a real cache placed that the admins of this site want to promote.

[+Rubiconlwb]

Thanks fellow cachers, all these suggestions have helped. I will most likely create a traditional cache at that location and hopefully will get it approved that way. I guess I didn't read the guidelines as well as I thought and maybe I took this disapproval too personally at first. I have written the reviewer several e-mails and he has been very cordial and has tried to guide me which is appreciated. As I stated, I am new at geocaching and VERY new at creating my own geocaches (I have one which has been approved and existed for a couple months now but only one person has made the find). I have ideas for several more and everything I learn along the way will make the hobby more fun and more challenging. I appreciate you suggestions and guidance.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I had one turned down, it was the location of the first Television Brodcast by the inventor of Television. I was told that the invention of Television was not signifcant. Gee, without the invention of television there would have been the Cathode Ray Tube (You may be looking at one of these right now), Television, like it or not is one of the most significant inventions in modern history.

 

Philo Farnsworth

Edited January 17, 2005 by JohnnyVegas