Jump to content

My Virtual Cache Was Archived ...


Recommended Posts

Greetings!

 

I need your help, opinions and perspectives as fellow cachers. A few weeks ago I submitted a cache for approval. It was not approved and was archived. I belive it should be approved. I went to the geocaching site to read the detail on what is and is not considered a Virtual Cache. My (proposed) cache fits the guidelines. I wrote the volunteer who did not approve the cache. He wrote back and explained his reasons. My next step, according to the site is this:

 

"Next, you should feel free to post a message in the “Geocaching Topics” section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived."

 

So here we are ... I would like your honest opinions about this cache. If you too believe that it should not be approved, I will respect your opinions and this process and discontinue my effort to get it posted. If however you think it should be posted, I will send a link to the GC site admin to have it further reviewed.

 

Many Thanks in advanced for your time and efforts here!

 

First let me describe the cache (since you can't go to view it as it is archived)

 

In San Diego there is a famous historical landmark called the Point Loma lighthouse. Note it is an official historical landmark (landmark #51 actually) so it is significant structure (as GC.com says it need to be). When you go to the site you will see pictures where I photoshopped out some details. You needed to go to the actual lightouse, walk around and answer a few questions. Then you needed to email me the answers and post a log.

 

That's it.

 

Okay here we go, please bear with the reading, but you need the details to make a good decision.

 

After the ### signs please read the email that I wrote to the GC person who did not approve. Then I will return after the ### signs again to write more to you here.

 

##########################

 

To: GC.com WestCoastAdmin

 

In regards to submitted cache: GCMVXQ

 

I am confused.

 

Why wasn't my cache approved and posted?

 

Can you please respond to my questions (found between the ***), and

enlighten me. I would like to be educated and learn so that I can make

better decisions as I attempt to place my caches.

 

On 2/21 you stated:

 

-------------

 

Log Date: 2/21/2005

Greetings. While I did not think this submission qualified under the

current guidelines for virtual caches, I felt that it had enough merit

to

warrant additional opinions.

 

As such, I submitted it to the other volunteer cache reviewers for

their opinions. Unfortunately, they also voted against listing it.

 

Have you considered making this into an offset or puzzle cache with the

final stage off of the military property? This seems like a good

candidate for this type of cache.

 

Thank you for your understanding and contribution to geocaching!

 

Best regards,

WestCoastAdmin

 

----------

 

***Why do you believe that it doesn't qualify as a Virtual Cache?***

 

I have read the qualifiers and quidelines regarding Virtual Caches. My

cache clearly fits every requirement.

 

1) That the cache is a unique physical object: It is.

 

2) That is is of novel interest: It is. Please note the following web

sites. It is clearly "coffee table" material.

http://www.nps.gov/cabr/lighthouse.html

http://lighthousegetaway.com/lights/ptloma.html

http://www.letsgoseeit.com/index/county/sd.../lighthouse.htm

 

3) That there are questions about the location: I asked several

questions about the location.

 

4) "An original photo is acceptable" (does not apply to my

requirements)

 

You were vague in your reasons why you didn't post this cache.

 

***Can you please clearly state why, if this is indeed the reason, it

does not qualify as a virtual cache?***

 

***What reasons did the other volunteers give as to why this cache was

denied?***

 

In another section of your comments you stated: "Have you considered

making this into an offset or puzzle cache with the

final stage off of the military property?"

 

***Is this your reason for denying this cache?***

 

This is not on a military base. It may be on military owned land, but

the property is on National Park Service Land. On any given weekend,

hundreds if not thousands of visitors and tourists arrive here by car

and

tour bus to visit the lighthouse and the nearby Cabrillo National

Monument.

 

Finally: Another nearby virual cache (GCH7FY) was approved on 11/2003

that is similar to mine.

 

***Can you please explain why this cache was approved and mine was

not?***

 

Again, I would appreciate it if you would respond to this inquiry and

my specific questions (between the ***). I look forward to your

illumination of this subject.

 

Thank you

 

iTrax

 

#####################################

 

Okay I'm back. He responded with this

 

##################################

 

To: iTrax

 

Hello. In response to your questions...

 

I did not feel that your virtual met the guidelines for virtual caches.

It did not "wow" me, as lighthouses are a very common sight along the

coast.

 

It does not require a GPS to find, just a road map. The verification

questions forced a cache hider to print out pages to comply, although

many cachers are paperless and would not have the photos necessary. In

addition, this section of the guidelines applies as well:

 

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.

 

It is apparent to me that without being in the confines of the

restricted boundaries, this could easily be a offset or multi-cache. I

suggested as much to you in the reviewer note.

 

In view of the above, I still submitted this cache for review by all of

the other reviewer. The poll results were the same as my original view.

 

There has been one virtual cache approved since June of 2004 in So Cal,

below 37 degrees. Any caches approved prior to your submission have no

bearing whatsoever on current submissions. From the guidelines:

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for

placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and

of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache.

If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you

are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to

the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to

be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is.

 

Currently gc.com is working on a solution for virtual caches.

hopefully, this will occur soon.

 

Best regards,

WCA

 

###################################

 

Okay, back again.

 

I'm more than willing to add more words below the pictures to make it easier for people who have gone paperless as he states.

 

I didn't want to make it an offset or multi-cache. I've done several of those, and the purpose of this one WAS the actual lighthouse.

 

Whew! I know that was a lot of reading. I truly appreciate your help with this process to decide if this cache should be posted or archived.

 

I know that the volunteers at GC.com are hard workers (and volunteers after all!) and I appreciate all their work. I would appreciate your honest opinions and feedback here as we go through this process.

 

Thanks!

 

iTrax

Link to comment
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?"

 

Well?

I can't place a micro there. It's on National Park Service land. If it was a multicache, I would have to send them much farther away from the lighthouse.

Link to comment
I didn't want to make it an offset or multi-cache. I've done several of those, ...

That's still no reason why this one has to be a virtual.

 

btw. of all the 35 virtuals I've found only one would be approved today: Top of Jakarta - There's no way at all to place a secure cache within 2 km in such an overcrowded city.

Link to comment

1. The lighthouse is in the Cabrillo National Monument land administered by the National Park Service.

 

2. National Parks do not allow real geocaches. Soon, according to a Ranger I talked to, you will need to pay to get into any part of the park, and not just into the lighthouse area. So, it requires some sacrifice (monetary) to obtain the cache.

 

3. The area north of the Park is a military base with a National Cemetery not far north of the border.

 

4. The lighthouse and Cabrillo National Monument are landmarks that are more than worthy of a virtual cache.

 

5. There are and have been real caches just outside the park, but in these post 9/11 days, I always feel like the MPs are going to drive up and detain me for walking around with a GPSr and looking suspicious.

 

6. The distance from the lighthouse to the area north of the military base is quite a long way. You could make a real, final cache to get on the way out of the area, however. It's just pretty far from the starting point.

 

Parsa

Link to comment
Interesting. Why would the others not be approved today?

Because the answer to this question

 

Why couldn't a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?

 

would be "I dunno - there could be placed a micro at the place or near to it."

Link to comment

I think you should make a puzzle cache out of it. Make it a puzzle that you have to be there to solve. Some examples from CNY:

 

GCK773 An Unfinished Life

GCDC4E Prison City Puzzler

 

Who cares if the physical location of the final stage is far away from the lighthouse? Even if it's miles away to get off government property. Just find a good spot and hide a nice ammo can full of toy lighthouses.

 

Here's a great idea: If possible, hide the physical cache in a location where you can see the lighthouse from a distance!

Link to comment

I remember having a little trouble getting my Point Loma Lights virtual, GCH7FY, approved at the time I submitted it. The approval of virtuals had started to decline then, but not the de facto moratorium which is in place now. I persuaded the approver that the cache brought people to notice something they had not noticed before, and indeed some local finders have specifically mentioned their surprise in their logs for it.

 

Nowadays though, it has to be something pretty amazing for a virtual to get approved. And since everyone coming to Point Loma will have to drive back the same way (North), making a second location for a physical cache won't put people out too badly, as long as you can find a nice spot for it.

Can you re-jig the information required from the lighthouse to make a set of coords for somewhere nearby? That way people would still visit and enjoy the lighthouse, and then get somewhere to log and trade items.

Edited by Dr. Boggis
Link to comment

Hi,

 

my read of the guidelines doesn't find anything preventing this virtual given the wording of the guidelines...it seems to meet the criteria

 

regarding the "could you do an offset?"...yes, but the guidelines just say "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."

 

it seems that the placer of the virtual has given consideration, and feels that the virtual makes sense as is, not with an offset to a non-related spot a couple of miles away.

 

also...they're just guidelines ;)

 

nfa-jamie

Link to comment

See, now in my opinion, this is a perfect example of why people say that there is a ban on Virtuals. To me, this seems to fit the guidlines just fine, more so than most virtual caches I've done (granted, those were approved BEFROE the tightened guidelines).

 

Its a very specific spot, with historical signifigance. To me, it does have the mythical "WOW" factor. Obviously, it is in a spot that cannot have a regular cache, and while it could be made into a multi, it sounds to me like the "physical" legs of the multi would have to be quite a distance away, taking away from the whole reason for placing a cache there at all.

 

To me, I would like to see one of two things happen. Either approve virts like this that meet the supposed guidelines, or actually ban them until the new solution for virts and locationless caches is available. (huh, kinda like they did for locationless caches). It seems like the second would clear up a whole lot of questions, whining, headaches, whatever.

Link to comment
Here's a great idea: If possible, hide the physical cache in a location where you can see the lighthouse from a distance!

 

It's actually hard to see unless you're in the bay or on another military base to the east. This area of San Diego has a jillion bases (and former bases) of every kind. The Point was the entrance to strategic San Diego harbor, so except for the small area around the lighthouse, it's all military. Even the tip area south of the National Monument is Coast Guard.

 

Topo Map

 

Parsa

Link to comment

;) There is a moritorium in effect on ALL Virtuals and it's been this way for almost a year. Groundspeak is going to create a special section dedicated to virtual caches, and when that happens contact the approver and have them unarchive the cache.

 

BTW I did read your post, and you could very easily make this into an actual cache. Simply use the information from the pictures around the lighthouse to create coordinates to the actual cache container.

Edited by The_Brownies
Link to comment
Are *any* caches (virts included) allowed on NPS lands?

They are allowed. There is however some debate on whether or not they should be subject to NPS approval. I've been told by GC.com that landowner approval is a moot point on a virtual on the other hand I've seen where NPS has requested to review the locations of virtuals to check they are in areas where they allow public access.

 

I don't know the final GC.com resolution.

Link to comment
See, now in my opinion, this is a perfect example of why people say that there is a ban on Virtuals. To me, this seems to fit the guidlines just fine, more so than most virtual caches I've done (granted, those were approved BEFROE the tightened guidelines).

 

Its a very specific spot, with historical signifigance. To me, it does have the mythical "WOW" factor. Obviously, it is in a spot that cannot have a regular cache, and while it could be made into a multi, it sounds to me like the "physical" legs of the multi would have to be quite a distance away, taking away from the whole reason for placing a cache there at all.

 

To me, I would like to see one of two things happen. Either approve virts like this that meet the supposed guidelines, or actually ban them until the new solution for virts and locationless caches is available. (huh, kinda like they did for locationless caches). It seems like the second would clear up a whole lot of questions, whining, headaches, whatever.

I agree wholeheartedly. The way it stands right now is confusing people for no reason.

Link to comment

;) Hmm.. makes me wonder what GS means by this then?

 

Locationless Caches

 

There is currently a moratorium on locationless caches. No caches will be posted until functionality is available to better serve this unique category.

 

Cache Guidlines

 

Exisitng virtuals are ok. Just the new ones are not being approved.

Edited by The_Brownies
Link to comment

Here is the deal with your virtual.

 

1) If you read the guidelins then you know the examples of what doesn't make a virtual pretty much covers everything.

 

2) Your approver already took it to the approver forum for further discussion where it was shot down by other approvers. That they took it there at all means they were probably leaning toards approval but wasn't quite sure they could defend that approval.

 

3) Becuse of #2, a forum review will most likely not result in approval.

 

4) From what I've seen in this thread it sounds like a good candidate for a virtual cache.

 

5) You have been told how to get a cache in that area approved on GC.com. You need to be willing to change the focus of your cache from the location itself to haveing the location being a stepping stone to the solution of the final destination of another type of cache. That will change your cache experience from what sounds like a good virtual to an ok multi.

 

6) If your goals for this cache are not met by changing the cache you now face a decision. List it elsewhere, where you will get many less finders, but could list it as a virtual. Or list it here and toe the line. You will get more finders, just not as you originally intended.

Link to comment

Ok, first off... virtuals CAN be and do get approved. They must meet the guidelines. Cases in point:

 

San Xavier del Bac (Tucson, AZ) approved October 2004:

San Xavier del Bac

 

Indian Ridge Arch (Yosemite, CA) approved December 2004:

Indian Ridge Arch

 

They are obviously more difficult to get approved then they used to be.

 

Regarding Point Loma : It is very close to an existing active military installation. I was actually stopped and questioned by MP's when I was doing the Resting Soldiers geocache there last summer, so I can understand the reluctance to add caches in that area.

Link to comment

I'd like to commend iTrax and Foxtail for maintaining a positive discussion and attitude. I think you will not alter the decision. Please understand that the reviewers are trying to maintain policy, made necessary by past cache placements. I wish to support them in this, even when it has gone against our caching team...and it has.

Edited by Robespierre
Link to comment

I admit that I didn't read the whole thread, I went to a meeting and just couldn't bring myself to it when I got back.

 

That being said, my opinion is that this one should be approved. No traditional caches can be placed within a few miles of it, so a multi is out, in my opinion.

 

Follow up with your approver with the info that Parsa posted showing that no regular caches can be placed within a reasonable distance. See what happens.

 

Also, I'd like to thank the OP for calmly expressing himself both with the approver and in this thread.

Link to comment

This virtual sounds like a lot more fun than many other virtuals (and countless micros) I've found.

 

That said, I remain unconvinced that you couldn't use the information you'd need to gather to claim credit for the virtual as part of a multi-cache. Even if the final cache is a few miles away, I'm sure you can still find a place to put one.

Link to comment
:D There is a moritorium in effect on ALL Virtuals and it's been this way for almost a year. Groundspeak is going to create a special section dedicated to virtual caches, and when that happens contact the approver and have them unarchive the cache.

There is *no* moratorium on virtual caches.

The moratorium is only for locationless caches.

 

Please read the guidelines.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#addvirt

Link to comment
If it was a multicache, I would have to send them much farther away from the lighthouse.

How much?

I'm guessing it would have to be about 3 miles away ...

NPS land. Three miles away for real cache. That's a bit much to make it into a multi or offset. I think you've got a good argument. You might still have some convincing to do on the "wow factor". Lighthouses are pretty common and most of them are "historic".

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Virtual caches focus on unusual and extraordinary objects.

 

What is so extraordinary about this lighthouse?

 

Old Point Loma Lighthouse

 

Old Point Loma Lighthouse - Cabrillo NM

 

Old Point Loma Lighthouse - Lighthouse getaway

 

Old Point Loma Lighthouse - LetsGoSeeIt

 

Old Point Loma Lighthouse - About.com

 

Etc. , etc.

I could give web links for many, many other lighthouses. By definition, that would make it not unique.

Link to comment

Okay, whats so great about the lighthouse? If you apply the same logic used to deny this cache, the other two listed above shouldn't have gotten approved either. One is an old church on an indian reservation. Okay, its a church. Millions of those out there, and it could've been a multi. The other, an arch in rock. Seen a ton of those out there. :D

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I think both of those are excelent examples of great Virtuals. They are in spots that a regular cache cannot be placed due to regulations, and have plenty of WOW factor, but no more than the one that was denied.

 

This is exactly what I was talking about. Either loosen up just a tad, or outright ban ALL until a new solution is figured out.

Edited by VegasCacheHounds
Link to comment
Either approve virts like this that meet the supposed guidelines, or actually ban them until the new solution for virts and locationless caches is available.

This was one of the reasons that I am contesting this. I spent a good deal of time planning this cache, driving out there, taking strategic photos, working on the pics in photoshop, etc. etc. If they had stated, and I had known that Virts were not going to be approved, I wouldn't have even begun scheming to produce one. From the guidelines posted on GC.com, I had assumed that it was still possible for me to get mine posted, this was misleading.

 

Another reason is that I genuinely believe that it fits the parameters of the current definition of a virtual cache.

 

Also, I've always enjoyed a good, intelligent debate. It keeps you on your toes, really makes you think about what's right and wrong. I don't think we should accept conditions "just because". We need to have some convictions about what we believe. This is after all a "process". According the GC.com site, this is what I am SUPPPOSED to do to appeal a decision. You are part of the process. Your opinions matter.

 

Thanks for all your honest comments and opinions! Keep 'em coming.

 

Respectfully

 

iTrax

Edited by iTrax and FoxTail
Link to comment
Lighthouses are pretty common and most of them are "historic".

That is the key, and that is why to me this would fail as a virtual cache.

 

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/lighthouse/

Seems to me from reading the original post that 1. This lacks the WOW factor (too common an object) 2. A GPS is not required to find this and complete the questions (pointless for this site) - maybe just needs re-worded to "mask" the destination and clues 3. There is some problem with the requiremnts you outlined (something about pictures). 4. I generally trust the approvers' judgement

 

So - I vote no approval - at least without some modification.

Link to comment

If I'm not mistaken, Jeremy recently mentioned that a solution for virtuals and locationless caches was in the works. I took that to mean that it's actually being worked on and will be ready sooner rather than later. Recently, if he's mentioned something, he puts it on the website within a reasonable amount of time. (I know many will say a solution for locationless has been on the way for a long time - it seems it's actually being programmed).

 

Here's a link to a post I made in a now locked thread.

 

In that thread (and you can look through it and find these posts), Jeremy states:

 

We are actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches. But they will be a different animal, and IMO with more appropriate tools to manage them.

and

 

I think, ultimately, there are three points:

 

1. Virtuals have a right to exist.

2. Geocaching.com was not designed for virtual (or locationless) caches.

3. There is a solution in the works which will improve functionality around virtual (and locationless) caches.

 

The solution is pretty close but from past experience I do not make deadlines anymore. We're just too small for that.

 

I think the debate is pretty pointless when this information is considered. A little patience is all that is required.

 

Incidentally - I think the SUBJECTIVE rules in place are terrible. I look forward to a new way of doing things.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

Just to fan the flames:

 

This is a quote from the guidelines on gc.com.

 

"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. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples."

 

So I found this link:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

 

:D

Edited by iTrax and FoxTail
Link to comment

I've been to enough Virtual Caches that lack the 'Wow' factor to say "Nope, not good enough." A lighthouse is a lighthouse. While I have travelled over five miles on a multi, I'd say that three miles is not that far.

However, consider this Behind Every Great Woman... as an excellent way to turn a possible virtual into a Mystery Cache. Glorious views of the Statue of Liberty, but there's a lot more to it than that.

Link to comment

My hat is off to the OP and all posters for keeping this such a civil debate.

 

I agree with South Deltan on this one....while I think it is a worthwhile virtual, and I think it does meet the current guidelines, it would be better to wait for the new virtual section to become reality.

 

I for one am looking forward to that, as I enjoy doing virtuals that are related to the history of an area.

Link to comment

This is just another lighthouse. Thousands of them all over the place. All of them have history behind them, but they're everywhere. This is neither unique nor has any kind of "Wow" factor to it.

 

You can nitpik the guidelines all you want, but this one ain't gonna fly.

Link to comment

i think you should make it a puzzle cache too. you can have them goto the lighthouse at some designated coord and have them figure out why it isnt a virtual cache? i think it is a great idea. you can delete any logs that dont agree that this should be a virtual. i am all for getting this one placed. personally any cache that takes me to some place i have never been is nice. making this a virt just plays by the rules.

Link to comment
However, consider this Behind Every Great Woman... as an excellent way to turn a possible virtual into a Mystery Cache.  Glorious views of the Statue of Liberty, but there's a lot more to it than that.

Maybe I'm missing something...but that still seems to be a virtual cache to me.

I don't think you're missing anything - a virtual by any other name...

 

I also notice it was approved in 2002, before the tightening of the rules for virtuals (June 2004), so I don't think it's a solution here.

Edited by Kai Team
Link to comment

I don't understand why this is an issue.

 

Why not use about 10% of the time and energy already expended on this one thread (which I have seen now in one form or another about 6 times) and just make a mystery cache.

 

Send the folks to your historic place, ask a question that requires them to really read the information (just like a virtual!) and then have a micro or full size cache somewhere that is just a short walk away.

 

Why is this such a big deal?

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