Jump to content

My Virtual Cache Was Archived ...


Recommended Posts

As I stated in another thread:

 

In my book it all boils down to this.

 

Geocaching.com is not a democracy. TPTB have set these guidelines and, if we want to play in their sandbox, we have to comply. At any time, any of us can pack up and go elsewhere if we don't like how things are done here.

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.

As I said, it is more than a Virtual. One of the answers is NOT at that location. One has to do a bit of searching to find it. Though there is no actual container, it does qualify as a Mystery Cache, at least to me.

The same sort of thing could be done with the lighthouse.

That's a virtual, but it was listed in 2002 prior to the crackdown.

Link to comment

(Assuming you don't just place an unsanctioned micro or list it on another site - remember it's your cache and your game - this is just a place to list them)

 

Perfect, encourage people to place caches where there shouldn't be and get caching banned in even more areas. I'd go with this choice. :ph34r:

Link to comment

BUT, am I convinced that you couldn't make a multi-cache out of it?  Nope.

 

I DO believe pointing out this particular lighthouse is worthwhile.  It's far better than any number of parking lots I've gotten to see.  However, I'm not convinced there is no option other than a virtual.

You make a good point here, and in all actuality, if this cache is not approved as a virtual, the I'll re-post as an off-set, or hide a micro as part of a multi somewhere outside the park "on the way back".

Isn't this admission sort of the end of the inquiry? Why are we wasting our time?

Link to comment
As I stated in another thread:

 

In my book it all boils down to this.

 

Geocaching.com is not a democracy. TPTB have set these guidelines and, if we want to play in their sandbox, we have to comply. At any time, any of us can pack up and go elsewhere if we don't like how things are done here.

Thats fine, I'll abide by any rule that GC comes up with, up until the point that the game no longer is fun, then I'll find something else to do.

My beef with this is that they have their guidelines, but they aren't clear enough, and way to fuzzy to be useful. It seems to me that most people agree that given the way the current guidelines a written, this cache should be approved. Now, if GC.com doesn't what to list it, fine, but re-write the guidelines to show what will pass. I'm sure most cachers would gladly comply with their guidelines if they knew exactly what they meant. In fact, I believe the OP was following the guidelines as they are stated to the best of his abilities.

Or, as I've said a few times now (and a bunch of others have said) ban virtuals outright. That outta kill this problem.

Link to comment
Now, if GC.com doesn't what to list it, fine, but re-write the guidelines to show what will pass. I'm sure most cachers would gladly comply with their guidelines if they knew exactly what they meant.

I'm confident GC.com is working on addressing the virtual issue, so rewriting the guidelines at this point probably doesn't make much sense.

 

I think we should just wait to see what they come up with, and then pour or energy and emotions into the inevitable debates (pro and con) which follow the release of that feature.

Link to comment

Even though they haven't officially done so, It probably makes sense to treat virtuals as if theyve been banned like locationless caches. Regardless of how awesome it is, I wouldn't even bother trying to get it approved.

Link to comment
I think that the cache is too dependant on photos. (Look! A new whine!) It wouldn't work for many paperless cachers who don't download the pictures before heading to a cache area.

As for yes/no on the virt.... NO. Aren't there already 3 virtuals within 1 mile of the location? From the faked page I can look at the GC.com maps and see 4 caches, one within 94 ft, and the others at 0.2, 0.2 and 1.2 miles. Maybe the coords are wrong on the faked page but still... 3 virts in the area already! Folks will be there exploring and unless they are totally blind I'm certain they will see the lighthouse. And those who would go to the lighthouse will probably go, and those who have no interests in lighthouses will not bother.

Virt#1- Homeland Defense #1

Virt#2- Point Loma Lights

Virt #3- Leapin' lizards

Traditional cache 1.2 miles away- Resting Soldiers

Again- a multi step wouldn't hurt, or post it on another site more open to virtuals, or rethink WHY you would even want to bother with placing a cache anyway. Not all cachers must place caches, and not all areas need a bunch of virtual caches. Maybe work with the other virtual owners in the area and ask them to add a question bringing folks to the lighthouse as a possibility.

-J

You make a good point here.

What I noticed because of your point is that it appears the homeland defense cache which is a multi-virtual starting .1 mile away seems to take you to the same target as the OP's new virtual. Looking at that caches gallery, most of the pictures are of the lighthouse. Many of the logs on that cache mention the lkighthouse. Why do we need TWO virtuals for essentually the same place?

Link to comment

From what I have been told by a person who is a vol. reviewer is that virtuals are becoming a lot harder to have approved due to the whole terroist issue. Now what they do not tell you is that you can file for an appeal, which means other reviewers will read over your cache and either overrule the person or agree with them. Then if that does not work you can post them into the forums.

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.

As I said, it is more than a Virtual. One of the answers is NOT at that location. One has to do a bit of searching to find it. Though there is no actual container, it does qualify as a Mystery Cache, at least to me.

The same sort of thing could be done with the lighthouse.

That makes no sense. If there is no container, it is a virtual. Calling a virtual a mystery won't make any difference in getting it approved.

Link to comment

BUT, am I convinced that you couldn't make a multi-cache out of it?  Nope.

 

I DO believe pointing out this particular lighthouse is worthwhile.  It's far better than any number of parking lots I've gotten to see.  However, I'm not convinced there is no option other than a virtual.

You make a good point here, and in all actuality, if this cache is not approved as a virtual, the I'll re-post as an off-set, or hide a micro as part of a multi somewhere outside the park "on the way back".

Isn't this admission sort of the end of the inquiry? Why are we wasting our time?

It is your choice on how you want to spend your time.

 

The answer to your question can be found in the part of my comment which you omitted when you quoted me.

Link to comment

I read the rest of your post, which was to the effect that you wanted to submit it as a virtual. But part of the test for virtuals is whether a physical cache or multicache can be placed nearby. Now you're saying that if it isn't listed as a virtual, this is exactly what you plan on doing. That seems to me to be an admission that it ought not be listed as a virtual.

 

I think the test should be whether a multicache or puzzle could "reasonably" be constructed to end in an area outside the restricted NPS property. If a virt-worthy subject 8 miles deep inside Yellowstone National Park were submitted, it would IMHO not be appropriate to require that it be turned into a multicache ending ten miles away, outside the park. But in this case, you have to drive out the way you came in on the peninsula road anyways, and you're then back into the land of caches aplenty. There's no pointless extra fuss involved. If the final cache site had yet another element of history to it, so much the better. But then again, I love multicaches.

Link to comment
I think that the cache is too dependant on photos.  (Look!  A new whine!)  It wouldn't work for many paperless cachers who don't download the pictures before heading to a cache area. 

As for yes/no on the virt.... NO.  Aren't there already 3 virtuals within 1 mile of the location?  From the faked page I can look at the GC.com maps and see 4 caches, one within 94 ft, and the others at 0.2, 0.2 and 1.2 miles.  Maybe the coords are wrong on the faked page but still... 3 virts in the area already!  Folks will be there exploring and unless they are totally blind I'm certain they will see the lighthouse.  And those who would go to the lighthouse will probably go, and those who have no interests in lighthouses will not bother.

Virt#1- Homeland Defense #1

Virt#2- Point Loma Lights

Virt #3- Leapin' lizards

Traditional cache 1.2 miles away- Resting Soldiers

Again- a multi step wouldn't hurt, or post it on another site more open to virtuals, or rethink WHY you would even want to bother with placing a cache anyway.  Not all cachers must place caches, and not all areas need a bunch of virtual caches.  Maybe work with the other virtual owners in the area and ask them to add a question bringing folks to the lighthouse as a possibility.

-J

You make a good point here.

What I noticed because of your point is that it appears the homeland defense cache which is a multi-virtual starting .1 mile away seems to take you to the same target as the OP's new virtual. Looking at that caches gallery, most of the pictures are of the lighthouse. Many of the logs on that cache mention the lkighthouse. Why do we need TWO virtuals for essentually the same place?

I was wondering if anyone would notice that. :ph34r:

Also note- there is a traditional cache within 1.2 miles, NOT 3 miles. So theoretically there may be space in the same area for this caches endpoint as well.

But again I ask- why two virts taking you to essentially the same place?

-J

Link to comment

Thanks again for your comments / perspectives.

 

I have sent this email to the gc.com appeals admin:

 

 

Geocaching admin,

 

In regards to proposed cache: GC...

 

I have proposed a cache that has been denied and archived.

 

I believe it should be posted as proposed, (virtual cache) and would like to appeal the decision made by my local approver.

 

I have followed your process within your Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines under the section entitled “If your cache has been placed on hold, temporarily disabled or archived…” I have communicated with the local approver.

 

I have recently posted a topic on the Forum “Geocaching Topics”. There have been over 100 replies from individuals at this time. Here is a link to that Forum Topic:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=92405

 

There have been some very good, insightful replies for and against the approval of this cache. As I stated in the forum, I will humbly respect your final decision regarding this appeal.

 

I would like to bring some items to your attention:

 

The process you have outlined on how to appeal is reasonable to me. I wanted to state that I appreciate the efforts of the preliminary screening by local volunteers. These must be some very dedicated, hard working volunteers if they are expected to screen and scrutinize every cache that passes by them. I can only imagine the amount and variability of caches that the must evaluate.

 

I would also encourage you to read every post (again slightly over 100) in this forum topic. There are some very well thought-out comments by some insightful individuals. In particular, several people commented that they believed that my proposed cache meets the “current guidelines” as written on the gc.com website. Several people felt that the current written guidelines need to be changed on the website in order to reflect the current philosophy regarding virtual caches if they are truly no longer being approved.

 

I understand that you may be revising a strategy on how we are to do virtual caches, but until that time, leaving the written guidelines for virtual caches as they are now expressed may cause many people to still attempt to post them and result in confusion, agitation, and disappointment when they are not approved. It may result in a “waste of time”, energy and attention that could have been avoided.

 

Please let me know what your decision is regarding this proposal.

 

Thank you for your time and attention to this subject.

 

iTrax

Edited by iTrax and FoxTail
Link to comment
I think that the cache is too dependant on photos.  (Look!  A new whine!)  It wouldn't work for many paperless cachers who don't download the pictures before heading to a cache area. 

As for yes/no on the virt.... NO.  Aren't there already 3 virtuals within 1 mile of the location?  From the faked page I can look at the GC.com maps and see 4 caches, one within 94 ft, and the others at 0.2, 0.2 and 1.2 miles.  Maybe the coords are wrong on the faked page but still... 3 virts in the area already!  Folks will be there exploring and unless they are totally blind I'm certain they will see the lighthouse.  And those who would go to the lighthouse will probably go, and those who have no interests in lighthouses will not bother.

Virt#1- Homeland Defense #1

Virt#2- Point Loma Lights

Virt #3- Leapin' lizards

Traditional cache 1.2 miles away- Resting Soldiers

Again- a multi step wouldn't hurt, or post it on another site more open to virtuals, or rethink WHY you would even want to bother with placing a cache anyway.  Not all cachers must place caches, and not all areas need a bunch of virtual caches.  Maybe work with the other virtual owners in the area and ask them to add a question bringing folks to the lighthouse as a possibility.

-J

You make a good point here.

What I noticed because of your point is that it appears the homeland defense cache which is a multi-virtual starting .1 mile away seems to take you to the same target as the OP's new virtual. Looking at that caches gallery, most of the pictures are of the lighthouse. Many of the logs on that cache mention the lkighthouse. Why do we need TWO virtuals for essentually the same place?

I was wondering if anyone would notice that. :ph34r:

Also note- there is a traditional cache within 1.2 miles, NOT 3 miles. So theoretically there may be space in the same area for this caches endpoint as well.

But again I ask- why two virts taking you to essentially the same place?

-J

I surveyed the area prior to creating this cache proposal. The closest cache (a virtual) was .2 miles away. Not 94 ft.

 

I read the guildelines regarding cache saturation on the gc.com website and mine met the guidelines.

 

Since the volunteer approver did not state that (saturation) as a reason for denying my proposal, what was therefore in question was whether or not my proposal met the current posted guidelines of a Virtual Cache or not.

 

I believe it does.

Edited by iTrax and FoxTail
Link to comment

Well you see, first they tell you it doesn't fit the virtual requirements. THEN, after you try your hardest to make it work, they will WHANG you with the saturation requirement. It doesn't even get mentioned unless you get beyond the virt stuff. :ph34r: But my numbers are probably wrong.

Good luck!

(When you search for nearest caches from your coords, how far is the Homeland Defense #1 multi? I'm asking because when I looked at the maps they said 94 ft- but that may have been from where I clicked to Identify the caches, not from your cache coords.)

-J

Link to comment
I think that the cache is too dependant on photos.  (Look!  A new whine!)  It wouldn't work for many paperless cachers who don't download the pictures before heading to a cache area. 

As for yes/no on the virt.... NO.  Aren't there already 3 virtuals within 1 mile of the location?  From the faked page I can look at the GC.com maps and see 4 caches, one within 94 ft, and the others at 0.2, 0.2 and 1.2 miles.  Maybe the coords are wrong on the faked page but still... 3 virts in the area already!  Folks will be there exploring and unless they are totally blind I'm certain they will see the lighthouse.  And those who would go to the lighthouse will probably go, and those who have no interests in lighthouses will not bother.

Virt#1- Homeland Defense #1

Virt#2- Point Loma Lights

Virt #3- Leapin' lizards

Traditional cache 1.2 miles away- Resting Soldiers

Again- a multi step wouldn't hurt, or post it on another site more open to virtuals, or rethink WHY you would even want to bother with placing a cache anyway.  Not all cachers must place caches, and not all areas need a bunch of virtual caches.  Maybe work with the other virtual owners in the area and ask them to add a question bringing folks to the lighthouse as a possibility.

-J

You make a good point here.

What I noticed because of your point is that it appears the homeland defense cache which is a multi-virtual starting .1 mile away seems to take you to the same target as the OP's new virtual. Looking at that caches gallery, most of the pictures are of the lighthouse. Many of the logs on that cache mention the lkighthouse. Why do we need TWO virtuals for essentually the same place?

I was wondering if anyone would notice that. :ph34r:

Also note- there is a traditional cache within 1.2 miles, NOT 3 miles. So theoretically there may be space in the same area for this caches endpoint as well.

But again I ask- why two virts taking you to essentially the same place?

-J

I surveyed the area prior to creating this cache proposal. The closest cache (a virtual) was .2 miles away. Not 94 ft.

 

I read the guildelines regarding cache saturation on the gc.com website and mine met the guidelines.

 

Since the volunteer approver did not state that (saturation) as a reason for denying my proposal, what was therefore in question was whether or not my proposal met the current posted guidelines of a Virtual Cache or not.

 

I believe it does.

I don't think they even looked as far as saturation.

You still haven't addressed the other cache in the area. It's a mult-stage virtual cache called Homeland defense #1 - Archie's Place. I don't see a log from you on it, so perhaps you didn't do it while you were in the area?

Since it's a multi, where it starts isn't where it takes you to.

Here's the pic of your virtual you posted on your mock up cache page:

 

28bbad5a-18ce-49a2-a422-ae396dfbc60d.jpg

 

Now, here's some pics from that multi-cache:

37503_300.jpg

 

17089777-05cc-49fa-9c57-a84207dee25d.jpg

 

Look familiar?

 

From reading the logs on that other cache, I get the impression the multicache takes you on a whole tour of the area, to and past various interesting points; including the lighthouse. Sounds like the lighthouse already IS a virtual, just not as obvious from the cache page as yours is.

 

Some logs from the existing virtual:

  • This was a very nice tour of the area. Too bad the lighthouse is under construction right now."
  • Enjoyed the walk up around the old lighthouse. Although there is plenty of construction going on, there was no problem getting to the waypoints.
  • Had an interesting time seeing the exhibits and walking the trails. Note: The area around the lighthouse is under construction, but you can still do the cache.
  • this cache was a great way to make the stroll around the National Monument more structured.
  • Beautiful day, light crowds (although the lighthouse is currently closed for renovations).
  • They are nicely refurbing the lighthouse area and landscaping.
  • Have been to the lighthouse before, but missed this bit of history.
  • Lovely weather at the lighthouse today and a gorgeous day for walking TeamVW about the monument.

So why do we need 2 virtuals for the same object, especially when the existing one seems better then the new one?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Here's the pic of your virtual you posted on your mock up cache page:

 

28bbad5a-18ce-49a2-a422-ae396dfbc60d.jpg

 

37503_300.jpg

 

Look familiar?

Yes! It' almost looks like the classy black and white picture that I posted, except that the BW version has a lot more "wow" factor to it! :ph34r:

 

...

 

...

 

What was your point again? Was it that my proposed cache doesn't qualify under the current guidelines for a Virtual Cache? Or was it something irrelevant to reasons why my proposal was denied?

Edited by iTrax and FoxTail
Link to comment
Yes! It' almost looks like the classy black and white picture that I posted, except that the BW version has a lot more "wow" factor to it!  :ph34r:

 

...

 

...

 

What was you point again? That my proposed cache doesn't qualify under the current guidelines for a Virtual Cache?

No, my point is the lighthouse already is a virtual!

Seems like you missed that fact since it's a multi cache the posted coords arent actually of the lighthouse itself. The reviewer probably missed that as well.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I do think you got it now! YOUR proposed virtual cache does not qualify UNDER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES as a virtual cache.

In addition, if you didn't even bother doing any of the other caches nearby while planning YOUR cache, how can you even think it would be allowed at all.

At least go do the caches nearby. If you are going to place a cache in this park, shouldn't you have done as much research as possible on possible constraints? Steps to a multi are a constraint!

And THEN explain WHY we need TWO virtual caches in the same area?

-J

Link to comment
I do think you got it now!  YOUR proposed virtual cache does not qualify UNDER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES as a virtual cache.

In addition, if you didn't even bother doing any of the other caches nearby while planning YOUR cache, how can you even think it would be allowed at all. 

At least go do the caches nearby.  If you are going to place a cache in this park, shouldn't you have done as much research as possible on possible constraints?  Steps to a multi are a constraint!

And THEN explain WHY we need TWO virtual caches in the same area?

-J

If my proposal for a virtual is the same as an already existing virtual, then I agree, it should not be allowed on top of the other. Point taken.

Edited by iTrax and FoxTail
Link to comment
You may want to write Groundspeak again and close this topic then.

Fair enough, I'll do that.

 

Thanks again for the time, effort and help here. A healthy worthwhile discussion, in my humble opinion!!!

 

One thing is for certain ... I won't be proposing another virtual cache until they revise the rules and / or method of posting a virtual cache. ...

 

...

 

unless I find another lighthouse ...

 

B)B):ph34r:

Link to comment

I already got a response from a GC admin:

 

Here is an excerpt from the email to me.

 

******************

 

Hi iTrax,

 

I have been following the virtual cache thread from the beginning. I

have

actually personally visited the location as well as many other

lighthouses. To qualify for a virutal cache a location should be

unique.

Lighthouses are not unique, they are common. There are more than 1,000

in

the US, and they are in more than 30 of 50 of the US states.

 

Groundspeak will be creating a new section on the site for both

Locationless and Virtual Caches. Until that time virtual caches are

still

listed, but are not common. We are activly working on a solution to

this

problem, but at this time it is not complete. We all look forward to

this

new section being activated on the site.

 

Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

 

Happy Geocaching!

 

*********************************

 

So there we have it. Alas my proposal for this virtual cache did not have the elusive / mythical "wow" factor.

 

Thank you, everyone, for your contribution, thoughts and perspectives!

Edited by iTrax and FoxTail
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...