My Virtual Cache Was Archived ...

[+The Leprechauns]

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.

Since folks are digging up old grandfathered virts, I'll dig up one of my favorite threads about virtuals from August of 2003, wherein these bookmarkable gems are found:

 

Re: Virtual Caches

 

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

 

Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+Kai Team]

The reviewers are following the current geocaching.com interpretation of the guidelines for virtuals. It's almost impossible to get virtuals approved at this time - a reviewer told me that as long as a micro, multi or offset could be used, a virtual could not be approved under the current interpretation of the guidelines.

 

Edit:: consistent with the quotes of Jeremy in the post above.

 

On the other hand, while I agree that there needed to be a tightening up on virtuals, this cache meets the guidelines as written, if not as interpreted, by gc.com.

 

So...I would vote for "no approval" if the guidelines are going to continue to be interpreted this way (out of fairness), but I'd really like to see the guidelines loosened up a bit (interpreted as written), in which case I would vote for approving this one under the guidelines as written.

 

If gc.com doesn't want to interpret the guidelines as written, the guidelines should be amended to come right out and directly say "as long as a micro, multi or offset could be used, a virtual will not be approved". Jeremy said it in the forums - why not say it bluntly in the guidelines? At least people won't spend time and effort creating a virtual only to have it turned down!

Edited March 2, 2005 by Kai Team

[+Kai Team]

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?

I guess you didn't read the entire thread before posting - the OP and others familiar with the area made it clear that there is no way to have a micro or full sized cache "just a short walk away", and simply calling a virtual a mystery cache (with no physical container) isn't going to get it approved!

[+hikemeister]

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?

I guess you didn't read the entire thread before posting - the OP and others familiar with the area made it clear that there is no way to have a micro or full sized cache "just a short walk away", and simply calling a virtual a mystery cache (with no physical container) isn't going to get it approved!

Good catch -- you are correct.

[AvsRule]

First, I feel your pain. ;-)

 

I scoped out a few nice vc’s in an area with no gc’s and at location where gc’s could not be placed. I wrote some (in my humble opinion) clever hints to make their finding a little less than totally simple and submitted them only to have them routinely denied.

 

In my opinion there is a place in the world for vc's. If done correctly they can be both challenging and informative. They open gc'n up to folks who perhaps can't go traipsing over hill and dale to find regular gc's and they let you take something home with you other than just a trinket and rocks in your shoes – a little new knowledge.

 

As a newcomer to gc’n there seems to be a bit of bias by the veterans against vc’s. I don’t have the experience to understand it, but respect the work done by those before me to get gc’n up to its current state, so I allow them their opinions.

 

Hopefully they will make some accommodation for vc’s on this site in the future that will allow them to exist, but not “bother” those who feel that they are not real gc’s.

 

If not and enough people want vc’s, have no fear, another site will eventually spring up that will allow vc’s. That would seem a shame given the excellent work done at geocaching.com, but gc’n sprang to life based simply on an idea and is an activity “of the people”. It is also defined by those who participate. If enough people become dissatisfied, there is nothing preventing vc’ers from recreating the process on their own.

[+Renegade Knight]

Virtual caches focus on unusual and extraordinary objects.

 

What is so extraordinary about this lighthouse?

It's relative.

 

I've been to exactly one in my life. Maybe if it was in Idaho it would be extraordinary? We sure don't seem to have many here. You all must be tripping over the dadgum things living closer to the coast.

 

Now I'm wondering if EBR-1 would qualify as a virt. Someone considered it special enough to break all the rules for historic places and listed it before it was old enough. All the other common historical places have to wait 50 years to be considered.

[+Team PodCacher]

I don't understand why this is an issue.

 

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?

I can't send them to a micro of full size cache within walking distance. It's on National Park Service Land. The nearest place I could place a "real" cache would be about 3 miles away.

[+Mopar]

If done correctly they can be both challenging and informative. They open gc'n up to folks who perhaps can't go traipsing over hill and dale to find regular gc's and they let you take something home with you other than just a trinket and rocks in your shoes – a little new knowledge.

And a physical cache can do all that, AND give you the added challenge of finding a geocache. And since this IS geocaching.com, actually finding a cache is what this site is all about.

 

As a newcomer to gc’n there seems to be a bit of bias by the veterans against vc’s.  I don’t have the experience to understand it, but respect the work done by those before me to get gc’n up to its current state, so I allow them their opinions.

It's not bias. It's called we've been around for unrestricted virtuals, and it wasn't pretty. Even more important, it was detrimental to the very existence of the game.

If not and enough people want vc’s, have no fear, another site will eventually spring up that will allow vc’s.  That would seem a shame given the excellent work done at geocaching.com, but gc’n sprang to life based simply on an idea and is an activity “of the people”.  It is also defined by those who participate.  If enough people become dissatisfied, there is nothing preventing vc’ers from recreating the process on their own.

If people REALLY want virtuals, they don't have to wait for another site to spring up. Take your pick: navicache.com, terracaching.com, waypoint.org, gpsgames.org and ecoscavenger.com all either allow virtuals or something essentially the same as virtuals.

If what you REALLY want to find are virtuals, there are plenty of other places to get them already.

Now, if in truth you really just want to increase your stats here on GC.com, you're gonna have to do it by their rules.

[+Alan2]

If virtuals are allowe anywhere, they should be allowed in NPA's and other areas that don't allow physical caches. Virtuals would open up some magnificient areas, scenic views, etc to cachers with no breaking of rules. WHy make these areas "off limits"?

[+The Leprechauns]

Why reward parks that ban geocaches by still setting up caches that brings visitors and revenues to their facilities? It will only encourage more land managers to do the same.

[AvsRule]

Yes Mopar I'm desperate to double my count to an even dozen.

 

Thanks for the other links. I checked them. While they are more vc friendly, they don't offer very many caches in my area.

 

So it looks like geocaching.com is currently the class act in cache sites and one must simply concentrate on gc's for now.

 

I hope that the PTB will eventually find a way to admit deserving vc's w/o diminishing the sport for those only interested in gc's.

 

Peace and Happy Hunting!!!

Edited March 2, 2005 by AvsRule

[+Nero]

My opinion is it should be approved.

 

there may be many lighthouses around the world/country/whatever, how many are in san diego? this is a great place to visit. you can also view the national cemetary and reflect on all those who have died in the service of our country.

 

it seems to me that gc.com is basically saying no and thats it, i feel this is pretty much waste of time, my experience with moderators/admins or whatever you want to call them here is that they have lots of excuses for not following the guidelines they are supose to enforce and thats about it.

 

but dont forget to send in your yearly $30..

[+HoPri]

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/

I just wonder a little why all those tourists come to this place (even with buses!) if it's just another one of those lighthouses.

 

I haven't been there, so I can't tell personally if it has a wow-factor. But when many people do travel to this particular lighthouse, that would somehow indicate that it has some significance over all those other lighthouses along the coasts of this world, wouldn't it?

 

Edit: Quote of tourists visiting the place:

 

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.

Edited March 2, 2005 by HoPri

[+º]

Now I agree with it should be approved:

 

- 3 miles isn't really close and definitely not "there"

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

 

- Like HoPri says. It has a wow-facor. Maybe the lighthouse itself isn't the wow-factor but the whole area together with the lighthouse and the monument is obviously worth visiting.

 

If this cache doesn't get approved as a virtual I'd like to know why the following sentence isn't part of the guideline "There is currently a moratorium on virtual caches."

To put it in other words: If there's still the option to submit a virtual then which one would be aprroved if not this one?

[CoyoteRed]

1 - When was the last time a virt was approved after the owner petitioned in the forums?

 

2 - I have two simple caches in the same small park. One is a traditional, the other is a very simple multi. The multi is so simple a local's 6 year old completed it. The traditional gets hit about twice as often as the multi even though you are right there. Single stage hunts are more likely to be visited.

 

3 - Given some of the reasons the OP's virt was denied no virtual should ever be approved.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Now I agree with it should be approved:

 

- 3 miles isn't really close and definitely not "there"

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

 

- Like HoPri says. It has a wow-facor. Maybe the lighthouse itself isn't the wow-factor but the whole area together with the lighthouse and the monument is obviously worth visiting.

 

If this cache doesn't get approved as a virtual I'd like to know why the following sentence isn't part of the guideline "There is currently a moratorium on virtual caches."

To put it in other words: If there's still the option to submit a virtual then which one would be aprroved if not this one?

Amen!

 

Once again, I see people arguing the whole "wow" factor. As I said before, does this have any less uniqueness or "wowness" than the two virt's listed earlier that have been approved since the new guidelines?

 

Shannon

[+Team PodCacher]

Once again, thanks for your comments, perspectives, and opinions. After some time, I will call to attention this thread to the approvers / gc.com admin. After viewing your comments, they will make a decision and I will respectfully honor that. So let your voices be heard one way or another!

 

Many thanks!

[+AtoZ]

"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."

 

The thing I find funny about this is in the GC.Com Guidlelines it says there is NO presidecne for caches so what has been done before does not dictate what is done now. This makes it hard as I have also found that if an approver just doesnt like the idea of a cache he doesn't have to approve and and really doesn't have to have a reason other then he just doesn't like the idea. Also that what the community thinks is of no regards. I mwan if we all want Locationless caches would GC.com feel obligated to reinstate them? Hummm it is just a weird statement.

 

Though it has been helpful to post here as it seems to get attention sometimes when an email to the approve has failed.

 

I wanted to place a virtual resently and an exeriance cacher in my area said to must make it a micro offset so I did and now I have a cache for the site.

 

cheers

[+Team GPSaxophone]

no virtual should ever be approved.

Now THAT I can agree with!

[+El Diablo]

Personally I don't care for virtual caches. However I think this one meets the guidelines best as I can tell. Seems that the biggest question about it so far has been the wow factor.

 

Doing a Google seach I learned that it was one of 8 original lighthouses built on the west coast and at that time it was the tallest in the world. Also it has enough wow factor that 1.2 million people visit each year.

 

El Diablo

[+Bull Moose]

  There is *no* moratorium on virtual caches.

Uh-huh.

That's like saying I'm a potential millionaire because I have tomorrows' lotto ticket in my pocket. Technically true but not really honest.

 

I wish GC.com would just declare "no new virts "

I think that would save a lot of hard feelings all around.

 

Edit: Quoted the wrong line!

Edited March 2, 2005 by Bull Moose

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Personally I don't care for virtual caches. However I think this one meets the guidelines best as I can tell. Seems that the biggest question about it so far has been the wow factor.

 

Doing a Google seach I learned that it was one of 8 original lighthouses built on the west coast and at that time it was the tallest in the world. Also it has enough wow factor that 1.2 million people visit each year.

 

El Diablo

It fails the GPS test though. You really don't need a GPS to find major tourist attractions like this. How does it relate to geocaching then?

[+Team PodCacher]

Personally I don't care for virtual caches. However I think this one meets the guidelines best as I can tell. Seems that the biggest question about it so far has been the wow factor.

 

Doing a Google seach I learned that it was one of 8 original lighthouses built on the west coast and at that time it was the tallest in the world. Also it has enough wow factor that 1.2 million people visit each year.

 

El Diablo

It fails the GPS test though. You really don't need a GPS to find major tourist attractions like this. How does it relate to geocaching then?

An interesting paradox then.

 

The cache must be a place that has a "wow" factor, yet be so obscure that you couldn't know about it or find it without a GPS ...

[FullOn]

An interesting paradox then.

 

The cache must be a place that has a "wow" factor, yet be so obscure that you couldn't know about it or find it without a GPS ...

Seems like it might be a paradox, but not really. A virtual cache should be a VERY rare thing that meets very stringent criteria. It should be a hidden gem that most people simply won't find unless there is a virtual cache there.

 

Disneyland gets more than 1.2 million visitors a year. It's a very unique place, has a lot of wow factor to it, you could probably argue that it even has some historical significance. How is it different than this other "tourist" attraction? (And all the existing virts inside D'land were approved before the new guidelines went into place, just in case anyone was wondering. )

[+SeventhSon]

El Diablo

It fails the GPS test though. You really don't need a GPS to find major tourist attractions like this. How does it relate to geocaching then?

I wasn't aware we were required to use a GPS to geocache.

[+Team Sand Dollar]

I would much perfer a virtual in a nice location to a lamp post micro. Done 10+ of these in the last couple week. Too many people are hung up on having to find the container. Most lamp poll micros take less that a minute to complete where a well designed virtual that is not a park and grab is much harder to find and complete.

 

I beleive the WOW factor is much to subjective a guide for allowing/disallowing virtuals. Virtual should rather be rated on wether they will bring a cacher out to a nice location they probally would not have gone in the first place.

 

That being said I don't want a virtual of every road site plaque. Have the virtual take me somewhere off the beaten path.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[+sbell111]

Why reward parks that ban geocaches by still setting up caches that brings visitors and revenues to their facilities? It will only encourage more land managers to do the same.

Interesting point. I've never thought about it that way. I always thought a virt would be better if a trad couldn't be approved because it brought geocachers there.

[+fly46]

Here's the thing. I see absolutely positively no reason for there to be a virt for this lighthouse.

 

Was it the first one in the United States? Was it the largest? Was it the longest active? Did it survive a terrorist attack? Was it once a brothel? Was it occupied by pirates?

 

No? You mean it's just a normal run of the mill every day variety light house?

 

Sorry but it looks like you can do a quick web search and find just about any Lighthouse (Ashtabula, Ohio's one and only) that you need to search for.

 

Even better, on that same site is this link: GPS and Lighthouses, so since they actively describe to you how to go out and search for them without using the geocaching website whatsoever (if you'll notice, there is no reference to the geocaching website whatsoever), I would say that you don't need to go listing lighthouses on here.

 

I vote NO for this.

 

If you really want to use it, have it be a stage of a multi.

[+DaveA]

I read the OP and most of the responses on page 1 and skimmed some on page 2.

 

I believe this cache should be approved without modification.

 

I would enjoy doing it and I like lighthouses. They all have a "Wow" factor to me. The whole "Wow" factor is so arbitrary it is meaningless. Some will love it, some will yawn, same for any cache.

 

Terracaching.com would approve this without a problem I suspect. You will probably get fewer finders, but if when the dust settles you can't list it here, you can do so over there.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Disneyland gets more than 1.2 million visitors a year. It's a very unique place, has a lot of wow factor to it, you could probably argue that it even has some historical significance. How is it different than this other "tourist" attraction?...

300 million/1.2 million = 250 years for every American to see it.

 

Even at those croweded odds, not everyone who should see it could before they kick off. A virtual may move it up their priority list.

 

I don't think the number of tourists, or that you can find it on a tourist map has a bearing on the wow factor. The Wow factor might have big bearing on the number of tourists though.

[+Team Perks]

Virtual should rather be rated on wether they will bring a cacher out to a nice location they probally would not have gone in the first place.

So if 1.2 million people already go there each year, a virtual really isn't necessary to get people to visit the lighthouse in question here. Ergo, wouldn't it fail your criterion?

 

And RK, FullOn was talking about the lighthouse getting that many visits. Disneyland (at least the one in Anaheim) gets ~14 million visits per year. Given 300 million people and an average lifespan of 75 years, each person could theoretically visit 3.5 times in their life. How many additional people would visit if they could do an extra virtual there? I doubt too many people would consider that virtual worth the $53.00 per person admission.

 

(This is all rhetorical, of course, since there ARE virtuals--though grandfathered--in Disneyland. Back to our regularly scheduled topic.)

[+º]

Seems like it might be a paradox, but not really. A virtual cache should be a VERY rare thing that meets very stringent criteria. It should be a hidden gem that most people simply won't find unless there is a virtual cache there.

doesn't work with this one:

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, statues 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 reviewer first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

[+Nurse Dave]

Personally I don't care for virtual caches. However I think this one meets the guidelines best as I can tell. Seems that the biggest question about it so far has been the wow factor.

 

Doing a Google seach I learned that it was one of 8 original lighthouses built on the west coast and at that time it was the tallest in the world. Also it has enough wow factor that 1.2 million people visit each year.

 

El Diablo

It fails the GPS test though. You really don't need a GPS to find major tourist attractions like this. How does it relate to geocaching then?

An interesting paradox then.

 

The cache must be a place that has a "wow" factor, yet be so obscure that you couldn't know about it or find it without a GPS ...

Exactly. There are plenty of other places and websites you can go to, that will just show you where "neat" stuff is. If it something a ton of people go to anyway, where is the need for the smiley?

[+Team PodCacher]

I've taken a snapshot of what the "cache in question" would look like. This will allow you to see the proposed cache and help you make a determination about your perspective on this virtual cache.

 

This is not an official posting and is (obviously) not linked to the official geocaching.com website. You will not be able to log this cache as a find until it is officially approved.

 

http://www.euhsd.k12.ca.us/portacio/cache_details.aspx.html

[+Team Perks]

Definitely a neat spot; I'd love to visit it someday. I think it's got some "wow" potential

 

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

 

One thing I just noticed by looking a little more closely at the map: There is only one primary way into and out of the park. The argument that if you made a multi, the cache would have to be several miles away seems to be less valid to me now.

 

So...If you put the actual cache on the peninsula outside of the park, you would have no choice but to pass by the final stage on your way out. Nobody would have to go out of their way to find the actual cache container.

 

EDIT to clarify: 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.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Team Perks

[+Jennifer&Dean]

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

[+Team PodCacher]

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".

 

The reason I posted this inquiry was that if anything deserved to be a virtual, in my humble opinion, this one did. If they're not going to allow virtuals, simply state that on gc.com and avoid the confusion and disappointment.

 

Personally I think the GC world is big enough to allow virts. I've been to a few (i.e. The Grassy Knoll in Dallas is a memorable one) that took me to a spot that I may not have otherwise visited. There are some places where you can't place a physical cache and the reward is the location itself. But my personal opinion of whether or not virts should be allowed is not why I posted. I believe that my proposed cache meets all the guidelines stated regarding virts and therefore should be posted, OR the new world rules need to be changed and clearly stated on the gc.com site.

 

Thanks again everyone for your opinions on this one.

[+Red Ryder]

IMHO, Geocaching.con has gone very negitive on virtual hides and California is only interested in how much money you have so they know what to charge you at the parks, beaches, public lands, etc. which, incidentally is supported by our tax dollar!

[+Renegade Knight]

I think that the cache is too dependant on photos. (Look! A new whine!) ...

Good call!

[+Cached]

 

QUOTE (Jennifer&Dean @ Mar 2 2005, 02:24 PM)

I think that the cache is too dependant on photos. (Look! A new whine!) ...

 

Good call!

 

Thats' certainly a personal call, and I can't see that it affects at all whether the cache should be approved or not.

 

It's a good virtual - let it stand!

[+Renegade Knight]

 

QUOTE (Jennifer&Dean @ Mar 2 2005, 02:24 PM)

I think that the cache is too dependant on photos. (Look! A new whine!) ...

 

Good call!

 

Thats' certainly a personal call, and I can't see that it affects at all whether the cache should be approved or not.

 

It's a good virtual - let it stand!

I was commenting on the new whine, but I can see that I should of worded that differently. My vote is already in for approving it.

[+Team PodCacher]

I think that the cache is too dependant on photos.

As I have stated, I'm more than willing to add more descriptive words to the photos to make it possible for those who have gone paperless to read the description without the photos and still be able to complete this cache. I only put the photos on there because I thought manipulating them in photoshop was kinda cool ...

[+Alan2]

I'm interested in covered bridges and have done a number of related caches. Some virtual, some conventional, some multiple and with offset especially due to physical caches not allowed. Here's a virtual that I did where you drive to 4 bridges and get info about each. Before I did it, I checked with the approver to explain what I was going to do. I didn't want to waste a lot of time creating the web page only to be disapproved.

 

I did a similar one in PA with an offset cache container and the approver said he would have approved it even without the container as he considerres a cache like this a "coffee table" cache that's interesting just on its own.

 

I suppose this stuff is pretty selective from one approver to another. Maybe if you did the light house with other light houses or with related spots in the park. It doesn't hurt to explain and get approval before you do it. Then again you'll never get turned down if you go with an offset container.

[+Ambrosia]

You know, I don't have a very geocaching friendly husband. But we travel a lot. It is so frustrating to go by caches and not be able to do them.

 

But it is just perfect when there are virtuals right at the very spot that my family is going to, cause then I can get a cache. I've so appreciated those easy virts in the regular ole' tourist spots.

 

This cache looks excellent, and I'd be tickled to be able to do it. If it was a multi, even if it was only something that had to be picked up on the drive out, I probably wouldn't be abe to do it because of my husband. In fact, this has happened to me a time or two.

 

This is why I like the variety that is available on gc.com. There is something for everybody in every situation. I understand that some of these caches aren't technically "geocaches", but I am very sad to see them dwindling away.

[+DaveA]

Seems like it is just plain too hard to get a virt approved with all this scrutiny and jumping through hoops one has to do.

 

If all caches were subjected to this kind of "wow factor" silliness we wouldn't have any caches at all.

 

What is this site trying to accomplish by being so restrictive? Cache quality? If so, archive all the caches from people who haven't logged on in a year and approve this cache.

 

Seems quite arbitrary.

 

Just let the guy list his virt and be done with it. What bad thing is going to happen by listing it?

 

As for all the suggestions to offset it, hide a micro somewhere, make it multi leg and all that, the question has to be asked. Why? If this is what the person wants for his cache, what bad thing is going to happen by listing it? Are any laws being broken? Is this going to degrade caching's rep with land managers? Is this a lower quality cache than you typically encounter? What exactly is the problem with just listing it and letting that be that?

[+caderoux]

Given the options of:

 

Hiding a micro under a lamppost in a parking lot 3 miles from the lighthouse

 

Hiding an ammo box in a wooded area 3 miles from the lighthouse

 

Making a plain old-fashioned virtual

 

(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)

 

It would seem to me that the third (or fourth) option is the one closest to the "basis" of our activity. I'm dubious about the premise that the challenge is actually finding a physical cache, to me it's really hunting for anything.

 

I personally don't see what is specially different about virtuals, and I have no idea why there is even a wow factor in the criteria. If a physical cache can't be placed, and a location is worth visiting, that would be enough for me. You still have to visit the location, and the time and effort it takes to locate the answers for a virtual can be equivalent to the time and effort taken to check the fencepost tops to find the loose one, extract a micro and sign the log.

 

It appears to me that the problem is not the approval of virtuals but the fact that too many people were attempting to make virtuals when they shouldn't have, now spoiling it for people like the OP who have a legitimate case for a virtual. And pulling out examples of other approved caches and talking about them is just a pointless demonstration of something we already know: there is a continuum and variety of caches, cachers, approvers and their opinions.

Edited March 3, 2005 by caderoux

[+TinSparrow]

but dont forget to send in your yearly $30..

Maybe this is the solution. Make it a members only virtual so the site gets revenue.

 

On a more serious note, I would approve this. Maybe its because I've always lived in a land locked city, but Lighthouses have always had a Wow factor for me. Since a real cache cannot be placed within a reasonable distance, this would seem an ideal time to apply the guidelines and list this virtual.

 

For the purposes of furthering this discussion, the guideline which speaks of the "Wow" factor and also speaks of the "coffee table book" phenomenon is contradictory and can be used to rule out any virtual. Here are examples:

 

In Bowman South Carolina there is a gentleman who has built a 3 story flying saucer in his front lawn (GCD7ED).

Wow factor: you bet

Ever seen a coffee table book on this unique phenomenon: no

 

Southeast of Ely Nevada there is an abaondoned jalopy in an desert scrube field. Someone has used copper wire to force a horse skeleton to sit up in a way that it appers to be driving this car (GC1679, now archived).

Wow factor: in a morbid way, yes

Ever seen a coffee table book on this one of a kind oddity: no

 

Lighthouses, historic variety, only appearing along coastlines

Wow factor: depends on how many you've seen

Ever seen a coffee table book: yes

 

The subcontinent of Greenland

Wow factor: hard to say, it's a pretty big place

Coffee table books available: yes, I own one

 

Any phenomenon large enough to be worthy of a coffee table book is probably too large to have a Wow factor for some folks, and a great many unique items which have a one of a kind Wow factor would never appear in coffee table books. These rules seemed designed to eliminate every virtual cache.

 

For some folks, mtn-man is right; A lighthouse is a lighthouse, a presidential memorial is a presidential memorial, a veterans monument is a veterans monument, a mission in San Antonio is a mission in San Antonio, and these things will never have a Wow factor although coffee table books may exist. To others of us, the Wow factor is there.

 

My vote is for approval.

[+HoPri]

After all this discussion, I really wonder why there is not simply a ban on virtuals. That would make things much easier for all parties involved. I, personally, would not mind and I suppose many others wouldn't either.

 

The advantages?

 

1) No endless argues about the interpretation of the guidelines , which obviously give plenty of room for that:

 

- Wow-factor? One man's "wow" is another man's "yawn".

- Significant/Coffee-table-book? Yes, but better not too known, otherwise it's just a tourist attraction and not a cache...???

- GPS-related? Yes, but what does that mean? That it can only be found with a GPS? How does that relate to letterboxes? What about a zillion caches where it's clear from the description where the spot is, without looking at the coordinates?

- Too much dependent on pictures? (That is not in the guidelines, but was an argument against the cache in question here.) Since when is this a criterion? Many caches require maps, have picture puzzles etc. I don't think that this should be a criterion at all. All those paperless cachers (I do that myself) must either care for the images themselves or just avoid those caches. And in some future, the images might be included in electronic downloads etc. Better forget about that argument.

- Can it be a stage of a multi? Almost everything can be the stage of a multi. Only, that you normally don't drive large distances in between the stages...

- Can it be a Micro? I bet there are people out there that could hide a well camouflaged micro nearly everywhere . Only, that it might not be allowed, or people looking for it might be sacked by security. Or, it might get muggled every other week...

 

In general, these are sure guidelines, which help to avoid virtuals in many cases where a physical cache is simply more adequate. But, as in the present example, there are borderline cases, which lead to endless discussion.

 

2) No risk of more landowners banning physical caches.

 

The most logical thing for me would be to just stop approving virtuals - and clearly say so. Why not simply say: No caches and hence no cachers on land that bans physical caches. It is then up to the land owners to decide whether they want (more) people to come or not. You can't have the one without the other. And, at least I hope!, there is enough land around where physical caches are allowed and possible.

 

Just my 2 cents,

Holger

Edited March 3, 2005 by HoPri

[+1stimestar]

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

coast.

 

This kind of rubbed me the wrong way regardless of the other guidelines. This is an individual opinion. How can it be a factor in the rejection of a cache?

 

Lighthouses WOW me!

[+Harry Dolphin]

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.