Which Has Precedence?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

If there is an old grandfathered virtual cache at a place that would be an ideal earthcache, which has precedence? Would a virtual be archived to allow for the earthcache? Im basing this question on the assumption that physical caches have a higher precedence over virtuals, but that could be a faulty memory.

[+mtn-man]

I doubt the existing cache would be archived for a new earthcache. Since the earthcache can be a special type of virtual cache, what would be the point of archiving the existing virtual anyway?

 

(Edited for clarity)

Edited March 4, 2005 by mtn-man

[+Isonzo Karst]

It's not really a question of precendence. It's a question of asking whether the owner of the existing virtual would be willing to archive so you can (possibly) place an earth cache there. If you want to, you should probably start by running your earthcache idea by Gary@earthcache.org to see if it's viable, then contact the owner of the existing virtual. Of course, they may not want to archive one virtual for another, or they may want to write up and own the earthcache themselves.

[Keystone]

Hold on before you go asking folks to archive an existing cache... I don't know that any existing cache, virtual or physical, necessarily would block a nearby earthcache. I recall one early example that was under 528 feet away from an existing cache designed to feature a geological point of interest. Perhaps the better question to ask Geoaware and Jeremy is whether the proximity guideline applies at all in this special case. I cannot answer definitively since the other volunteers are not involved in reviewing and listing earthcaches.

[+Hemlock]

I don't see the point of archiving one virtual so another can be submitted. If the only reason is for you to get credit for a hide, that seems kinda selfish to me.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Thank you for your replies.

 

First I would like to point out that Im not going to ask for one to be archived. At no point would I ever be selfish enough to demand someones viable cache (no matter what type it is) be archived so I could take a spot. The question was one I happened to think of while considering a site for an earthcache. There is potential conflict, but the pre-existing cache in question is mine, which I would willingly archive to make it an earthcache.

 

Second, I thought virtual caches were the ugly stepchildren of geocaching, no longer in favor, whereas earthcaches were something desired by geocaching. It is for that reason that I thought an earthcache might have precedence.

[+mtn-man]

Second, I thought virtual caches were the ugly stepchildren of geocaching, no longer in favor, whereas earthcaches were something desired by geocaching. It is for that reason that I thought an earthcache might have precedence.

Not by any stretch.

A well done virtual cache is welcomed and something you should be proud of.

 

I would think that it would not be good to archive one cache and create another in exactly the same place. In fact, it might not be allowed to be honest. There seems to be no point to this action except to get an earthcache icon on your list. People who have found your cache would have no challenge in finding the duplicate version that only has a new icon. Again, this tact seems pointless and has the appearance of only wanting to get an earthcache icon to your credit.

 

I think the last thing we would want to see is a bunch of cache owners archiving their virtual caches and then turning around immediately and creating an earthcache type in the same spot.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

The earthcache I was considering might be in conflict with the coordinates of the pre-existing virtual (less than 500 feet away), but the information needed and the thing that is looked at are not the same. I was not merely going to archive a virtual cache just to get the earthcache logo on my profile.

Edited March 6, 2005 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+mtn-man]

If that is the case then I would write the geoaware account about your specific target and the web site to see if you can get an idea of what their feelings are regarding proximity in this particular case. You might be able to keep the existing cache up and running while getting cachers to this new location as well. It would be worth a shot in my opinion.

[+Nurse Dave]

Bummer, if they would archive it, then I'd start asking for micros to be archived so I can place real caches there.

[dead_white_man]

Bummer, if they would archive it, then I'd start asking for micros to be archived so I can place real caches there.

I'm waiting for all those people to jump on you and say "So you don't think micro's are real caches

[Keystone]

Ahhh, but they won't jump on, because the topic is earthcaches, and everyone knows it's a moderated forum.

[+Nurse Dave]

Hehe, a man and his dreams.

[+Renegade Knight]

Is there any reason the two can't co-exist?

[Keystone]

Is there any reason the two can't co-exist?

RK, I don't think there is a reason. An earthcache and a regular geocache (of any type) are different animals. I thought I remembered a discussion saying that the proximity rules wouldn't apply, but I cannot speak to the point with authority.

[WH]

So, its possible that a physical cache and an earthcache can share the same coordinates?

[+mtn-man]

The best thing to do is write the contact address. Since we don't review earthcaches the contact address will give those answers. It might be best to move this topic to the Geocaching.com Web Site forum to be honest.

[+gnbrotz]

An earthcache and a regular geocache (of any type) are different animals. I thought I remembered a discussion saying that the proximity rules wouldn't apply, but I cannot speak to the point with authority.

If true, this would be welcome information. I have a physical cache in an area that I believe would possibly qualify as an earthcache. I've been encouraged by a friend to submit it, even if it meant archiving my existing cache. Because I do not want to do this, I have not yet moved forward.

 

While the particular 'feature' is about 250' wide and .4 miles long, the only trail crossing it would be well within 528' of my existing cache. I believe that coexistence is a good thing in this case because I think there are many folks who would visit the area to see the feature from the trail, but perhaps can't (or don't want to) actually find my existing physical cache because of the increased terrain difficulty of leaving the trail and exploring the feature.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

The people at earthcaching are prompt about answering questions. That would be a good one to ask them.