A Virtual Question.. To Approve Or Not To Approve

[+bikr]

I recently submitted for approval a virtual cache at Pickwick Dam Powerhouse. The actual object is a 10 foot tall, 20 foot wide turbine that was removed from the dam after 50 yrs of service and put on display with a description of how hydroelectricity is produced. This was the original turbine installed here in the '30s. I placed it due to the historic and economic impact that electric power produced by this brought the Industrial Revolution to Tennessee.

This cache was archived by the reviewer, and I subsequently appealled that decision. This is to ask if YOU the members of this forum believe that the cache is worthy of placement and approval. I ask for your yes or no for all to see.

Thanks for reading and responding.

Bikr

[+Mr Lost]

If the approver said no, then that pretty much means no. Make it an offset micro to keep 'the man' satisfied.

 

Having said that...

 

I am fairly new to geocaching, having started in November of '04. I have been very active in the meantime, and have hunted a number of geocaches of varying types in my immediate area. I have enjoyed every virtual that I have found, and am even in the process of doing a few locationless caches. It seems to me that the requirement of having a physical geocache is a bit antithetical to the underlying appeal of what the activity is all about. Some will argue that the activity is all about finding stuff, but to me, and others that I know who geocache, the greatest value of the activity is in (1) the hunt, and (2) being shown a location / object / view / experience that one might not otherwise encounter in the ramblings about of one's environment. I like the fact that I stopped and read a roadside marker because it was a 'virtual' geocache, when I might otherwise have driven by in my haste to arrive at some other destination.

 

If a geocacher does not want virtuals popping up on them, then filter them out. Same for any other type of geocache that one might not like.

 

TPTB say that they are going to add different databases for these types of things, but it is my understanding that this priority is a fairly low one. At the heart of this activity is the use of GPS in creative ways. Removing these types of geocaches from the universe of the possible creates an unnecessary limitation on the possibilites that this activity could have. Stifling innovation and creativity is almost always a universally poor decision in most businesses, and I hate to see GC.com do it.

 

Whew. Just my $0.02.

Actually, that felt like $1.47.

[+BigDaddyD]

As I stated in our local forum, I was passing through this area a few weeks ago and happened to notice the turbine display at Picwick Dam. It is a public display, sitting off to itself, and intended for all to see. It has an informational sign in plain view explaining the importance of the turbine to this area. When I drove by, I told my wife,"that sure would be a nice spot for a virtual cache."

I guess if you didn't grow up in the Tennessee Valley, you really don't understand the impact that the TVA and the various dams had on this area. Thus the reason for a virtual in this spot, to explain that to "non river-rats."

I can fully understand the reluctance to approve some virtual caches, such as "rotting carcass in the woods", but some virtuals are very interesting. I personally enjoy virtual caches and hope to see them continue but with proper judgement by the cache approvers. True virtuals should be for interesting/historical areas that are not open for the placement of any other type of cache. Proper judgement shouldn't mean that none are approved. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

 

BigDaddyD

[+Spencersb]

I normally don't care for virtuals UNLESS they have some historical significance. I agree with BigDaddyD that the way TVA and the introduction of electricity changed the face of the Tennessee landscape and the integral part that this piece of machinery had on that transformation makes this a worthwhile visit. As long as the turbine is in a publically accessible area, where shifty looking people with UHDs (unidentified handheld devices) will not attract "official" attention, then I have no problem with it.

 

Having said that, I understand GC's reluctance to place new virtuals, since guidelines for them are hard to define and necessarily a little arbitrary. The "new" section for virtuals should be a higher priority than it apparently is.

 

So, having said ALL that, I also don't see why it can't be a multi with a logbook somewhere far enough away to avoid suspicion. Get far enough away and you might even make it an ammo can!

[+Nurse Dave]

At the heart of this activity is the use of GPS in creative ways. Removing these types of geocaches from the universe of the possible creates an unnecessary limitation on the possibilites that this activity could have.

Ummm, the heart of this activity is finding a geoCACHE, not just waypointing stuff you think other might want to look at. There are other websites in place where you can do that.

 

For this particular one if you have to be from the area to understand why it's so important then I would say no. There should be an obvious "WOW" factor and reading info signs and trying to comprehend the economic impact of something sounds like a good stop on a trip to stretch your legs, but not a "WOW".

[+yogi and dolphin]

We have found several virtuals some were lame some were very interesting. But the virtuals we found lame may be very interesting to someone else. But that is the joy in geocaching, there are caches for everyone. We would really enjoy seeing this turbine and would like to see this approved. But if its not it won't be the end of the world, just a blemish on this activity we all enjoy.

 

thats our .04's worth.

[+Griff-N-Go]

I have to say no. People abused virtuals way too much. To give examples. There one here in GA where a person put a cache where he wasn't suppose to. So instead of archiving the cache, he turned it into a virtual. What do you see when you hike several miles out? A giant hole. Describe the hole, get your smilely. There is another one decribed as "native hieroglyphics", its graffiti. Based on the decription, I would have approved it. On finding it, no. Another abuse is making everything historical a virtual. If you have cached in the Virgina area or other highly historical areas, there are a overabundance of historical signs to turn into virtuals. You can easly geocache without a gps. Same problem with yours. I can go to your virtual and I don't need a GPS. There is no challenge. People could have hundreds of caches out there. For GC that would be a maintaince nightmare. I say make it an offset. You still achieve your goal of having people see it, and it gives them a little bit of a challenge.

 

Just my .87 worth.

[+caderoux]

At the heart of this activity is the use of GPS in creative ways. Removing these types of geocaches from the universe of the possible creates an unnecessary limitation on the possibilites that this activity could have.

Ummm, the heart of this activity is finding a geoCACHE, not just waypointing stuff you think other might want to look at. There are other websites in place where you can do that.

 

For this particular one if you have to be from the area to understand why it's so important then I would say no. There should be an obvious "WOW" factor and reading info signs and trying to comprehend the economic impact of something sounds like a good stop on a trip to stretch your legs, but not a "WOW".

 

I've heard this argument before (physical caches are the basis of the activity, etc), and I don't think it is born out by the creativity and demands of the community here (including non-geoposters). The wow factor argument from the guidelines on virtuals is also very tired. I get 0 wow factor from an ammo can in the woods after a 5 mile hike. And it's too subjective if it's now depending on where you come from or what you've seen before. The sport/hobby/activity is not called long-hike-ammo-can-finding as some would make out. I prefer a physical cache, and someone could probably clamp a magnetic micro right on the turbine. There is always going to be poor cache quality, but as far as I can tell, this site has (rightly) realized that it is not possible to police this - but that's a problem with all the cache types, not just virtuals.

 

The non-traditional cache types weren't forced on the community here - people invented them and asked for them. Some people probably got tired of hikes for a rusty ammo can. People wanted to compete for FTF, they wanted to visit caches and talk about them with other people. People wanted to do something no one else had done with a hide before. The creativity is astounding.

 

gc.com can either provide a listing service to them or they can take their business elsewhere. Having anyone tell them it's not real geocaching, however, is disingenuous - virtual caches and locationless caches were here before a lot of these people even heard of geocaching.

[+Monkeybrad]

This sounds like an interesting virtual. Most poeple do not realize the impact that TVA had on this area. It was stated well above, TVA did bring the industrial revolution to Tennessee. Without this series of dams and the cheap electricity they produced manufacturing and industry would have passed this area by. I say that it is far better to have a virtual cache that teaches some history than yet another lame offset. When GC.com gets the waypointing issue settled out then this will not be an issue, but until that time a worthy virtual like this should definitely be approved. Those turbines are impressive, and the impact that they have had on the entire Southeast is almost too large to be imaginable, if that is not a WOW, I do not know what is.

[+Renegade Knight]

Yes I think it should be approved. No I don't think it will be even if you get 100% yes votes.

[Hucklebuck]

I don't like 100% chance of being successful in finding a cache. More than the numbers, it's the risk of failure that leads me to find a cache. This element is missing from virtuals, so I don't really care for them. Having said that, your virtual sounds interesting and probably would be one of the better that I've seen. Sounds like a cool place to visit, so work with the reviewer and get a cache approved.

[+bikr]

Thanks to all who have posted to this thread. I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to approve this, but hey, this is what you're supposed to do. I can say with conviction that I will NEVER be a premium member for this site again, and will look to take my business elsewhere. Thanks again for the kind words about the cache in question.

[+rusty_da_dog]

I like the idea myself, but then again most of the virtuals I have found have been pretty interesting. As a matter of fact I have several virtuals that I have "placed" that people think are pretty interesting. I also have one more that I am going to try to get approved once the historic site is completed.

 

Not to go off on another tangent here, but I thought caches were supposed to be .10 miles away from each other.......is this at the approver's discreation also?

 

Cya on the trails,

Rusty