[Az-Geocaching] Virtuals and camping out
Brian Casteel
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:50:44 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C3876A.9BDB4EB0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0057_01C3876A.9BDB4EB0"
------=_NextPart_001_0057_01C3876A.9BDB4EB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For someone who doesn't care about having their own caches anymore, I =
don't understand why you are complaining. Were you going to make a =
grand re-re-entrance into Geocaching as an active participant by logging =
finds online?
I understand why they are limiting the approvals of virtual caches. =
It's so every roadside sign/'landmark'/object doesn't turn into a =
virtual. However, there are some admins who are too heavy-handed and it =
hurts the sport to a degree. When a situation like that is encountered, =
it's best to maintain a level head and approach the discussion by =
looking at it from their point of view. If a micro can be placed on the =
back/side/under/on top of one of these signs, why not just do it? I =
also understand that this would require occasional maintenance, whereas =
a virtual requires NONE. Therein lies the potential problem I would =
imagine. In some cases, cachers are choosing the easy way out by =
creating a virtual instead of placing a traditional or micro cache. =
When considering the downtown Mesa statues, I believe that should remain =
a virtual, without having to incorporate anything in the way of a micro =
for a log to sign.
Going back to the roadside sign issue. Would it really be that =
difficult to require a cacher to walk the extra 18" AROUND the sign to =
pull the container off and sign the log, while perhaps requiring a =
certain portion of the information to be e-mailed as well to get credit =
for the find? Last time I checked, micros weren't considered =
geo-litter...except maybe by those who think a non-maintenance virtual =
would be just fine. =20
Virtual caches *do* have their place, but not necessarily at any simple =
roadside sign you come across. The point of virtuals is to have an =
opportunity to cache in areas where traditionals aren't feasible OR =
allowed, such as NPS lands. There were quite a few virtuals recently =
approved in the Yellowstone National Park area, because actual caches =
aren't allowed. Personally, I wouldn't try to place a virtual in an =
area I haven't been to, so I guess that one for Bikini Atoll is out of =
the question now. As I recall, those in the forums also believed that a =
micro would be better-suited for one sign in particular that looks =
strikingly similar to the shape of the State of Nevada.
GC.com is making attempts at returning to their roots, which are =
PHYSICAL caches with PAPER logs to sign. There are many who want to go =
in a different direction as them, and they are free to start their own =
site and pursue that (i.e., piratecaching.com or navicache). Perhaps =
one of the vocalists of the anti-virtual banning movement could create =
virtualcaching.com or one of these variants, which are available:
virtualcaching.net=20
virtualcaching.org virtualcaching.biz=20
virtualcaching.info virtualcaching.us=20
virtualcaching.ws virtualcaching.tv=20
virtualcaching.cc=20
Virtuals may make a comeback, but most likely after a hiatus so people =
aren't trying to outplace traditional caches with virtual ones.
For those who haven't been able to place caches while traveling through =
areas you frequent, if the cache is denied by the admin(s), you have =
avenues of appeal. Direct e-mail with them, as well as the forums if =
you feel you aren't being 'heard'. It's worked in a number of cases if =
the admin chooses to stick to their guns and not change their minds. I =
personally had 2 traditional 'vacation' caches approved, because I =
stated up front my intentions, as well as who would be maintaining them. =
This resulted in immediate approval, because TPTB understood everything =
that was going on. Respect is a two-way street. If you treat the =
admins with the same respect you want to receive, things typically work =
themselves out. By arguing because you disagree, it defeats all =
positives that could come from the dialogue. In doing so, what may very =
well be the case is that the admin becomes more concrete in their =
thinking and is completely resistant to input or change. Working *with* =
them more than likely would instill a sense of compromise in their =
minds, unless the changes in rules/policy simply forbids it. However, =
he/she might possibly try to champion the changes that we would like to =
see, or at the very least be an avid supporter of the movement for =
change.
As for the campout, that would be a cool idea. The weather will be =
great and a HUGE bonfire sounds like a must-have.
Brian
Team A.I.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: J H/TEAM 360=20
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com=20
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Virtuals and camping out
GC.com's rules on Virtuals are bordering on the ridiculous. I =
personally think that a Virtual with MERIT should be approved (not =
"here's another stop sign" virtual). If it is a place or thing that =
holds some historic or interesting value, and someone wants to make it a =
virtual, then they should be able to. The argument that "if a =
traditional cache can be placed there, then it shouldn't be a virtual" =
just doesn't hold up, in my opinion. A micro can be placed anywhere, so =
that shoots down 99% of virtuals right there. I know I am not the only =
one who likes to read historical signs at the side of freeways, and I =
find them a good lesson, as well as a "find". What would it hurt GC.com =
to list Virts? They already list Benchmarks, there is no logbook to sign =
or swag to trade when you do those. Why is one forced to put yet ANOTHER =
micro at a location, just to get a Virtual approved? It is just an =
unnecessary piece of geo-litter. Why the crackdown on Virtuals, anyhow? =
If GC. com is trying to free up server space by eliminating Virts, they =
should begin by deleting the 150+ pages of past forum discussions that =
no one references anyway. A Virtual cache should be allowed anywhere =
(with MERIT, remember) and should be able to be placed by anyone. I =
should be able to place a Virtual in Siberia, if I wanted, because there =
is no maintenance to do on these types of caches. What does it hurt to =
place a Virt there? Nothing at all. If people don't want to do it, then =
they don't have to, but there shouldn't be a push to eliminate listing =
them from the site. It seems that GC.com is wanting to list the types of =
caches that appeal to THEM only.
As far as those people in RV's, if you frequent a certain route, I =
think you should be able to place a cache there. How often do normal =
caches get maintained? Twice a year? I would bet even less than that. =
Those people in RV's that want to place a cache and are able to get to =
it even once a year should be allowed to do so. Most of the time cachers =
will be able to change out a logbook or fix a small problem with the =
cache anyhow. The maintenance excuse for not allowing a cache is really =
a joke. How many caches have you all seen that are not going to get =
maintained at all? Caches on top of mountains? Or ones way out in the =
desert? There are plenty of examples out there. I don't buy that excuse =
for cache denial, since MOST cachers never do cache maintenance anyways.
Something needs to change, that's for sure. All types of caches need =
to be accomodated, and there should not be such a restrictive nature to =
GC.com.
Panda, I think the camp-out idea would be cool. When you submit it, =
just be sure to mention that we will all be talking about caching at =
some point during the event.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
------=_NextPart_001_0057_01C3876A.9BDB4EB0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For someone who doesn't care about =
having their own=20
caches anymore, I don't understand why you are complaining. Were =
you going=20
to make a grand re-re-entrance into Geocaching as an active participant =
by=20
logging finds online?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I understand why they are limiting the =
approvals of=20
virtual caches. It's so every roadside sign/'landmark'/object =
doesn't turn=20
into a virtual. However, there are some admins who are too =
heavy-handed=20
and it hurts the sport to a degree. When a situation like that is=20
encountered, it's best to maintain a level head and approach the =
discussion by=20
looking at it from their point of view. If a micro can be placed =
on the=20
back/side/under/on top of one of these signs, why not just do it? =
I also=20
understand that this would require occasional maintenance, whereas a =
virtual=20
requires NONE. Therein lies the potential problem I would =
imagine. =20
In <STRONG>some</STRONG> cases, cachers are choosing the easy way out by =
creating a virtual instead of placing a traditional or micro =
cache. When=20
considering the downtown Mesa statues, I believe that should remain a =
virtual,=20
without having to incorporate anything in the way of a micro for a log =
to=20
sign.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>Going back to the roadside sign issue. Would it really be =
that=20
difficult to require a cacher to walk the extra 18" AROUND the sign to =
pull the=20
container off and sign the log, while perhaps requiring a certain =
portion of the=20
information to be e-mailed as well to get credit for the find? =
Last time I=20
checked, micros weren't considered geo-litter...except maybe by those =
who think=20
a non-maintenance virtual would be just fine. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Virtual caches *do* have their place, but not necessarily at any =
simple=20
roadside sign you come across. The point of virtuals is to have an =
opportunity to cache in areas where traditionals aren't feasible OR =
allowed,=20
such as NPS lands. There were quite a few virtuals recently =
approved in=20
the Yellowstone National Park area, because actual caches aren't =
allowed. =20
Personally, I wouldn't try to place a virtual in an area I haven't been =
to, so I=20
guess that one for Bikini Atoll is out of the question now. As I =
recall,=20
those in the forums also believed that a micro would be better-suited =
for one=20
sign in particular that looks strikingly similar to the shape of the =
State of=20
Nevada.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>GC.com is making attempts at returning to their roots, which =
are=20
PHYSICAL caches with PAPER logs to sign. There are many who want =
to go in=20
a different direction as them, and they are free to start their own site =
and=20
pursue that (i.e., piratecaching.com or navicache). Perhaps one of =
the=20
vocalists of the anti-virtual banning movement could create =
virtualcaching.com=20
or one of these variants, which are available:</DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D2 border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width=3D25></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D300><SPAN class=3Dsmgray><FONT =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></TD>
<TD width=3D50><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D50 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D341 colSpan=3D4><SPAN =
class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.net</SPAN></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=3D25><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D25 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D300><SPAN class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.org</SPAN></TD>
<TD width=3D50><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D50 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D341 colSpan=3D4><SPAN =
class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.biz</SPAN></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=3D25><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D25 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D300><SPAN class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.info</SPAN></TD>
<TD width=3D50><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D50 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D341 colSpan=3D4><SPAN =
class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.us</SPAN></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=3D25><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D25 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D300><SPAN class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.ws</SPAN></TD>
<TD width=3D50><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D50 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D341 colSpan=3D4><SPAN =
class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.tv</SPAN></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD width=3D25><IMG height=3D10 =
src=3D"http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif"=20
width=3D25 border=3D0></TD>
<TD width=3D15><FONT size=3D2></FONT></TD>
<TD width=3D300><SPAN=20
class=3Dsmgray>virtualcaching.cc</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Virtuals may make a comeback, but most likely after a hiatus so =
people=20
aren't trying to outplace traditional caches with virtual ones.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For those who haven't been able to place caches while traveling =
through=20
areas you frequent, if the cache is denied by the admin(s), you have =
avenues of=20
appeal. Direct e-mail with them, as well as the forums if you feel =
you=20
aren't being 'heard'. It's worked in a number of cases if the =
admin=20
chooses to stick to their guns and not change their minds. I =
personally=20
had 2 traditional 'vacation' caches approved, because I stated up front =
my=20
intentions, as well as who would be maintaining them. This =
resulted in=20
immediate approval, because TPTB understood everything that was going =
on. =20
Respect is a two-way street. If you treat the admins with the same =
respect=20
you want to receive, things typically work themselves out. By =
arguing=20
because you disagree, it defeats all positives that could come from the=20
dialogue. In doing so, what may very well be the case is that the =
admin=20
becomes more concrete in their thinking and is completely resistant to =
input or=20
change. Working *with* them more than likely would instill a sense =
of=20
compromise in their minds, unless the changes in rules/policy simply =
forbids=20
it. However, he/she might possibly try to champion the changes =
that we=20
would like to see, or at the very least be an avid supporter of the =
movement for=20
change.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for the campout, that would be a cool idea. The weather =
will be=20
great and a HUGE bonfire sounds like a must-have.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Brian<BR>Team A.I.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dteam360wwg@yahoo.com href=3D"mailto:team360wwg@yahoo.com">J =
H/TEAM=20
360</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dlistserv@azgeocaching.com=20
=
href=3D"mailto:listserv@azgeocaching.com">listserv@azgeocaching.com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 30, =
2003 12:36=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Az-Geocaching] =
Virtuals and=20
camping out</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>GC.com's rules on Virtuals are bordering on the ridiculous. I =
personally=20
think that a Virtual with MERIT should be approved (not "here's =
another stop=20
sign" virtual). If it is a place or thing that holds some historic or=20
interesting value, and someone wants to make it a virtual, then they =
should be=20
able to. The argument that "if a traditional cache can be placed =
there, then=20
it shouldn't be a virtual" just doesn't hold up, in my opinion. A =
micro can be=20
placed anywhere, so that shoots down 99% of virtuals right =
there. I know=20
I am not the only one who likes to read historical signs at the side =
of=20
freeways, and I find them a good lesson, as well as a "find". What =
would it=20
hurt GC.com to list Virts? They already list Benchmarks, there is no =
logbook=20
to sign or swag to trade when you do those. Why is one forced to put =
yet=20
ANOTHER micro at a location, just to get a Virtual approved? It is =
just an=20
unnecessary piece of geo-litter. Why the crackdown on Virtuals, =
anyhow? If GC.=20
com is trying to free up server space by eliminating Virts, they=20
should begin by deleting the 150+ pages of past forum =
discussions=20
that no one references anyway. A Virtual cache should be allowed =
anywhere=20
(with MERIT, remember) and should be able to be placed by anyone. I =
should be=20
able to place a Virtual in Siberia, if I wanted, because there is no=20
maintenance to do on these types of caches. What does it hurt to place =
a Virt=20
there? Nothing at all. If people don't want to do it, then they don't =
have to,=20
but there shouldn't be a push to eliminate listing them from the site. =
It=20
seems that GC.com is wanting to list the types of caches that =
appeal to=20
THEM only.</DIV>
<DIV>As far as those people in RV's, if you frequent a certain route, =
I think=20
you should be able to place a cache there. How often do normal caches =
get=20
maintained? Twice a year? I would bet even less than that. Those =
people in=20
RV's that want to place a cache and are able to get to it even once a =
year=20
should be allowed to do so. Most of the time cachers will be able to =
change=20
out a logbook or fix a small problem with the cache anyhow. The =
maintenance=20
excuse for not allowing a cache is really a joke. How many caches have =
you all=20
seen that are not going to get maintained at all? Caches on top of =
mountains?=20
Or ones way out in the desert? There are plenty of examples out there. =
I don't=20
buy that excuse for cache denial, since MOST cachers never do =
cache=20
maintenance anyways.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Something needs to change, that's for sure. All types of caches =
need to=20
be accomodated, and there should not be such a restrictive nature to=20
GC.com.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Panda, I think the camp-out idea would be cool. When you submit =
it, just=20
be sure to mention that we will all be talking about caching at some =
point=20
during the event. <IMG=20
=
src=3D"http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/04.gif"></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P>
<HR SIZE=3D1>
Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://shopping.yahoo.com/?__yltc=3Ds%3A150000443%2Cd%3A22708228%=
2Cslk%3Atext%2Csec%3Amail">The=20
New Yahoo! Shopping</A> - with improved product=20
search</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0057_01C3876A.9BDB4EB0--
------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C3876A.9BDB4EB0
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="spacer.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://216.21.229.207/images/spacer.gif
R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C3876A.9BDB4EB0--