Artemis,
We do appreciate your efforts on our part. Thank you very much.

I understand the nature of some of the rules, and some of them make 
perfect sense given some of the restrictions provided by land managers, 
and common sense. The one in particular that I am disappointed in is the 
change on virtuals (yes, we have had this discussion). The question I 
have is how can we open this back up just a little bit. The guidelines 
on virtuals is much tighter than I would like them to be. I enjoy the 
various caches (be they light pole, or ammo cans in the woods or all 
that stuff in between). But, my wife and kids have had the most fun 
doing virtuals. They love being taken to a museum, a memorial, etc. 
Anything that is different, and fun, and educational is great. That is 
how I get them out there caching with me. I include a few virtuals on 
our outings. And we have a grand old time.

I understand that we need to limit them somewhat (...and email the date 
stamp on the manhole cover...). But, there are some statues, or 
memorials, or gravestones (specific examples given in the rules) that 
are worth the trip. Would the anchor from the USS Arizona at the state 
capital have been approved today? Probably not. But is it worth taking 
the kids there? Absolutely! What about the points/memorials at the Grand 
canyon (a view is a view, but not a virtual). But, in both situations, 
placing a physical container is just NOT appropriate. But, a virtual is 
just right.

Yes, the quality of some virtuals is lower than others, but some are 
just outstanding, as many of those on this listserve can attest to. But 
under the current guidelines a lot of those just wouldn't be listed (as 
you know).

So, what can we do to help Jeremy lighten up a bit on the virtuals. I 
don't mind justifying that what I am trying to list is worth the time to 
visit. But, after so doing, I think it ought to be able to be approved.

For example, I saw two memorials the other day. They were within 5 miles 
of each other. One was a marker with a by the roadside with three words 
on the roadside sign, but just the year 1938 carved as an afterthought 
in the marker's cement itself. There were plenty of places to put a 
physical cache nearby. But, I would agree not a great virtual (an offset 
maybe - that year could be used). The other was a very nicely done 
historical marker in a park with other markers. A great place to place a 
physical cache you say? Unfortunately, they were both on Indian land. 
Off limits to a physical cache. But, as the park was designed as a 
memorial, it is open to the public. A nice place to visit, and study 
significant Arizona history, and learn something. This one got me 
thinking, and reading, and learning. But, as the virtuals are off 
limits, so was it.

I know you would have liked to list a place like that. But it is not 
your fault that the rules have tightened up so much. So, what can WE do? 
We love this game. It is a lot of fun, and it gets us places we never 
might have otherwise gone to, (the real pleasure in the game - for me at 
least). And, meet people I otherwise never have known. Hence the 
discussion of the revolt, migration, whatever you wish to call it. 
GC.com has been very good. It's services have improved, and is well 
worth supporting. But, this is one rule I am very unhappy about.

Steven Stringham
StringCachers


Artemis Approver wrote:

>I have been working the caches of Arizona since November and I can say
>that virtuals are almost but not quite impossible to list. The
>guidelines are very clear on virtuals and if you see in the forums
>what Jeremy wrote you will see that I have no decision making
>authority. It either fits the guidelines or it does not.
>
>Since I am the one doing the cache reviews for Arizona, I am concerned
>by the comment of  discouraged from placing any more caches. I know I
>spend many hours every day trying to list each and every cache that I
>can for you all.
>
>That cache that was hidden 2,200 miles from the cachers home does not
>normally get listed unless they find someone to maintain it.
>
>Caches placed on the Indian Reservations will be denied because many
>of the indian nations have told groundspeak that cachers will be
>charged with tresspassing if they place a cache here.
>
>Caches placed in the NPS areas will be denied because the park rangers
>have said they will place fines upon the cachers if they are caught or
>they will just collect the containers and trash them.
>
>  
>
>
>  
>