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.
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
virtualcaching.org virtualcaching.biz
virtualcaching.info virtualcaching.us
virtualcaching.ws virtualcaching.tv
virtualcaching.cc
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 -----
From: J H/TEAM 360
To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
(text/plain)
