[Az-Geocaching] Virtuals and camping out
J H/TEAM 360
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1913442026-1064950608=:79009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 try
ing 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
--0-1913442026-1064950608=:79009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. <IMG src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/04.gif"></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://shopping.yahoo.com/?__yltc=s%3A150000443%2Cd%3A22708228%2Cslk%3Atext%2Csec%3Amail">The New Yahoo! Shopping</a> - with improved product search
--0-1913442026-1064950608=:79009--