Virtual caches

oznaturist · Post by **oznaturist** » 20 February 05 9:45 pm

This will probably screw up any chance I have of getting a Virtual Cache approved ever, but at this point I am beginning to get frustrated over the apparent lack of uniformity in the approval process.

Some time back I posted the following for approval,
(Basic details without all the co ords etc as follows)
Vital link North to South. No need to cross any roads. Park and follow the network of paths.

To log this cache you will need to find the plaque. Email me a photo with your GPSr in view or answer the following Questions. What significant works does it commemorate? Who was the Transport Minister? Cost of this part of the Project? 
(End of listing) 
I wanted to place it as a virtual cache. 
I received the following from a reviewer.

Hi,
I'm reviewing "North meets South" for posting on geocaching.com.
At this time, your cache does not contain sufficient information about the virtual geocache for me to approve it or does not abide by the posted guidelines. Therefore it has been temporarily disabled pending clarification. 
Please consult the requirements at this web site and ensure that the details on your cache page address all the parameters of a virtual geocache: (visit link) (visit link)
Some of the important guidelines to keep in mind are that a traditional cache could not be placed at or near that spot, the location should be a specific one that requires a GPS to locate it - not MapQuest or a google search, and the location should also be unique and compelling.
There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research.
A nice view is NOT a virtual cache. A cache has to be a specific distinct GPS target - not something large like a mountain top or a park, however special those locations are. 
Generally virtual caches are placed in locations where a traditional cache would not be allowed or would be inappropriate, since the virtual prevents a later physical cache being placed within a .1-mile radius of that spot.
Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. Please keep in mind physical caches are the prime goal when submitting your cache report. 
Often a micro cache can be readily placed at or near the same spot submitted as a virtual cache. 
That would not only bring people to your special spot but gives them a physical cache to find as well. Here are some excellent ideas for micro caches that could be hidden virtually anywhere: (visit link) (visit link) (visit link) (visit link) (visit link) (visit link) (visit link) (visit link)
In places where a physical cache would be inappropriate other sources for numbers for the coordinates to an offset physical cache outside the park can be used to bring people to your special spot and forward them on to a physical cache.
Here's a simple example of an offset cache: (visit link)
When you submitted this cache, you checked off that you have read and understood the guidelines for having a cache listed here. If you have any questions about the sections pertaining to virtual caches, feel free to email me as noted below.
Please don't hesitate to respond with an explanation if it's been misjudged or after you've amended it to meet the guidelines.
Thanks,
For the life of me I canÃ‚â€™t find my response but it was something along the lines that there are others and listed a few which are the same. Why were they approved and not mine.

Recently there were 3 new Virtual caches approved in WA

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 247b41c8a8

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 35c25241fb

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... d601580310 (this cache has been amended as the info panel required to find the answers has been removed)

They are exactly the same as my listing. They were approved mine has not.

Now I am really in trouble because I wrote the following message and received the attached reply.
Hi
RE GCMAGZ North meets South by oznaturist.

I was going to let this go as you were reluctant to approve it for some reason. However the recent posting of 2 new virtual caches in WA made me resurrect the issue. In an email to you some time back I suggested there was a lack of uniformity in approving virtual caches. These two new ones confirm this opinion. 
Take a look at GCMQPP and GCMQWM.
I have just spent 2 minutes with google.com.au and found all the answers required to log these as finds. You used this argument with my cache, and I donÃ‚â€™t believe you would find any of the answers required on the net,at a library or in fact anywhere easy.
You also refer to the wow factor, please explain the wow factor in a tree lying on its side. There are thousands of the on the 40km stretch of road at Grenough. I also found all the answers to GCM5Q1 at the Battye library after the signs at the location were removed for maintenance.
There are others which I could refer to but it seem somewhat pointless.
Perhaps you will reconsider the approval of my cache.
Me


Hi,

I note your concerns over GCMQPP and GCMQWM. If the information is available after 2 min google search then the caches are outside the requirements of Para 3 of the virtual cache posting guidelines. This is always a concern as we reviewers often don't have the time to do web searches on the cache questions and have to rely on the reviewer notes from the owner. I'll inform the owners and take steps to have the caches archived. GCM5Q1 was not listed by myself but I shall notify the listing reviewer of your concerns over the avaliability of the information.

I have had another look at GCMAGZ. Did you respond to the reviewer note? There is nothing in the notes to show you have. The normal response is to add a reviewer note as this keeps all the information with the cache. I have an email from you on 23 Dec 2004 that begins Re North and South but continues about 'I havent a brass razo", a cache I could not find, I replied:

Reviewer.

So now rather than my listing being re looked at the others will be archived, hence I look like the W****r who possibly had three very good WA caches archived.

I appreciate the role of the approvers but find some decisions somewhat inconsistent.

Maybe its me.

Ghost Who Walks · Post by **Ghost Who Walks** » 20 February 05 11:06 pm

Now that i have replied to this, none of my caches will be approved also.

I have found that a certain reviewer knocked back one of my caches( on hindsite he was correct), but how does he and other reviewers know what Western Australia is like unless they live here? He knocked back the cache because it was next to an 80Km road, while lots of caches are next to the same type of roads, and higher speed limits...

I copped a lot of flack from cachers in Perth, and also a reviewer in the eastern states, who hasn't even visited the site where the cache was.

The cache was "Rage in Rivervale". It wasn't meant to be easy. Its purposely under heavy tree cover to be hard to find....

Maybe for Perth cachers, we could have a reviewer that has at least found some caches...And has a clue...

Consistency is the name of the game.

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 20 February 05 11:38 pm

Ghost Who Walks wrote:Now that i have replied to this, none of my caches will be approved also.

I have found that a certain reviewer knocked back one of my caches( on hindsite he was correct), but how does he and other reviewers know what Western Australia is like unless they live here? He knocked back the cache because it was next to an 80Km road, while lots of caches are next to the same type of roads, and higher speed limits...

I copped a lot of flack from cachers in Perth, and also a reviewer in the eastern states, who hasn't even visited the site where the cache was.

The cache was "Rage in Rivervale". It wasn't meant to be easy. Its purposely under heavy tree cover to be hard to find....

Maybe for Perth cachers, we could have a reviewer that has at least found some caches...And has a clue...

Consistency is the name of the game.

Rage in Riverdale - GCK3W7? Are you sure it was knocked back? It appears to be listed with a first find on 28/7/2004.
No reviewer that I know has knocked back a cache because the owner has posted a complaint in a forum so as long as your caches meet the existing guidelines they will be listed on the groundspeak site.

All the reviewers I know have found more caches than your current total and have quite a few 'clues'.

Suggesting that a reviewer stationed in the Eastern States visit WA to look at a cache location is a bit unrealistic. Australian reviewers are a relatively new thing, for a long time we had American reviewers, would you suggest they visited Australia to see the cache site.?

You do realise that if you don't like the review process you can post your caches on gca and bypass it completely, in fact there is no reason to complain about the groundspeak guidelines or review process now that the option is available.

Ghost Who Walks · Post by **Ghost Who Walks** » 20 February 05 11:50 pm

Rage In Rivervale wasn't knocked back, i just copped a hell of a lot of flack/crap from a lot of people, and a certain reviewer, who at that time had no finds...

But, what do i know, i'm just a lowly person, who has very few finds to my name and doesn't know any better.

Team Pathfinder · Post by **Team Pathfinder** » 21 February 05 12:12 am

Ghost Who Walks wrote:Rage In Rivervale wasn't knocked back, i just copped a hell of a lot of flack/crap from a lot of people, and a certain reviewer, who at that time had no finds...

But, what do i know, i'm just a lowly person, who has very few finds to my name and doesn't know any better.

Well for what its worth we really enjoyed Rage in Rivervale. It seemed an easy cache to get to until we actually tried

We enjoy the hunt so much better than park and grab - anyone can do that!!

As for virtuals - well you really have us chatting up here but I arent game to place a comment until its REALLY well thought out.

Mix · Post by **Mix** » 21 February 05 12:30 am

certain reviewer, who at that time had no finds....

First you should know that there are currently only 2 reviewers in Australia so saying Ã‚â€œa certain reviewerÃ‚â€

oznaturist · Post by **oznaturist** » 21 February 05 12:47 am

Getting back to my original post

Team Pathfinder
As for virtuals - well you really have us chatting up here but I arent game to place a comment until its REALLY well thought out.

Yes I may have walked into that.
Consistancy is what I am asking for. If CC.com is trying to get back to physical caches as has been quoted, then fine. Dont approve any Virtual or only those which truly fit the criteria. This would exclude most currently posted.

Me,
This will probably screw up any chance I have of getting a Virtual Cache approved ever,

Yes this may be uncalled for. Accept my apologies.

I just found a sneeky little place in the middle of lots of concrete with some interesting info.

Geocaching Australia

Virtual caches

Virtual caches

Reviewers who don't have a clue

Re: Reviewers who don't have a clue