You Have All Read It A 1000 Times.

July 23, 2004

What have you read 1000 times? The answer is: "The cache approver will not approve my virtual cache . " Now it is my turn and if you are interested, read on, this will count number 1001.

Here is the situation and my stance. I've submitted, on two different occasions, the same virtual cache in a Wilderness Area, one that does not approve of physical caches, and it was reject by two different approvers, yes two: 9key and CO admin. CO admin never responded to my response. 9key's response was unacceptable. My stance is that I deserve a resonable response to the question as to why my cache will not be approved. I do not appreciate a link to the rules and regulations. I know them. I have placed 49 caches througout AZ and UT and only once have I had any issues with my application. I agree that this by no means justifies an automatic acceptance of my cache applications. But, I expect a thorough review and resonable responses to questions about a rejected application.

So, I submit to you, my peers, all of the data. Tell me why my cache should or should not be approved. I will drop this issue and apologize if you tell me that my cache is not acceptable and I've behaved inopropriately, otherwise, please approve this cache.

All communitcation for this cache was done via logs on the cache web page.

Since the cache is archived you will not be able to follow this link, but other cache approvers will so I include it: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...08-18246fa2a60e (GCK0QC Miller Peak).

(1) Here is a cut and past of the log entries on the cache page.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

July 22 by Wily Javelina (388 found)

For the record, the final communication that will be made with 9Key.

-WJ

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

"So after blasting me in your log on the cache page you just move on and

continue to lobby for this cache. ???"

I interpret the statement above as saying that I've pissed you off and how dare I ask you to approve my cache. Correct? Well, here is the deal, Will. I've treated you with the same respect that you have treated me. I've "blasted" you no worse than you've attempted to blast me.

"Your virtual is not in a national park ~ Mica is. That would be difference.

I believe that is what I posted previously."

You still have not answered my question. I expect an intelligent response other than I do not like your choice of cache locations.

"If you disagree with the *two* archives of this same cache I recommend you

post your proposed cache to the forums for peer review."

Yes, so true. I thought that I would give you a chance to give my application a fair review. As a cache approver you have responsibility to give each cache application a thorough review, give a reasonable response to questions and above all treat fellow cachers with the same respect that you'd expect to receive.

Do not reply to this email.

-WJ

9Key wrote:

So after blasting me in your log on the cache page you just move on and

continue to lobby for this cache. ???

~~~~

Your virtual is not in a national park ~ Mica is. That would be difference.

I believe that is what I posted previously.

If you disagree with the *two* archives of this same cache I recommend you

post your proposed cache to the forums for peer review.

Regards,

Will ~ 9key

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]

July 21 by Wily Javelina (388 found)

"It is very difficult to communicate with someone who doesn't provide their email address.

There is a box on the "email a user" page that says "I want to send my email address along with this message." You need to check that box or I cannot reply to your message via email."

I know, I hate it when you cannot reply directly to email notificaitons. So, here is what I had to do when I replied to you archive notification. I went to the cache page, found your log entry, went to your profile page and on your profile page there is a link "Click to Email".

"The Mica cache is in a national park. Traditional caches are not allowed on NPS managed land.

I've looked at your previous virtual caches and they were approved for similar reasons: national park, Indian Res., wilderness area."

This does not answer my question as to what makes this cache different from the Mica Mtn cache, it tells me how they are the same and that is why I do not feel that this cache has recieved a fair review and should be approved.

This time I will send my email address, we can communcate in either fashion, your choice.

-WJ

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]

July 20 by 9Key (884 found)

I'll be proactive and answer your question via a post, in case you don't send an email...

The Mica cache is in a national park. Traditional caches are not allowed on NPS managed land.

I've looked at your previous virtual caches and they were approved for similar reasons: national park, Indian Res., wilderness area.

[view this log on a separate page]

July 20 by 9Key (884 found)

"If this is the way that you would like to communicate. We may as well archive the whole conversation, instead of the tidbits of your choice. Also, since you probably are not watching this cache, I am sending you this log as an email.

"

It is very difficult to communicate with someone who doesn't provide their email address.

There is a box on the "email a user" page that says "I want to send my email address along with this message." You need to check that box or I cannot reply to your message via email.

My email address is [deleted by moderator].

[view this log on a separate page]

July 20 by Wily Javelina (388 found)

Okay 9key,

If this is the way that you would like to communicate. We may as well archive the whole conversation, instead of the tidbits of your choice.

First of all you did not answer my question on what differentiates this from the Mica Mountain Cache (GCJX6T)?

Secondly, there is not a reasonable way to make this an offset. In order to make it an offset I would have to leave some kind of media containing the offset...may a well leave a cache. There was nothing already at the site that contains a means to relay an offset, either. I already considered this idea.

Thirdly, there is not a good or reasonable place to leave the final cache, that is, without cooking up some klugey, hacked up, forced location. The trailhead starts out on National ParkLand (Coronado National Memorial) and then transitions directly to Wilderness Area. So, there is no good place near the start. The other trailhead is on the Fort Huachuca Military Base. In between there are already many caches. The logical place to locate the final cache is near the trailhead.

Fourthly, what differentiates between a historical lookout tower on one of Arizona's most prominent peaks and say a old movie theatre, an old post office, a large brass plaque on a concrete dias...the difference is purely subjective and individual.

Quit being such a tough guy and just approve the cache.

-WJ

-- Copy of email sent to 9Key --

I do not understand why you folks will not approve this cache. First of

all, the peak is not the main objective of the virtual, the lookout

tower on the summit is, read the description. Secondly, this is a

wilderness area and in this one, in particular, physical caches are not

allowed. Thirdly, I do not see what is different about this cache GCJX6T Mica

Mountain

(visit link)

which was just recently approved. I can list many. So your argument

about a peak not being a valid virtual does not hold water. I guess it

depends on who you know, who you are, which approver you get and thier

current state of mind, etc.

-WJ

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

This is an automated message from Geocaching.com

You are receiving this email because you are the owner of this listing.

9Key archived Miller Peak (Virtual Cache) at 7/18/2004

Log Date: 7/18/2004

Looks like this one was archived once already back in April. I concurr

with Co_admin on the original archive, the 10th highest peak in AZ

isn't a virtual cache. (visit link)

Sorry.

[view/edit logs/images on a separate page]

[upload an image for this log]

(2) here is a cut and past of the cache page

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

This virtual cache is located on the summit of Miller Peak (9466 ft), which is located in Huachuca Mountains and is the is tenth highest summit in Arizona.

Miller Peak is located in the Miller Peak Wilderness, so a regular cache would not be appropriate at this location. Therefore, I made "Miller Peak" a virtual geocache.

There are several different routes to the summit. The route that I recomend is the Miller Peak Trail, which is part of the Huachuca Crest Trail. The hike to the summit is around 10 miles round-trip with a total elevation change of 2900 ft. To get to the trail, drive 15 miles past Sierra Vista on Hwy 92. Turn right on the Coronado National Memorial Road and follow it for another 8 miles to Montezuma Pass, the trail starts here. The trail gains elevation quickly and traverses several open mine shafts. Once the major ridgeline is reached, the trail traverses it to the summit.

If you are into visting old lookout towers, you will still be able to find the foundations of the old Miller Peak Lookout. At one point it in time I imagine that it looked very similar to the Atascosa Lookout tower.

To claim this cache you must provide two photos: (1) take a photo of what remains of the old historic lookout tower and (2) include a photo of your GPSr with the summit cairn and Carr Peak in the background. Post both photos on the cache page along with your log entry. Note that your GPSr must be in the (2) photo and must be on the cairn or it will not count as a find..

The views from the summit are unquestionably some of the best in southern Arizona (sample 1 and sample 2).

Edited July 23, 2004 by Keystone Approver

7.3k · July 23, 2004

If I was an approver, I'd approve it!

(Unless there is something going on here that I am unaware of.)

I love virtuals in NPS. We can't have any other cache there, and when I am on vacation, I like to do caches!

7.2k · July 23, 2004

Well, its the top of a mountain. Are mountain tops unusual?

Sorry, but I've seen a lot of mountain tops. That answer would be no.

It is not even the highest mountain in AZ. It is only the 10th highest mountain. So, do we make virtual caches out of the other 9 too? What about the hundreds of thousands of mountain tops across the globe?

You say it has a great view. A view is not a geocache. It is just a view. I've seen thousands of places that have had great views as I have hiked. Are they geocaches? No, they are not.

In closing, I will refer you to this post in a topic that is still on the front page of this forum:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ndpost&p=994223

Maybe we're doomed to repeat the same topics in these forums till TPTB finally rule on every question?

I think one of the problems is that people are still trying to debate issues that were settled long ago. Vacation caches, virtuals, cache saturation, log requirements, etc...

There are people who keep beating these topics to death expecting things to change. The decision's been made and there has been a final ruling guys. I rarely see a new issue introduced that doesn't get the attention of TPTB. Its the dead horse issues that are ignored, for good reason. There is nothing for TPTB to add.

I don't want to reply on how or why a decision to limit virtuals was made when I have no idea why the decision was made in the first place

There were several. First they were getting out of hand. People were waypointing every roadside plaque, no matter how mundane, as well as flagpoles, manhole covers and fence posts and making virtual caches out of them. And of course there are the infamous sneaker in the woods and rotting animal carcass virtual submissions.

Second, and most important in my mind, was that when negotiating with land managers about geocaching, they would often point to virtual caches as an acceptable alternative. This endangered the traditional goecaching concept in many areas. Now that virts have been limited, that option is no longer on the table and negotations can center on getting them to accept traditional caches.

Finally, TPTB wanted to get back to the basics of the sport, which is finding a box in the woods.

July 23, 2004

In Michigan, mountains are rare enough to be considered virtuals.

Edited July 23, 2004 by Radman Version 3.0

7.3k · July 23, 2004

I'm sorry, but I disagree wholeheartedly.

If regular caches were allowed on all those mountaintops, there probably would be caches on all of those mountaintops. And people would be happily finding those regular caches. But when they are not allowed, why don't we allow virtuals? If I am climbing to the top of that mountain, I appreciate the fact that I have been able to get a cache while on vacation, or whatever. Why am I denied that pleasure, just because it is a NPS and regular caches are not allowed, and the virtual excitement was deemed to be nil? It doesn't make any sense to me.

July 23, 2004

Well put Ambrosia, if a physical cache isn't allowed, what's wrong with a virt? Doesn't hurt anything!

July 23, 2004

Well Mtn Man,

I've been waiting for your reply, because it is one that is respect. But, this time I do not agree with you.

It is not just the mountain top that is the main focus but the remains of the and old historic lookout tower. Also, why was the Mica Mountain cache approved then? It is just another summit?

You also did not give my application a THOROUGH review. You just read the title looked at the photo and did not read full cache page or the logs.

BTW. This cache is not on National Park Land it is Wilderness Area.

-WJ

Edited July 23, 2004 by Wily Javelina

7.3k · July 23, 2004

BTW. This cache is not on National Park Land it is Wilderness Area.

-WJ

Sorry, same sort of thing, though.

7.2k · July 23, 2004

Ambrosia, it is simply because mountains are common. If a mountain view was allowed as a cache you would basically have to start another site to have all of the caches for mountain tops. There would be millions of mountaintop caches. That is because they are everywhere. I will show you a virtual mountain top cache:

Kala Pattar by Boxi

That sort of makes the 10th highest mountain in AZ look a lot smaller doesn't it.

Radman, I've been on mountains in Michigan.

I'm from GA and I've even been on mountains in Michigan.

I will ask you to read the BrianSnat post that I quoted one more time please. The decision has been made already.

3.9k · July 23, 2004

I don't think the "wow" factor should apply to NPS property (or other land that does not allow physical caches). We just had a virtual approved in this area in a National Wildlife Refuge. The location was far from anything special. It had a nice view and nice trails and it would have been a great place for a traditional cache but nothing out of the ordinary for the area. IMO It was correctly approved simply because in was a NWR. If the area of the subject virtual is located on property that does not allow physical caches I think it should be approved as long as it meets all the guidelines.

Edited July 23, 2004 by JMBella

6.5k · July 23, 2004

Find something more wow than a mountaintop (and apperently an old watchtower) and try again. Any unusual history or rare feature you can use?

And IMO opinion, including all that bickering, most of which I didn't bother to read, was a waste. Its good that you tried to be... full open with the 'background' but '9key reaction was unaccpetable' and 'my mountain as virtual was not approved' are two different topics. Trying to tend to them both at the same time just clouds things up.

July 23, 2004

I will ask you to read the BrianSnat post that I quoted one more time please. The decision has been made already.

If the "decision has been made already" why was the Mica Mountain cache approved? Will Someone Please answer. Also, I have had several of these "mundane" virtuals approved after Brian Snats post!

Give me a good answer!

-WJ

7.3k · July 23, 2004

I don't think the "wow" factor should apply to NPS property (or other land that does not allow physical caches). We just had a virtual approved in this area in a National Wildlife Refuge. The location was far from anything special. It had a nice view and nice trails and it would have been a great place for a traditional cache but nothing out of the ordinary for the area. IMO It was correctly approved simply because in was a NWR. If the area of the subject virtual is located on property that does not allow physical caches I think it should be approved as long as it meets all the guidelines.

I still stick by this, Mtn-man. If regular ones could be there, this should be there. We wouldn't have to start another service, because these are only taking the place of where a regular cache would be.

July 23, 2004

Radman, I've been on mountains in Michigan.
I'm from GA and I've even been on mountains in Michigan.

Maybe in the UP, but not around Central Michigan. I live in MOUNT Pleasant, but there are no mountains!

Anyways, after reading some of the posts on your linked thread, I agree that making too many virtuals might lead to land managers thinking virtuals are the only way to go and physical caches might never be accepted. But since land managers aren't going to change their minds ANYWAYS, virtuals don't hurt.

3.9k · July 23, 2004

If a mountain view was allowed as a cache you would basically have to start another site to have all of the caches for mountain tops. There would be millions of mountaintop caches.

I respectfully disagree with this statement mtn-man. Just because there ARE millions of mountain tops doesn't mean people are going to place virtuals on every one. Caches are allowed every 528 feet. Does that mean cachers are going to hide caches every 528 feet? Of course not. We already have the potential for millions of caches and there are plenty of mountain tops on lands that allow physical caches. Nobody is running to every one of those and hiding a cache there.

edit: added quote

Edited July 23, 2004 by JMBella

July 23, 2004

Find something more wow than a mountaintop (and apperently an old watchtower) and try again. Any unusual history or rare feature you can use?

And IMO opinion, including all that bickering, most of which I didn't bother to read, was a waste. Its good that you tried to be... full open with the 'background' but '9key reaction was unaccpetable' and 'my mountain as virtual was not approved' are two different topics. Trying to tend to them both at the same time just clouds things up.

Yes, you make a good point...kind of. I am into Mountain tops and old fire towers, see what I post for caches. That is just me and I understand that lots of you folks do not share the same interests as I. Old Look out towers members of the unusual history category.

But, I have, as of yet, not received one good response from an approver. Three down...

-WJ

Edited July 23, 2004 by Wily Javelina

9.4k · July 23, 2004

I don't think that just because physicals aren't allowed makes something worthy of being a virtual cache.

An excellent view doesn't make it worthy either.

Same goes for a long hike.

Now this tower thing...what is the significance of the tower? The original post weas fragmented and very hard to read. Tell me about this tower and what makes it so special that someone would want to hike up there to see it.

July 23, 2004

But, I have as of yet received not one good response from an approver. Three down...

-WJ

Dude, it's one o'clock here on the East Coast, don't expect an answer until at least tommorow.

7.3k · July 23, 2004

I have a lot of respect for you, Mtn-man, but this virtual in NPS and other protected areas is something I feel strongly about. We just have different opinions, I guess.

I just went to the Olympic National Park this weekend. Patudles and I wanted to get as many caches as possible. Unfortunately, we were with my husband who does not like to go out of his way to go to a cache, and with some other friends as well. We really appreciated the virtuals that were at some nice spots near beaches that we were already going to. We wished there were more of those caches, even though they really weren't all that much of a cache, they warmed our little geocaching hearts. We were only sad that there weren't more, and sadly enough, now there probably won't be that many more in NPS with the stronger guidlines on virtuals.

But the problem is, no one CAN go and put real ones in those areas. We wanted to make some while we were there, but were a little afraid to try. We may, we may not.

3.9k · July 23, 2004

I don't think that just because physicals aren't allowed makes something worthy of being a virtual cache.

An excellent view doesn't make it worthy either.

Same goes for a long hike.

Do you think it would be worthy of a physical cache?

Edited July 23, 2004 by JMBella

2.3k · July 23, 2004

Now this tower thing...what is the significance of the tower? The original post weas fragmented and very hard to read. Tell me about this tower and what makes it so special that someone would want to hike up there to see it.

There's the key to getting this one approved...concentrate on the tower...tell us abput it...

Then again, it was said: "The decision has been made"...that sounds final, and who ya gonna appeal to?

Heck, I was going to submit my "The Divide" cache (located on the Great Divide in New Mexico) as a Virt, but then thought it would have a better chance of getting approved if I put a physical cache there, which I did. It STILL got turned down, can you believe it?

Me? I like Virts, I say more power to ya!

I say let's take this issue to "Geo-Court" and let a mediation team decide on it...

July 23, 2004

Now this tower thing...what is the significance of the tower? The original post weas fragmented and very hard to read. Tell me about this tower and what makes it so special that someone would want to hike up there to see it.

Well, thank you for asking. "Fire lookouts have been a proud and prominent history in forestry. They are perceived as a symbol of forest conservation, although their role in fire detection has changed, lookouts, even abandoned ones, remain popular with visitors and offer opportunities for public involvement in forest conservation programs." I am a an armchair Forester and strive to visit all the lookout towers in AZ. Not all towers towers made it to the historic register and have been removed or left to decay (e.g., from a wilderness area or NP), like the ones on Mica Mtn, Miller Peak and Mt Wrigtson (GCC2C1), just to name a few.

See the following web page for more info on fire towers throughout the US. http://www.firetower.org/presorted/byState/USA_Arizona.html. Visiting an old lookout tower on a remote peak is very exciting to me.

-WJ

6.5k · July 23, 2004

Find something more wow than a mountaintop (and apperently an old watchtower) and try again. Any unusual history or rare feature you can use?

And IMO opinion, including all that bickering, most of which I didn't bother to read, was a waste. Its good that you tried to be... full open with the 'background' but '9key reaction was unaccpetable' and 'my mountain as virtual was not approved' are two different topics. Trying to tend to them both at the same time just clouds things up.

Yes, you make a good point...kind of. I am into Mountain tops and old fire towers, see what I post for caches. That is just me and I understand that lots of you folks do not share the same interests as I. Old Look out towers members of the unusual history category.

I don't see it totally as whether people like mountain tops or watchtowers so much, its thats there is only so much wow in a mountain top. If its a mountain top with an old tower its just a mountain top with an old tower. But if its a mountain top with an old tower that WHATEVER happened here IN XXXX by WHOEVER. Then its the (only) mountain top with an old tower that was the site of the only BLAH anywhere.

7.3k · July 23, 2004

We have a cache on Mission Peak, which is the tallest peak in our direct vicinity at around something like 6800'. It has an old firetower on it. All that's left of it is the concrete supports.

9.4k · July 23, 2004

I don't think that just because physicals aren't allowed makes something worthy of being a virtual cache.

An excellent view doesn't make it worthy either.

Same goes for a long hike.

Do you think it would be worthy of a physical cache?

You might find a tree stump or a pile of rocks every 50 feet but in this game they don't become worthy of hunting until someone places a geocache under them. I prefer to have a nice hike or view while I'm looking for a geocache, but those are really a bonus that often go with the game.

The container is the basis of this game, so there are no subjective guidelines on where they can be placed. Virtuals are a spin-off of the game and need to be limited for a variety of reasons. Radman touched on one reason earlier: If virtuals were allowed anywhere, many land managers would soon require only virtuals. That could be the end of geocaching.

Would you really want to blanket a wilderness area with virtuals every 528 feet? No, virtuals must be reserved for truly special places. Places that make you say, "WOW!"

9.4k · July 23, 2004

Now this tower thing...what is the significance of the tower? The original post weas fragmented and very hard to read. Tell me about this tower and what makes it so special that someone would want to hike up there to see it.

Well, thank you for asking. "Fire lookouts have been a proud and prominent history in forestry. They are perceived as a symbol of forest conservation, although their role in fire detection has changed, lookouts, even abandoned ones, remain popular with visitors and offer opportunities for public involvement in forest conservation programs." I am a an armchair Forester and strive to visit all the lookout towers in AZ. Not all towers towers made it to the historic register and have been removed or left to decay (e.g., from a wilderness area or NP), like the ones on Mica Mtn, Miller Peak and Mt Wrigtson (GCC2C1), just to name a few.

See the following web page for more info on fire towers throughout the US. http://www.firetower.org/presorted/byState/USA_Arizona.html. Visiting an old lookout tower on a remote peak is very exciting to me.

-WJ

Ok, so watchtowers have a long and glorious history in Arizona. That's great. Now, why is this particular watchtower of such importance that it should be the site of a virtual cache? What is it that would make someone say "WOW!" when they got there?

July 23, 2004

Would you really want to blanket a wilderness area with virtuals every 528 feet? No, virtuals must be reserved for truly special places. Places that make you say, "WOW!"

You obviously have not been to southern Arizona and bagged some of our desert islands. Anybody that stands on this peak, I guarantee, well shout WOW!

7.3k · July 23, 2004

I don't think that just because physicals aren't allowed makes something worthy of being a virtual cache.

An excellent view doesn't make it worthy either.

Same goes for a long hike.

Do you think it would be worthy of a physical cache?

You might find a tree stump or a pile of rocks every 50 feet but in this game they don't become worthy of hunting until someone places a geocache under them. I prefer to have a nice hike or view while I'm looking for a geocache, but those are really a bonus that often go with the game.

The container is the basis of this game, so there are no subjective guidelines on where they can be placed. Virtuals are a spin-off of the game and need to be limited for a variety of reasons. Radman touched on one reason earlier: If virtuals were allowed anywhere, many land managers would soon require only virtuals. That could be the end of geocaching.

Would you really want to blanket a wilderness area with virtuals every 528 feet? No, virtuals must be reserved for truly special places. Places that make you say, "WOW!"

I agree to a point:

In regular areas, we must be strict with virts, cause we don't want to put a virt in and spoil it for a regular cache.

But regular caches are not allowed in this area, so a virt HAS to be put there, if there is a cache at all.

The most logical place for this to be is on the top of the mountain. This would probably be the first place that someone would put a regular cache, if they could do so.

This virt should be allowed. The point is, at this point there are no virtual caches every .1 miles in this area. After this virt is allowed, perhaps any other virts that want to go into this area should be more carefully moderated.

24.7k · July 23, 2004

Rant/

The last time I saw a quote on what all the things that WOW wasn't it covered everything on earth. I did a topic poking fun at it and it was locked. Virtuals are like a locked thread. They are not going anywhere.

Here is the deal. Your cache is dead. This site won't approve it. I don't agree with the sites angle on virtuals, but I'm not the decision maker. Were it me I'd approve it. It's worthy. That changes nothing about your cache being denied. List it somewhere else. List all your future caches somewhere else. Why fight the system? People who agree with the sites stand on virtuals will tell you the same. List it somewhere else. With your hides you have the ability to shift your local to the site of your choice. Maybe not the world, but your small island. So when they say "list it somewhere else, they are right, that's what it's going to take to get the job done.

When push comes to shove people go where the caches are, so the stupidest advice anyone who loves this site can give is anything other than "what can we do to help you get your cache listed here". Especially when the cache involves the very things that geoachers love to see.

/Rant

9.4k · July 23, 2004

Would you really want to blanket a wilderness area with virtuals every 528 feet? No, virtuals must be reserved for truly special places. Places that make you say, "WOW!"

You obviously have not been to southern Arizona and bagged some of our desert islands. Anybody that stands on this peak, I guarantee, well shout WOW!

Well, now you're going back to the view. Check the guidelines page for virtuals:

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/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.

If you want this cache approved, it must be about the lookout tower (or the ruins of it). The view from the mountaintop is only an added feature, not the focus of the cache.

July 23, 2004

The response that I am getting from Team GPSaxophone, and others, are more on the line of the questions that I'd expect to get from a cache approver. Thank you.

This cache satisfies the WOW factor, the histric landmark factor, the no phyical caches allowed requirement, so what is the deal? Why do some virtuals on peaks get approved and others don't?

7.3k · July 23, 2004

I really think there are two breeds of virtuals.

The ones where you can put regular caches, and the ones where you can't. They should each have a slightly different criteria for approving them.

Sure, if you can put a real cache in the area, the virtual needs to be WOW!

But if you can't because it is a NPS or other such thing, they should be treated as a sort of hybrid between a real cache and a virtual. The wow should not be as much of a factor, because in reality, they are a regular cache substitute. Otherwise, you are limiting these areas in a very sad way.

Edited July 23, 2004 by Ambrosia

24.7k · July 23, 2004

Mountain Tops often have a peak register. That can have a number written on it or in it, and solves the specific target problem. At least if this mountain has one.

7.2k · July 23, 2004

But, I have, as of yet, not received one good response from an approver. Three down...

-WJ

Fire tower, eh.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=20738

Already a cache. Feel free to log your find there.

I even went to the trouble to see if any of the 320 fire towers that have already been logged were the one you have marked. It has not been found yet.

Is this a good enough response yet?

7.3k · July 23, 2004

No.

(Sorry, gave in to temptation. I wub you, Mtn-man! )

Edited July 23, 2004 by Ambrosia

9.4k · July 23, 2004

The response that I am getting from Team GPSaxophone, and others, are more on the line of the questions that I'd expect to get from a cache approver. Thank you.

This cache satisfies the WOW factor, the histric landmark factor, the no phyical caches allowed requirement, so what is the deal? Why do some virtuals on peaks get approved and others don't?

Virtual Cache Posting Guidelines

1. A virtual cache must be a physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. That object should be semi-permanent to permanent. <snip>

The ruins of a lookout tower sounds like a physical object and has been there for several years, making it a permanent object.

2. A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches. Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples. If you don't know if it is appropriate, contact your local approver first, or post a question to the forums about your idea.

This is where you need to convince the approver that your chosen object has merit. Is this just another abandoned lookout tower, or is there a story to go with it?

3. 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. The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

I think this doesn't matter if you have #4:

4. An original photo posted to the cache log can be an acceptable way to verify a find, or an email to the owner with valid answers for the question or questions. In NO cases should answers be posted in the logs, even if encrypted.

You asked for a picture in the cache description.

As long as you can answer #2, I think this would be a good location for a virtual cache. (See? I don't hate all virtuals)

1.6k · July 23, 2004

I'm with mtn-man on this one.

7.2k · July 23, 2004

No.

(Sorry, gave in to temptation. I wub you, Mtn-man! )

7.3k · July 23, 2004

I wub you, too, Saxy!

Edited July 23, 2004 by Ambrosia

July 23, 2004

Here is the deal. Your cache is dead. This site won't approve it.

Yes, maybe so? I still have hope. Also, I do feel that I deserve reasonable response as to why not this one and yes to others that are practically identical.

7.2k · July 23, 2004

Here is the deal. Your cache is dead. This site won't approve it.

Yes, maybe so? I still have hope. Also, I do feel that I deserve reasonable response as to why not this one and yes to others that are practically identical.

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past approval of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the approval of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

Your cache needs to stand on it's own merits. The other one might have slipped through. You can report it to the contact address.

9.4k · July 23, 2004

Here is the deal. Your cache is dead. This site won't approve it.

Yes, maybe so? I still have hope. Also, I do feel that I deserve reasonable response as to why not this one and yes to others that are practically identical.

Because you're avoiding the issue. What makes this particular tower special?

July 23, 2004

But, I have, as of yet, not received one good response from an approver. Three down...

-WJ

Fire tower, eh.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=20738

Already a cache. Feel free to log your find there.

I even went to the trouble to see if any of the 320 fire towers that have already been logged were the one you have marked. It has not been found yet.

Is this a good enough response yet?

Not even close. What is your point?

21.9k · July 23, 2004

But, I have, as of yet, not received one good response from an approver. Three down...

-WJ

Well, some of us ARE up until the wee hours of the morning, working hard on cache reviews and answering correspondence.

But tell me my motivation to jump into this blender? No thanks, I'll pass.

If you could tone it down a notch and be civil, I would be glad to offer my thoughts at a later time. Thank you in advance for adhering to our Forum Guidelines.

9.4k · July 23, 2004

Would you really want to blanket a wilderness area with virtuals every 528 feet? No, virtuals must be reserved for truly special places. Places that make you say, "WOW!"

You obviously have not been to southern Arizona and bagged some of our desert islands. Anybody that stands on this peak, I guarantee, well shout WOW!

I'll be driving through Southern Arizona (again, I might add) on August 2nd. How close is this to I-8 or I-10?

July 23, 2004

Would you really want to blanket a wilderness area with virtuals every 528 feet? No, virtuals must be reserved for truly special places. Places that make you say, "WOW!"

You obviously have not been to southern Arizona and bagged some of our desert islands. Anybody that stands on this peak, I guarantee, well shout WOW!

I'll be driving through Southern Arizona (again, I might add) on August 2nd. How close is this to I-8 or I-10?

Sierra Viast is located about an hours drive from Tucson. It is about 25 miles south of I-10, from the Benson exit. From Sierra Vista, follow AZ92 south for about 15 miles, then turn right on the Coronado National Memorial road. Continue 8.2 miles to Montezuma Pass, this is where the trailhead is located.

7.2k · July 23, 2004

Is this a good enough response yet?

Not even close. What is your point?

My point is that there already is a cache covering the fire tower you are trying to get approved. Log it.

If you want to argue the view part, well, I go back to the guidelines:

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail/beach/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.

1.6k · July 23, 2004

I think www.waypointhunter.com is still available if someone wants to start a waypoint listing site.

7.3k · July 23, 2004

I'm not sure if that is the point.

July 23, 2004

I don't think that just because physicals aren't allowed makes something worthy of being a virtual cache.

An excellent view doesn't make it worthy either.

Same goes for a long hike.

Now this tower thing...what is the significance of the tower? The original post weas fragmented and very hard to read. Tell me about this tower and what makes it so special that someone would want to hike up there to see it.

I agree with the Sax Man.... that tower sounds interesting. Maybe if you did a little research, you might find there is more to that tower than you know - maybe enough for it to qualify as a virtual.

You Have All Read It A 1000 Times.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment