[Az-Geocaching] Mo' bettah caches!

Tue Mar 8 01:59:09 MST 2005

Ok, I spent a lot of time tonight replying........

Artemis 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. 

My reply: Artemis, I know what the guidelines say. I know what the official party line is on the site. I even understand their reasons. The fact is, virtuals are the ugly stepchildren at geocaching.com. Many of us still want them and are not thrilled about not being able to have them as readily any more. Honestly, some areas cant have them period as the approvers will never approve them. This is by their own words. We will play by the guidelines, as I have with very little complaining. That has not stopped me from considering alternatives so that I can play my way. I want to look at and list virtual caches. GC.com wont. That is their right. As it is my right to try other means to play my way, without harming the sport.

Artemis wrote: 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. 

My reply: I think there is a misunderstanding. I did not mean that any approver has actively discouraged people from placing caches (except for virtuals). However I do think there has been at times too much interference by gc.com and all that nitpicking has made some of us reluctant to place caches. 

Artemis wrote: 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.

My reply: And these are more than adequate reasons for denying a cache. I personally have no problem with this at all. I am in full agreement with you and gc.com in those things. I am not complaining that caches are denied, certainly under these guidelines.  

Artemis wrote: If you have had a cache listing denied there is a very friendly and

complete process to make sure you were treated fairly and given all

the benifits of the doubt. If the cachers claims to have received

permission and groundspeak gets a message from the land owner saying

we are allowing violations of the rules, we the reviewers suck it up

and admit a mistake. I have never to the best of my knowledge denied a

cache because of lameness or lack of desire to do so.

My reply: Nor have I ever felt any cache of mine was unfairly denied. I have not bothered to submit a virtual since the rules changed, given the attitude of some approvers who have bragged that they will never allow a virtual to be placed again.

Artemis wrote: I have always wrote things like 'please tell me your opinion' when I

have an issue I need to discuss with the cache owner. now I am asking

you Gale, if your having an issue with cache listings, please let me

know what it is so I can assist.

My reply: I have not had an issue with the way my caches have been handled (with one minor exception). Ive had caches archived, and understood why. Ive had caches denied and understood why. My issue with cache listings is that when all is said and done, even beyond the necessity of limitations to please land managers, gc.com has its own view of what caching is. That is fine. It is their site. I am disappointed that they don’t take cachers’ wishes into consideration. I am disappointed in that even when I ask a harmless question on the forums, I am harshly judged and condemned. I am disappointed in that when I have emailed TPTB in the past, the emails were ignored. Its an overall lack of customer service from the website. I feel like Im being treated as a child. Its little things like this that make me less willing to post new caches.

Artemis wrote: This whole argument of lets leave groundspeak is fun to watch, but if

you are having a problem, I would hope feel you could talk to me. I do

not volunteer my time to groundspeak because it is fun. I accepted

there offer to assist because I felt it would help the community in

the state I live in.

My reply: I never said “lets leave gc.com”. I only said I considered an alternative to the parts that gc.com isn’t interested in. Artemis, you have no idea how much I understand the position you are in. I am actively involved in another completely unrelated website where I am pretty sure I take more abuse than you do. Just tonight I was threatened by someone, and it was not the first time that has happened. It isn’t even the first time this month it has happened. 

Artemis Approver <artemis.approver at gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe this is the second can of worms for the week, but aside from the
powertrail that most of the cachers agreed should be a multi or set of
multi's, I am not understanding this comment.

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.

If you have had a cache listing denied there is a very friendly and
complete process to make sure you were treated fairly and given all
the benifits of the doubt. If the cachers claims to have received
permission and groundspeak gets a message from the land owner saying
we are allowing violations of the rules, we the reviewers suck it up
and admit a mistake. I have never to the best of my knowledge denied a
cache because of lameness or lack of desire to do so.

Caches sitting in a please archive because the cache owner has not
checked on it in six months status even get direct emails and notes
before I take any action.
I have always wrote things like 'please tell me your opinion' when I
have an issue I need to discuss with the cache owner. now I am asking
you Gale, if your having an issue with cache listings, please let me
know what it is so I can assist.

This whole argument of lets leave groundspeak is fun to watch, but if
you are having a problem, I would hope feel you could talk to me. I do
not volunteer my time to groundspeak because it is fun. I accepted
there offer to assist because I felt it would help the community in
the state I live in.

Artemis

> Perhaps part of the
> reason they havent been as exciting lately is that many cachers are
> discouraged from placing caches any more with recent interactions with
> gc.com. I know I have been feeling like that myself. Or maybe it is just gas
> prices keeping people from setting caches. 

-- 
Volunteer Reviewer
Geocaching.com
____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv at azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching

Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com

Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes
  On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:
"Something hidden.  Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --
  "Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling ,   The Explorer  1898

---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
 Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.sequoia.net/pipermail/az-geocaching/attachments/20050308/61659924/attachment.htm