- I agree Julie and plan to appeal. It won t cost anything to try... Barry ... From: CentralTexasGeocachers@yahoogroups.comMessage 1 of 3 , Jun 26, 2006View Source
MessageI agree Julie and plan to appeal. It won't cost anything to try...Barry-----Original Message-----
From: CentralTexasGeocachers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CentralTexasGeocachers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Perrine, Julie
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: [CentralTexasGeocachers] Re: Flight of the Phoenix (GCWQ88) will not be approved... :-(
I still think it’s worthwhile to pursue getting it approved. I worked and got the rules for events changed and we’re all able to have more fun because of it. There is an escalation process, and if the people who have the final say have an “appointment” cache at their front door, they’re probably willing to approve it.
Mrs. Captain Picard
From: CentralTexasGeocachers@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CentralTexasGeocachers@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of CenTex Geocaching Manager
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [CentralTexasGeocachers] Re: Flight of the Phoenix (GCWQ88) will not be approved... :-(
Now Will, surely you know that just because a similar cache is approved, there is NO basis for an appeal to a new cache built in much the same manner. ;)
And yes, I agree, I don't see any problem with this cache being handled as an appointment basis. Wouldn't it be similar to "Call ahead to see if the water's calm enough to attempt that kayak cache?"
But then, logic and GC guidelines don't always meld nicely.
On 6/26/06, Will Nienke <9key@... > wrote:
I think its interesting that they decided to not approve your cache
yet Ground Speak has a cache at their offices in Seattle that is
appointment only: GCK25B
Here's the thread in the Texas forum:
--- In CentralTexasGeocachers@yahoogroups.com, Bob Chernow
> Barry wrote:
> > Prime Reviewer:
> > I've been discussing this with the other reviewers, and they
> > have a big objection to the idea of having to make an
> > order to hunt a cache. While there are a lot of caches that have
> > restricted hours (such as in parks that are closed at night),
> > they're regular, predictable hours. Caches shouldn't suddenly
> > inaccessible just because the owner is out of town for a week or
> > If having people on your property at night is an issue, it's
> > probably not the best place for a night cache. Until you can
> > better arrangement, I'm not going to be able to publish this.
> > My reply:
> > I strongly disagree. The cache would not "suddenly" become
> > inaccessible. Since it would be by appointment, any cacher would
> > know before setting out if we would be there or not. Plus, there
> > no "rule" stating your "opinions". This is a last minute,
> > decision made by people who most probably would never visit this
> > cache making up the rules on the fly. The cachers who hunted for
> > Saturday night, when told it would be by appointment had no
> > with the idea at all... If I had a quarter for all the caches I
> > hunted that were no longer there because they were washed away or
> > muggled and therefore became "suddenly inaccessible".... At least
> > this cache would always be there when any cacher came to hunt
> > because having made an appointment, we would have made sure that
> > reflectors were still in place, that forest growth hadn't covered
> > them up, that the cache still is there and that it still had some
> > goodies in it for everyone. I am very dissappointed....
> I am normally a quiet one on this forum but even though I could
> it this weekend would like an opportunity to try it someday. I am
> new to geocaching ( 71 in 1.5 months) but am addicted. I do not
> understand what GC.com is trying to protect. I recently became
> that they no longer accept virtuals or earthcaches as well. While
> usually prefer to have a real object to hunt, there are many
> (interesting ones) I would never have gone to if there was not a
> Virtual/Earth cache guiding me to it. What I do not understand is
> are they so restrictive. If a cache is not worth it, let the
> it that way and others will not go.
> Just IMHO.