NJ Admin

See my edit above. Before last night, I had not seen any emails. If you just post notes on the cache page, or reply to the email that was sent thru geocaching.com, the approvers don't get it. That's why my note included at the bottom

The first reply I've heard back from either you or your son was yesterday. If I remember right, the caches in question were placed quite some time ago. You also didn't include the GC# or URL in those emails, which make it a lot harder to figure out what caches you are even talking about. EDIT: Ok, I found one cache so far. It was hid 12/28/03, and reviewed on 12/29. At that time, the cache description asked if someone would add a log book. It also looks on the maps to be in an area that forbids people leaving the path. I questioned that, along with if a cache over 60 miles from home could be maintained by someone who doesn't drive yet. I asked for this info to be emailed to me. I see your son posted notes to the cache page, but we only see those when we review the cache, they don't automagically get emailed to me. The first I've hear from you or your son about this cache was over 3 weeks after I inquired.

As a cache reviewer, I can see the cache in question. Yes Hemlock, gave you reasons why he felt your virtual for a plaque honoring a ski patroller did not meet the current guidelines for a virtual cache. He also linked you to the section of the guidelines he felt covered that. Your reply on the cache page seems to indicate you do not desire to hide a physical cache there, not that you can't. If I were reviewing the cache in it's current form, I would not approve it either. And not that it matters, but Hemlock the geocacher has hundreds and hundreds of finds more then you.

I think you guys could be moderated before you reach that goal.

For the record, when it comes to this, we are reactive, not proactive. No. we will not go back and archive previously placed caches. because the assumption is they were placed legally at the time they were listed. If a land manager contacts us and asks us to remove a specific cache listing, we will. New cache placements will be checked for proper permits and permissions in affected areas. With the recent ban on caches in National Wildlife Refuges, I did take the time to email many cache owners and inform them of the new ban. Mainly this was because the letter Groundspeak received threatened to prosecute the cache owners on some pretty serious charges. I took this upon myself, since many geocachers don't read the forums, and I wanted the affected cache owners to be advised that there was a remote possibility of legal trouble. Some caches were archived, some wern't, but it was the cache owner's choice.

I'm going to have to look into this, see if I can turn up more info on the permit deal. Hopefully people here can spread the word to other cachers who don't read the forums, so we don't have too many caches placed that can't be approved.

Too smurfy for me!

Smurfs???

I'm not the reviewer that handled you cache, but obviously I can see the cache in question. You quoted the reviewer's message to you out of context. To be fair, here is the full rejection, posted January 7th, the same day you submitted the cache. There is in fact, a large close up photo of a dead, bullet riddled body as part of the cache description. The reviewer that is working on your cache has not logged into the site since sometime friday, it's very possible the guy is away for the weekend, spending a day with his family, or even geocaching. I don't know how long it took you to go out, put together a multicache, and email the reviewer again, but even if you did it the very next day, you sill barely gave the guy a full day to respond.

As the cache owner, you should have a button for "archive this cache" in the upper right side of the cache page. Select the option for archive (show). That will archive it and remove it from the searches. You as the owner will always still see the cache listed in red with a line through it, as will anyone who has ever found it. You shouldn't delete the cache info, or the logs. If you just want to disable it until you can check on it, use the disable cache link at the top left of the page, right under the name. Then you can re-enable the cache once you repair/replace/check it

Ummm, that's why I said 'work with Erik'. I got ya, but Prime Suspect nailed it. Usually, when we decline a cache, we just go with the most obvious reason. We really don't enjoy declining them, and usually don't rejoice with beating the hider down with 15 different reasons he isn't going to get this cache appreoved. Also, I've noticed when it comes to virtuals, most hiders seem to places them on a whim. They see something, they waypoint it, and submit it as a cache. 90% of the virtual cache hiders I've dealt with don't even bother to respond to questions or concerns about their cache. Questions that might have got it approved.

Just because one reason was listed, doesn't mean that other reasons would not have come into play if the hider was local.

not worth it

What version of IE are you using? I don't think the .png images that many of the mapping sites are starting to use is supported in IE below 6.0

moving topic to proper forum

did you email the approver you are working with? If you just make a note on the cache page we wont know it unless we go back and keep checking.

There was also a follow up story I found, which bizzare as it may sound, seems to back up the bear attack story. The hunter who was shot was apparently about to be attacked by a charging, 400lb bear. The shooter was standing 5ft away from the man who was shot. A bizzare accident, and not the same as a geocacher being mistaken for a deer in the woods.

No offense John, and accidents DO happen, but if you are going to quote a news story, please quote the entire story. What you quoted is out of context, and the rest of the story changes the whole meaning of what you posted: 2 major points in this story you missed in your post. At least the claim is that a bear came up behind Mr. Doherty, and as the other hunter attempted to shoot the bear (and protect his friend from attack), he stood up, into the line of fire. True or not, I don't know. The other part that you missed is the part that in Mass., where you live, a non-hunter has never been shot by a hunter. Never. Yes, everyone needs to be safe, and accidents DO happen, but it's not quite as bad as you make it out.

Ya think?

Archived caches don't show up in the web search or the .loc file downloads either, unless it's a cache you own or have already logged.

Nice avatar ya got!

Not specific to Alan or PA, but of course to be listed on GC.com, they also need to comply with the Guidelines For Hiding a Cache, including the part about placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area .

I have no part in modding this forum, nor have I even read the thread you refer to. I do know that if you click on the hyperlink on your warn meter you can see who warned you and why. So yes, you recieved notification, and that moderator's justification for doing it.

When you make a statement like that, either tell the truth, or lie about something harder to check on. I counted about 75 virtuals approved in California in the last 6 months, in all parts of the state, and by both California cache reviewers. If you want to change your comment to something more like: then at least you would be telling the truth.

I think the guidelines were applied pretty evenly here. If you look a little closer at Washington DC, you will see only 3 virtuals have been approved there in all of 2003, and none in almost 9 months. The caches you are talking about are grandfathered, approved before the current guidelines, and many of the lame ones you mention are part of the reason the guidelines are stricter now. There are also about 4 pages of declined virtuals for DC, mostly submitted by people who would never, or rarely return to maintain a physical cache.