Hemlock

Since this is already being discussed in the Geocaching Topics forum, I'm closing this duplicate thread.

I split this post out of the thread it was in because it was off-topic to the thread, and will get more attention on its own.

Thank you. I'm glad someone understands. Stump, yes some occasionally slip through the process. Emails get lost, or the reviewer mis-interprets the situation. Send me an email with GC#s and I'll look into them.

While I understand the less work argument, one of the nice things the reviewers here do is just put up a note basically saying the SBA is on their radar and give a time frame so that a whole bunch of SBA don't get posted and people like Stump don't feel like they're waiting forever for a response. Just a comment/suggestion, no judgement on how you do it intended. My previous post was incomplete. When I first look at it, I do disable the cache with a comment like you said, if the cache is not already disabled AND it is obviously really missing. But often times, a couple of DNFs by cachers with 10 finds each, I'm not really convinced the cache is missing. Also if its just a wet logbook, I'm going to move on and not worry about it. Someone will eventually replace the logbook. If the cache is already disabled, I consider the SBA itself to be the warning. I don't feel I should post another note. If the cache owner ignores the SBA, the cache will be archived in a few months. I understand other reviewers may process SBAs differently. But they don't have to deal with the volume of SBAs that California gets. There are twice as many caches in California as in the next busiest state, and consequently twice the number of SBAs. It's a big job to deal with all of them.

Sorry, but I believe in giving the cache owner plenty of opportunity to repair/replace the cache before it gets archived. I do look at every SBA within a day or two of receiving it. Then they sit for a month, two months, maybe 3 or 4, before I decide to go through and archive all the ones that need it. By that time, I'd estimate 2/3 of them have either been replaced or archived by the owner himself. So less work for me

They're not being ignored. I have 100 or so sitting in my inbox waiting to be dealt with. Generally I give the cache owners a month or two to fix things on their own before I archive their caches. Stump, the only SBA I have left from you is from July on Double Trouble. The cache owner posted just a month ago that they would check on it. Next time I run through the emails, this one will likely get archived if there is no more posts from the owner. That said, the cache is properly disabled. Why the hurry to have it archived?

It even frightens me sometimes

You give yourself way too much credit. Some of us are ~erik~.

Back on topic, please. I fixed the topic title. And watch the language in the future, BlueDeuce and Neo_Geo.

I'm spartacus. mtn-man

According to the reviewer notes, the 8th one had proximity issues, and the last was held because the 8th couldn't be published. It looks like the proximity issue has been fixed, but the hider didn't make any notes, so I really have no idea. I'm sure the original reviewer will look at it soon and handle it.

briansnat nailed it. The maps and even the aerial photo clearly show the cache to be in a wooded area that is marked as NPS land. If you say it is in a parking lot, then the coords are most definitely off. Go back and take some more readings and then update your cache page and email the reviewer and ask him to take another look.

A cache is only removed from the review queue if it is approved, archived, or disabled. The first reviewer did none of those things so it never left the queue. The only question is will it show up for a given reviewer when s/he filters by state.

Read his message again. He said: Nowhere did he say to resubmit. You changed it to CA and it's now sitting in the CA queue waiting for me to look at it. There's about a dozen or so above yours, so please be patient.

Merged duplicate threads, since both had replies.

Green????????? Shoot. I've been using white. No wonder so few get published in my area.

Accidents happen. Not in the original location.

Edit: Never mind. I just realized its a multi

Since all the money that could have been used for larger pipes (bandwidth) was used on Waymarking.com instead, and since bandwidth problems are slowing the site on certain days of the week, and since these satellite sites, in effect, steal bandwidth, Groundspeak decided to block them. Saves Groundspeak from purchasing more bandwidth for awhile. That's my guess. Jeremy has repeatedly said that bandwidth is not an issue. The issue here is that scraping and re-publishing the info on other sites violates the Terms of Use and therefore Groundspeak has every right to block their access.

That depends on if you can receive email on your cellphone. If you can, you can use the Insta-Notify feature. With many cell phone providers, you can send email to the phone with an email address such as <number>@provider.com. For Verizon, it's <number>@vzwpix.com. Warning: unless you have a plan that includes emails, they may charge a significant fee for each email.

How can finding a cache inside a library be considered geocaching?

No, there is no requirement that a waymark be interesting, per se, but the OP suggested "Intersting Bridges" (sic) I was just asking him to define that further. Don't forget that categories and waypoints can be rated, so over time the cream will float to the top

Which means that cache owner gets first dibs.

Heh. There are two identical locationless caches for steam locomotives. I wonder which owner gets to own the waymark category?

This was discussed a bit during the initial beta. The idea is that subcategories based on location are not needed because you can use the filters to only return waymarks based on location. That is, you can set a filter to only return waymarks within the state of California. Subcategories like that would be redundant.