ILReviewer

Looks like both of your caches submitted yesterday have been reviewed by MN.Fruitcake, your local reviewer. There were some issues with the caches and on the reviewer note MN.Fruitcake indicated how to respond. Did you respond to the reviewer? Did you address the concerns raised?

OK - here's another link: and this one

I took a look at the cache under review and the note posted by you and the reviewer. There are TWO issues listed in the reviewer note on the cache. The first issue looks like it has been resolved. The second issue is the 1 star terrain with no handicapped attribute. From those notes I also see that you didn't follow the instructions (in red) at the bottom of the reviewer's last note as to how to contact your reviewer. Unless there is some offline communication that's not on the cache page that I'm not aware of, I'd suggest following that set of instructions and see where it goes from there.

"If the cache owner does not contact me by posting a note on this page by June 10..." So - here's the timeline: September 27, 2008 - owner disables From October 3, 2008 to May 9, 2009 (7 months) people log cache as found, owner leaves cache disabled with no further contact. May 27, 2009 - the cache shows up on my radar as being disabled for a very long time (link to listing guidelines regarding cache maintenance). I put a note asking owner to respond in 2 weeks with a note on the cache page (I am usually pretty forgiving about long-disabled caches if the owner simply contacts me with a note on the page).June 10 (14 days) later I archive the cache with the note "If the owner wishes to reactivate this cache, please e-mail me at (address) and I'll unarchive it as soon as I can. My process has me dropping the cache from my radar once I archive it. The owner can most certainly e-mail me. August 2 (2 months later) owner checks in and says that he would try to get out and check on the cache. I did not see the note because I had long since removed it from my watch list. August 31 Swiss Chwee by ArizonaAndKids (GC1Y1P6) is published as a cache only 239 feet from original cache's location. If the original owner wants to re-activate the Around the Ponds cache, and the owner of Swiss Chwee wants to archive or move theirs, I would have no problem with this - if these owners were to contact me directly. I would have had no problem unarchiving the Around the Ponds cache if the owner had contacted me directly. The original cache would not have been archived if the owner had contacted me through a timely response with a note on the cache page. See a pattern? Contact your reviewers. There is no hidden agenda with this cache or others I archive because they are disabled with no note from the owner. Since this matter is now between Unk and ArizonaAndKids, and they have my e-mail address from the cache page - and since the Groundspeak Knowledgebase quoted shows that archived caches cannot be adopted, I would assume this particular thread could be closed?

I'm game. Here's a picture of me returning from finding the "Best Darned Frisbee Cache" TCLS Took Container, Left Slobber.

Happy 1100-110011001 everyone from the other side of the screen.

Please don't confuse geocaching with Geocaching.com. Geocaching.com is a listing service owned by Groundspeak. There are other listing services out there, even if they are few and far between. Just because the cache is not maintained on this site and by a current user login does not mean that it is not listed somewhere else. The game geocaching (with a little "g") is a sport where people hide containers and use GPS coordinates to direct seekers to those coordinates. I would never presume as a reviewer on a listing service to tell someone to go and pick up a cache because it's not listed here. The Yellow Pages is a VERY large, but not entirely comprehensive list of businesses. If a local pizza parlor was listed for years in the Yellow Pages, but then was not listed in the 2007 edition, that doesn't mean that people who read the Yellow Pages can go into the establishment and start pulling down the light fixtures and taking the dough out of the refridgerator - just because it wasn't listed anymore. More often than not, you are correct that the box probably becomes litter. I talked with the Department of Natural Resources about this when they were concerned about caches being placed on Illinois Nature Preserves. Their response was that in due time nature would consume an unlisted cache much quicker than we think. I thought that was an odd comment, but I do bring that up from the land manager's perspective. I also believe that you're doing yourself some discredit by using this thread to espouse your idea. I think that you are fighting a battle of the title of this thread since your idea is being thought out in a thread titled "Mandatory Archiving....your take on it, A cure for over-saturation?" You might want to ask a forum morderator to split this into another thread. BTW - I'm a Reviewer, not a moderator, no matter what my little icon says under my avatar.

I think the issue is that so many posts have hit this thread that people still think you're arguing in favor of the proposed system submitted by the original poster. What you are suggesting (I believe) is this: ...which was buried on the first page in post 30. Around Illinois, I monitor caches that have been inactive for quite some time and ones that have "Needs Archived" logs. In the case of the Needs Archived logs, I'll look at the cacher that posts the Needs Archived and see if it's a mistake (sometimes wrong log type) or I'll look at the history of the owner and see if they're pretty quick to respond. If I think the cache doesn't need my intervention, I'll just watch it for about a week. If the cache needs my help, I'll post a reviewer note on the cache page that says something along the lines of "It's been disabled for X days. What's going on?" or "There's a Needs Archived log here and you haven't responded. What's up?"with a time limit of 2 or 3 weeks to respond by posting a note on the page. No response and the cache gets archived. This Illinois process is doing even MORE than what your proposal would do. Caches may be still found if they have Needs Archived or are temporarily disabled for too long. It will usually capture problem caches owned by missing cachers much sooner than 1 year after the cacher last logged in. And what if the user logs in every 6 months, but doesn't maintain the caches? The only aspect this doesn't catch is if a cache doesn't have an active owner. However, if the cache is out there, well stocked, doing quite well - with lots of finders and a great log book with 150 pages left in an air tight container. If that type of cache is being maintained by the community I see no harm in leaving the cache as is, with proper credit for the hide going to the owner account and not someone that happened to replace a log book. I don't think lack of activity on the owner account should be a sole reason to archive a cache. However, lack of activity on the owner account coupled with a poorly maintained cache will certainly capture my attention.

I'd agree with the other reviewers, but add my own:

Regarding the other cache - I think the fine line is drawn between requiring a purchase for a successful log, and letting people know the event is at a restaurant and what the meal prices are. The other event in question is at a buffet with a VERY large parking area. I don't think the restaurant would be able to actually hold all of the cachers planning on attending, so people will congregate outside. Letting people know that breakfast is available, and what the cost is - in my interpretation is no different than a cache page saying that there's a really neat museum nearby or a neat restaurant. It's not commercial to say that there is a restaurant. It is commercial to say "to get credit you MUST BUY something from the restaurant."

As the reviewer for this cache, I can attest to this. Either the cache page was NOT like that when I reviewed it, or I missed it. I wouldn't have published a cache with that requirement. The page has been temporarily retracted from publication pending a response from the owner. I'm sure the owner will have no problem removing the requirement and the cache will once again be published. I'd like to thank a number of you that brought this to my attention. Right at the top of the guidelines page: That's exactly what happened, and it will be taken care of. I also humbly suggest that those who are up in arms about this cache on one side or the other, please be patient for this issue to now be resolved by the reviewer (me) and the owner. THANKS! Cache on!

That's only partly true. approvers@geocaching.com is the address that bypasses the reviewers and goes to the main office. Typically it's used for complaining about a reviewer's inappropriate actions. That's the one that goes straight to hydee. The contact@geocaching.com is for general correspondence. You'll get a tracking number, and someone from the main office will forward it to where it needs to go, but there's a lot of mail that gets there (ever see the original Miracle on 34th Street?). If you know one of the reviewers from your area, you might be best to try and contact them through their profiles.

By my records there are approximately 7 approved caches (1 virtual) in DuPage County Forest Preserves that were approved under these guidelines. In talking with the Forest Preseve, the biggest problem is that people aren't even trying to apply. I can verify that as well. When cachers are faced with these guidelines, instead of putting forth a little effort and opening up an area to geocaching, they just say "forget it" and walk away. I guess they win If you'd like to get the Forest Preserve to change the rules, try talking with the Forest Preserve, or working with your local organization to get them to work with the preserves. I don't think the Forest Preserve people read this thread.

Happy Holidays from inside the system. May all your wonderful dreams come true. Be sure to take time to spend time with family, and graciously lose at least one argument.

But look at the intent of the guideline¹ The idea is for the hider to use a GPS to obtain the best possible coordinates. The extreme other end of the spectrum from your examples is someone going out without a GPS (because they are cheap, or just "trying it out") and placing a cache, or worse, having someone ELSE like their brother-in-law's third cousin, place a cache. Then what these hiders do is write in the description something like "The coordinates are very rough (maybe off by 100-150 feet), as I got them from an online map. Will the first three or four finders write what their GPS readings are? I'll update the page later using one of those." That's what the guideline is trying to stop. =========================== Of course hiders can get good coordinates from using just maps. Here's an example of one that I published recently and three maps for the same location: a topo, an aerial shot wide and and aerial shot close: There's nothing around but farmland and a small grove of trees at the intersection. The area of trees is only 100 feet in radius (200 feet in diameter). Any set of coordinates in that grove of trees would be good enough to find the cache. But should someone place a cache where they didn't go out and visit the location and take as accurate of readings as possible? =========================== Since it is a guideline¹, I suggest that if you have a special circumstance that means that you would be able to override this - or ANY - listing guideline, talk to the local reviewer either ahead of time before you go to the trouble of setting everything up, or at the least, include the information in a reviewer note. We are humans after all, and can (for the most part) be reasoned with if there are special exceptions. ¹It is a guideline not a rule

If there are puzzle caches or multi-stage caches that are in close proximity to other caches or to out-of-bounds areas like National Parks and such, it takes longer for us to review each stage to make sure it complies with the rules. A four stage multi-cache (even if the hider provides a four sets of coordinates) would take me four times longer to review. Remember that each stage has to be a minimum distance from other caches, but not from other stages of the same cache. When there are 30-40 caches to review in Illinois, if I've got a choice of doing that one cache and checking all of the coords, or using the same time to review 4 single stage caches, I'll bump the 4 single stage caches in front - just to serve as many people as possible. Unless there's something particularly nasty with the cache, that bump to the later part of the queue at most would usually just mean a difference of about an hour.

I put quotes around the URL of the image and it seemed to work. I too got the intermittent white page in testing it out. I wonder if the source has some limitation on the use of the image. I know it's not a Tripod image, but they have something on their site that if someone tries to link directly to an image on Tripod, you get a nasty "IMAGE HOSTED BY TRIPOD" replacement image. But still, I looked at the page after I had put the quotes in and saw the background image. If it fails later, I would say it has to do with the source. Consider uploading the image directly to the cache page and using the URL there. Then you're not relying on another server for the image.

I've been in contact with the IDNR people since I started working as the Illinois reviewer in May of 2003. IDNR state parks usually have no problem, once they're educated on the benefits of Geocaching. I was even able to get one of their central contacts that deals with education to send out a special notice last summer to all site supervisors. The IDNR requirements for placing Geocaches are on their site - so the site supervisors should know about Geocaching (but some obviously don't). When meeting with the site supervisor to plan a cache, be sure to take a print out of their own guidelines and a printed topographical map of the area. Every time I've had someone work with the IDNR supervisors for the state parks, they've been very helpful and encouraging of Geocaches. The only time they aren't so hot on it is when the proposed location is a danger to potential hikers or may endanger a rare species. About twice-per-month, I see a cache listed in a state park without permission. I know this because the IDNR has specific guidelines about what MUST be on the cache page if it's approved. If I don't see the wording, it's not been done with permission. Since I've been a reviewer, I've only had ONE (that's right, ONE!) instance where the site supervisor initially said flat out "NO GEOCACHES" and closed the door in the face of the cacher (figuratively). Every other site supervisor has been encouraging of the sport, and I believe our state parks need more really good caches out there. BTW - that one "NO" is what prompted the educational announcement. Illinois Nature Preserves are a different story. While they are administered by the IDNR, they are a VERY different charge than state parks. Their first duty is to protect and preserve that portion of land designated as a preserve. The problem is that these sites can be in state parks, county forest preserves, private property or anywhere - and since some are on private property, they don't publish a comprehensive list of these special locations. Always check out if it your potential hiding area is specifically listed as an Illinois Nature Preserve. The best procedure is to work with the local IDNR site supervisor. If they seem unwilling to even listen, e-mail me at IllinoisGeocacher@yahoo.com and I'll see if I can work some educational magic from the central office for ecology - but above all, whether or not to allow a Geocache at a specific location is up to the local supervisor. If s/he says no, accept it, but also counter with the question, "Is there another spot that might be better that you could suggest?" These people know their parks pretty well, and might have some hidden out of the way wonder that most people never get to see.

My very best wishes for a very merry Christmas, and a joyous New Year. ILAdmin Agent of the Frog-trix Reviewer of Illinois Caches

As the reviewer in question, I'll point out what I said in the e-mail for everyone else to understand as well. What was submitted were two cache pages. Both were listed originally as "multi" caches. The first cache (with its own page) contained the actual coordinates to the second cache (also with its own page). I indicated that TYPICALLY, caches like this are submitted as only one page. One smiley, one log, just two different visits. The two locations are about 0.3 miles away from each other. There have been rare instances where I've reviewed a series of caches spread over a wide area where there are four or five individual caches, all with their own cache pages. Each cache stands on its own, following the guidelines of 528 feet, etc. Each of the individual caches also contains a portion of the cooridnates to a bonus cache that is in the same general area as the other caches In some RARE instances, I've listed these as separate caches. In cases like this the individual caches are listed as traditional, have their own cache pages, and allow smilies on each cache page. The bonus cache is listed as a Mystery/Unknown cache with something like parking coordinates as the coordinates. The only way to log a smiley on the bonus cache is to find all of the individual caches in the series, piece together the coordinates and search out the bonus. However, the most common way to do a multi-stage cache is with a single cache page, allowing people to log one find for completing the whole series of caches. Remember, the multiple listings leading to a bonus cache are rare. Many reviewers see these as nothing more than an attempt to boost your "caches hidden" number or another way to offer a way to give out lots of smilies. to cache seekers. Here's an example of the two types: The oldest active Multi-stage cache in Illinois - single page, two steps - first stage has coordinates for the second stage. Here's the bonus cache for a series, and the first and second caches that stand on their own.

Continuing the "triage" analogy, ordering the cache queue would be like using a "take a number" system in an emergency department. The cache queue is a long list of caches in order of the date/time they were submitted. We filter based on state or country (like I filter mine to just Illinois). It might be logical to say "your cache is the fourth cache in the queue for Illinois." But that still doesn't mean that it's the fourth one I'll review. As Keystone said, sometimes we go through the list and take care of the easy ones - traditional caches in a park, no railroad tracks, 10 miles from another cache. Then after that list is cleared, we go back and work with the multi-stage caches or caches that need a little extra attention (is it REALLY 150 feet from the tracks? Is that a nuclear power plant by the third stage?). Also remember that even if the numbering system worked and your cache would be next in line, we may have pressing things like finding a few caches or family life (or a down website) that keep us from getting to your caches immediately. I know it would be nice to know how long you have to wait, but the best we can do is promise that we will TRY to get to them in 48-72 hours (as the hide-a-cache page says). Thanks for your patience. Edited for clarity and very bad spelling

One of the main reasons for the "rule of thumb" and "guide" wording is that there may be some circumstances where two caches are close by latitude and longitude, but they are very different in their hunts. If one is on the top of a 1000 foot vertical cliff and the other on the bottom, they may only 100 feet apart by latitude and longitude, but you can just get from one to the other by walking 100 feet. Another example (one that happens more often in Illinois) would be caches on opposite banks of a small river. Of course, your mileage may vary with a different reviewer (in Greece is that kilometerage?). I would agree that you should try contacting the owner of the virtual cache and seeing if they're willing to archive their cache in favor of your micros.

You forgot to close the <tt> tag. I've added </tt> to the end of the description and the cache looks OK.

I congratulate both Team Purdy and Xafwodahs in their willingness to work together to create better caches in the area. From the onset, I've wanted to find a way to get this approved because it looks like a great piece of history. I'll work with Team Purdy on a possible (minimal) relocation of Middlefork. If there are fences providing a barrier to the tracks (as posted in the initial post of this thread), I would not have a problem. I'll also bring the Groundspeak team up to speed with this information and my recommendation. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion with constructive comments.

Cache is unarchived. If it happens again (and something to remember for everyone), you'll be much more likely to get a quick response from the person who approved the cache. There's a link to their profile on the bottom of each cache page, but only the owners of the cache and other approvers can see the link. I've also popped a message to the approver just to give him a heads up.