hoosierdoc

And for the record... I read the rules prior to placing the cache. It said don't place one close to another. My map search did not show any close to there within approx mile based on the scale shown. Under "saturation" it specifically did NOT say "find some coordinate search and make sure there is nothing arond there". It was my assumption that google maps shows the same caches as a coordinate search would. Seems reasonable that you can't search coordinates that you haven't been to yet, doesn't it? Again...this whole thing could be solved by having "premium" caches show up in generalities on google maps. This site should go out of its way to cater towards standard members in order to convince them to become premium members. The way it's setup now... you're an outcast until you cough up $30. How about free premium membership for 30 days and then you default to standard after 30 days unless you re-up. I'm clearly not going to convince anyone, and you're not going to convince me. I did kill the messenger about the caching coordinates, but I think a reviewer should realize that a standard member is running into issues with premium caches and point that out. Saying "fix the distance problem" isn't very helpful. Future hides will be fine since I can now see all the hidden stuff out there. A word to the geocache admins.... read the above suggestions and make it more appealing to initial users. Fortunately I'm stubborn and will stay, but my experience would be enough to turn others away for good. So... let's consider this topic closed. EOF.

will someone please explain how I am supposed to know where something is that I can't see? I still can't get past this. Is it my fault that it didn't tell me a cache was there? Again... this is part of the problem. A lot of you people simply go along blindly with whatever the rules are and don't give a single thought as to whether they make any sense or are reasonable. You're the types of people who go through 1000' feet of roping at an amuesment park when there's no one in line.

I couldn't care less. In order to log the final entry, you should have to log each individual stage. It's the same as in order to win a marathon you have to cross each checkpoint. I think it's ridiculous that there is no secret code in each cache that you have to enter online in order to record the find. I dunno... this just seems like a good concept that was piecemealed together quickly and needs a MAJOR overhaul of rules

ok... apparently my point isn't getting across. Maybe it's just that the site isn't very good. When we were public members, we searched for caches (probably 10 times) in the area where we put them. These never showed up. When I was told there are two close to it, I was pissed. Now that we're premium members, I see the other caches. How are public members supposed to know where NOT to place a cache if the premium ones aren't shown? I say... make it separate. 500' from each public cache, and 500' from each premium cache. Separate tiers. If you find the wrong cache, who cares. That's why you put the ID on the box and log.

can we move it? Of course. Do we want to? No. The concept of disallowing public caches because a premium cache is too close is ridiculous. We would not over-saturate which is why we picked this place (none within a mile) and then we're told there are about 7 in the same park. We are now premium members so crap like this doesn't happen again.

We placed a new cache and the "Reviewer" denied it because it's 100 yards from a "premium" cache. I think this is ridiculous. It takes a modest amount of effort to place a cache and then to be told it's not allowed because it's close to something that you can't see... .that's just stupid. I see premium and standard geocaching as separate. This is not class envy, it's just common sense. Who cares how close ones are to each other. It's the content and the hunt, not the distance! GC16TZ1 is my cache name. Someone named Mountain Climber is putting the nix on it. Puh-thetic.