kdbstlrfan

Wow Clan, I am so glad you are here to direct me in the ways of cache approval. If it weren't for you, I would simply be pouting my life away. As per the GC Guidelines, this post is here to get peoples opinion about a cache. I didn't pout, I didn't cry. I simply stated my case and posted the thread. I may not have thousands of finds or hundreds of hides but I did graduate from high school and can read. To think I haven't e-mailed the reviewer and sent pics and done everything else I could do to get the cache approved is imbecilic. Please don't come on here and try to prove how much more you know than anyone else. You will only show that you are lost.

It is truly sad what some will do. I have not encountered anything quite this bad, but it just gos to show that all types are here. I hope you can find some mouth wash to rinse that bad taste away soon.

This isn't sour grapes. I stated my opinion. If it differs from yours it does not mean mine is wrong or "sour". I don't apologize for stepping on toes. If you are in a position to have your toes stepped on, wear steel toed shoes.

The reviewers reason for not publishing the cache was "Federal Law prohibits me from publishing this cache. I will not be a party to knowingly breaking Federal Law." Since this is a park obviously designed for people to be there, what is the issue with publishing it? The reason for the cache is because I want to place one there. It is a new park in an area being revitalized by the city. The reviewer did not ask for any additional description. He simply stated that the cache needed to be moved or not be published. For those that have thought or said anything about the guidelines not being read. I have read the guidelines. I am aware that previous published caches are not a precedent. The guidelines are just that, guidelines, to be used as a guide on a case by case basis. As for my comment about caches needing archived, it is true, there are many that go directly against the guidelines and are a greater safety risk than a cache on a park bench in a public park. I will remove the cache and not seek to have it published because apparently Groundspeak is an organization that is not as flexible as it claims to be. Thanks for all your input.

Yes, the reviewer saw a picture with the cache location marked with a red dot. If the bomb theory is the worry, then there allot of caches that should be archived due to safety. There are thousands of caches in more strategic locations than this one.

I recently placed a cache and it has been deemed inappropriate and not approved. Just wanted your opinion on this cache. It is located near a Rail Road track but it is located in a park built and owned by the city it is in. The park is separated from the RR tracks by a fence. The cache in no way makes people go on to RR property. The reviewer feels I need written permission from the RR company before it can be published. The cache container is actually magnetically attached to the back of a park bench. Here is a picture. Thanks in advance for your opinion.

Same here. Guess I will try back later.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/alaska/video-p...-challenge.html Go to episode 3 and 4. This is not the full episode as seen on TV but it will give you an idea of what it was.

936.5sul GCM34Z in Gulfport MS. was a good one. i am currently working on one for my area as well.