Jump to content

spyder72

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spyder72

  1. The new reviewer sent me the MN State Forest regulations, I have complied with all of them.

    It's worth noting that the "Caribou Park" cache is not located in a Minnesota State Forest like your cache is. So, if you're bothered by the fact that the Caribou Park cache does not comply with every provision of the Minnesota State Forest geocaching policy, that's how come. If you're bothered by the fact that the cache was wet when you found it, you were the first find after a thing in Minnesota called "winter." Report the maintenance issue in a polite, matter-of-fact way, and the owner will take care of it.

    Your a moderator that has called me "vindictive" and condescends me about a "Minnesota winter"

  2. Right. "Indian Lake" is the cache in the MN State Forest, which thus must comply with the MN State Forest guidelines. Once you've told your reviewer that you've met those guidelines (regulating labeling, size, contents, etc.), then it's likely that your reviewer will destroy your conspiracy theories by publishing your cache. So could you enable your listing please?

     

    In contrast, "Caribou Park" (the cache hidden by your reviewer) is not hidden in a MN State Forest and thus is not subject to the size and labeling requirements that apply to "Indian Lake."

    I have, it only shows 2 the third must have been deleted, we emailed each about 4 hrs. ago and I gave him all the information he asked for. Edit: I'll try again now.

  3. Your three cache listings tell a different story. I just read them, including the archived logs and the pending notes on your cache that hasn't been published yet.

     

    My assessment, as a reviewer in a different state, is the same as your state's reviewer who you wrote to with complaints about the first reviewer. Your three submissions have received the same very basic form letters used with all other caches with similar issues. You've leapt to conclusions well beyond those notes. Don't personalize the listing guideline notes as negative statements about you personally.

     

    The two Minnesota reviewers are your only two choices, so I'd suggest learning how to make the best of the relationship. The only other alternative is for the reviewers to refer all your cache submissions to the staff at Geocaching HQ, who are paid to do things that the volunteers are no longer willing to do. It's not like you can just switch to a reviewer from Virginia, who's unfamiliar with the local land manager regulations that your reviewer is asking you about on your unpublished cache.

     

    Your emailed threat to "call people out" isn't helpful in that regard. And, you won't succeed in doing that with this forum thread.

  4. I'm having a difficult time to get my hides published, so I sent the reviewer an email and I was very frank on how I felt. The cache I am trying to place is an easy one that is handicap accessible. I am a volunteer of Wounded Warriors Foundation and thought it would be nice to get some of our soldiers out and about. And this offended him and was told 1 email was enough and tested his patience too far. I could have been nicer in the email, but I was only stating facts. So I was sent to another reviewer. But he does not reply to me. The caches I placed all meet Federal, State, State Forest, County, and township guidelines. I am relatively new to caching I don't have the clout others have. I really enjoy caching and gives me the exercise I need.

×
×
  • Create New...