friedagaric

Oh the joys of forums. This has reminded me why I don't normally partake. Thank you to those helpful folk who came up with interesting ideas of ways round this problem. You devious lot Oh and apologies if this is a repeated subject, I'm new to the forum and wouldn't have known that would I? Bit of newbie tolerance please To satisfy your curiosity - I had a great idea for a Lord of the Rings themed cache here with associated clues that would have been really quite tough to solve and a bit more interesting and challenging than a general plug in the co-ordinates and off you go cache. In short I'd put a lot of thought into it and specifically didn't want it as part of multi as it didn't work with my planned idea. The reason for it being a nano was nothing to do with making the cache itself hard to find, purely that the location is completely surrounded on all sides by housing and this would therefore have made it very vulnerable to muggling in any other form. The challenge wasn't in finding the cache container but in actually solving the cache location with tricky clues. The reviewer is adamant I can't place it in this location unless as part of a multi, so no sensible rule bending in this situation and the cache will now have to be set by someone else as I've lost the will to live regarding battling the reviewer and the inflexible rules Oh and to the person who wondered how I didn't know about distance rules etc after having been a geocacher for years...this was to be my first placing of a geocache believe it or not, so no, I had no idea how tedious it would be lol. Think I'll just go back to looking for them not setting them. Ok I'll leave you to your forum. It's not for me, but thanks again to those who did come up with some helpul info and suggestions instead of just having a go at the poster for daring to step out of line regarding rules and regulations xx

If you are making a multi that takes people to places less than the specified distance apart why not just have a geocache there? That's like saying, 'Do not sit on the grass, unless you sit on it on the way to somewhere else'. You are still going there as part of geocaching so not really reducing the number of geocaches in the area, just pretending to. I just think it's a rule that needs to be interpreted on a case by case basis not stuck to rigidly. In this case the rule is hindering rather than helping in my opinion.

There are two locations near to me that I have permission from the land owners to place a cache. One is a windmill and one a perfectly circular and prettily railed off area of land that is held in trust to preserve an open area of land in a suburban area. They are both perfect locations for a geocache and would take people to the interesting and unusual kind of places that us geocachers love. Unfortunately they are both less than the overly prescriptive geocaching rules of at least 528 feet/161 meters/ 0.1 miles apart and to that of an additional cache already placed at a local church. They are all in the suburbs of a city, not the countryside, and on different streets to each other. I think the reviewer is being overly severe in interpreting the rules in this case. What do you think?