Prime Reviewer

It's already been discussed several times that non-profits were at one time treated separately from for-profit businesses. It was Groundspeak that made the final call on the city park that cost you $30 just to get in the gate. Excessive park fees can both discourage potential finders, and also impact the frequency of owner maintenance. In my 10 years of reviewing, it's the only municipal park that's ever been denied for this reason, so it's very much an outlier. Exactly. If you want to know if cache are allowed in the LA Zoo, just email the reviewer.

It's not. The language was first put in over 10 years ago (as an Internet Archive search shows). The only real difference is that, as has already been noted in this thread, non-profits are treated the same as for-profit businesses. A lack of submissions in the zoo, is an indication of a lack of submissions in the zoo. It doesn't necessarily mean they're banned. Ask the local reviewer about it, if you really want to know.

The section, as a whole, applies to businesses, be they "for" or "non" profit, charities, and social and political organizations.

Yes, just like it's been for the last 10+ years. In my state, the fees to enter and/or camp at state parks only cover about half the cost of maintaining the parks. So, no, they are not "for-profit".

I can only answer for myself. It's mostly to emphasize that these are places of business, and partly out of habit, as at one time, we did make a distinction between for-profits and non-profits. We've both been doing this for a good while, and habits are hard to break. You shouldn't read any extra meaning into it.

1. The Guidelines make no distinction between for-profit businesses, and non-profits, as you can see in the "Solicitation and Commercial Content" section of the Guidelines. 2. A for-profit campground is essentially the same as a for-profit RV park. I'm sure there are more than a few caches out there in for-profit campgrounds. It's not always evident from the cache page. 3. It would depend on the specifics. 4. It's a for-profit business that charges an entrance fee. I don't understand why you think it might now be acceptable.

I don't have an issue with this ruling. But I'm curious ... how is this situation different from, say, a state or county park, where one may have to pay a fee in order to enter the park? (And by "park", I mean "park" ... y'know, the places with the big old trees and walking trails and stuff like that. ) Basically, because Groundspeak long ago decided to make an exception for government-run parks and recreation areas that charge a reasonable entrance fee. And yes, there are government-run parks where caches were denied, because the fees were considered excessive.

The green arrow indicates one of the cache locations that you claim is outside the RV park. The red pin is the park's business office, 60 feet away.

Oh, no! You've caught me! I'm a secret devil worshiper. And I'm so secret about it, I put clues all over my profile page. Just because, you know, I'm diabolical and stuff. Not only that, I had my devil-worshiping cohorts dress in all white, just to throw people off the track. They prefer to dress in black, because, you know, it's slimming. But boy, that didn't fool you. They call themselves The Polyphonic Spree, and they've used an insidious form a mind control to affect the brainwaves of Americans by inserting their devil music in the background of . Don't watch it! You've been warned! They then went on to spread their message of evil in prime time, on . Again, avert your eyes! They even turned Jay Leno into a devil worshiper, when they appeared on The Tonight Show last December and sang "Happy Christmas". If you play the audio backwards, and at half speed, you'll hear the voice of the devil giving out a really good recipe for Banana Crumb Muffins. As for the Route 666 sign - it's like Route 66, but with an extra "6". You know, like the kid in the AT&T commercial says "to make it funny".

Yes. It was posted when the change actually occurred - five years ago. To excerpt:

I guess that depends on your definition of "nowhere near".

The cache does not meet the Guideline requirements, and has been archived. It may have just slipped through (it happens), or the owner may have edited the cache after it was published (it also happens). It's a moot point now, the event has been dealt with. To the OP - if you have a question about why a cache was published, the best thing to do is ask the Reviewer who published it. You can ask in the forums, but all you'll get are guesses.

If you're near the Lackland Air Force Base area, more specifically, near the crossing of I-410 and US60 (approximately here), and you have the time, I need someone to rescue a travel bug that was left in an unpublishable cache. Exact coordinates and a description will be given to the first who emails me. Please do not block the sending of your return address.

Actually, the Earthcache reviewer placed it on Hold, so enabling it will not cause it to appear in the queue. The OP needs to email his regular Reviewer, and include the waypoint ID of the cache.

There have been some questions as to why the page was archived, which I'll address. The cache page was not submitted in accordance with the Guidelines. Had I known beforehand that the CO had placed the cache using a smart-phone map application instead of an actual GPS, it would have been handled at that time. But that information didn't come to light until people attempting to find it reported that it was as much as .3 miles away from the posted coordinates. The CO wanted to just adjust the posted coordinates to those reported. However, there were two sets of coordinates posted, about 25 feet from each other. I don't know how he picked one from the other, but it seems there would still be a 50/50 chance of publishing bad coordinates. Furthermore, neither I nor the CO really know what they actually found. Just a few days ago I had to disable a missing cache, because people were suddenly logging finds on it, but reporting that they found it 70 feet away (and posting those coordinates for others to use). They weren't finding the cache they thought they did, but instead they found a placed, but never published cache that was put there 18 months ago. This happens more than you'd think. So the people did find some sort of cache when looking for the CO's, but neither I nor the CO know if it's actually his cache. That's why the Guidelines require that the OWNER obtain accurate coordinates for a cache. Relying on FTFers to fix your bad coordinates it not acceptable. Some have asked why the page couldn't have still been used, once the CO gets accurate coordinates. The cache page could have been retracted, but once people have logged a cache page, that presents a number of problems, and is generally avoided. Also, the cache was reviewed and published specifically for the original coordinates. A change of that distance requires the cache to be re-reviewed at the correct location. That's why a CO is only allowed to move a cache no more than about 500' without reviewer involvement. Like many reviewers, I conduct all review communication via Reviewer Logs, rather than email. But by the time the problem was discovered, multiple people had placed the cache on their watch lists, and any number of people may be monitoring it through bookmarks. So even if I had retracted the cache page, it would have been impossible to conduct a review of the new location, and communicate any problems to the CO in a private and secure manner. Since it was no longer possible to use the existing cache page, it was archived and the CO was requested to submit a new cache page when he had obtained accurate coordinates.

While it's true the Guidelines say... It also says... If I see an empty description, it does get bounced back. Sometimes they've accidentally submitted it before the page was completed. Sometimes they don't know what to say about it. My usual message asks why they thought that spot was special enough for a cache, and that should be a jumping-off point for saying something about the cache. If the owner still wants to leave it blank, it's published that way. Cache hunters can infer whatever they want from it.

The last set you submitted were too close to a Traditional cache. There's no reason you couldn't have checked that yourself. Reviewers don't mind checking coordinates, but you should at least do your own checking first.

Just to clarify. only the general location (based on the coordinates given) was given the OK, as far as proximity issues were concerned. You said nothing about how you intended to place the cache.

"I received a response back to my reply" is the only part of that message which is accurate. You were told that, because the cache page had already been published, the ticket was being closed. That's it. Closed. There was no ruling in your favor. There was no ruling made at all.

The procedure of the Texas reviewer (I assume this is in Texas) is as follows - All "Needs Archive" logs are routed to me. I read them the same day they are generated. If the reason for the request involves a legal or guideline issue (cache in a posted area, for example), the cache will be dealt with immediately. Otherwise, the logs are routed to another queue, and the cache owner is given a minimum of 10 days to deal with the situation. A few times a month, all requests sitting on the queue for more than 10 days are processed. Any caches that seem to have an issue will be disabled, a note will be posted to the owner, and the cache will be placed on a 30 day wait list. After 30 days, if there's no response from the owner, it will be archived. Other reviewers may have their own routine.

I see that you haven't entered your home coordinates in the system yet. Also, for your multi, the final waypoint you entered appears to be 1,450 miles away from the start. Neither of these are keeping it from being reviewed, but will cause additional delays once the review is started. You might want to address them now.

That's not quite accurate. You've submitted 3 caches: "All the World's a Cache", submitted on 4/6/2007, reviewed and published on 4/6/2007 (0 days) "Hello Dollye!", submitted on 4/26/2008, reviewed and published on 4/26/2008 (0 days) "Stranded at the Drive in" submitted on 7/13/2008, reviewed and published on 7/16/2008 (3 days) So, on average, your caches have been reviewed and published in 1 day. Unless there are circumstances beyond my control, your cache will be reviewed (which does not mean "published") within 3 days, and I try to have the queue completely cleared on Friday, so everyone's cache is ready for the weekend. The site's recent update (and subsequent outage) falls into that category of circumstances beyond my control. The outage meant we couldn't review, and the site change meant that many of the tools we use to speed up the review process had to be updated as well (a process still on-going). So, this week, there will probably be a few caches that won't hit the 3-day mark. Life's like that sometimes.

Unless the reviewer has specifically requested that you use the cache page's reviewer notes for communication. Caches I archive are added to my watch list, so I do get notification when something is posted to the page, even if it's archived. Your mileage, and local reviewer, may vary.

Your request was denied? I'll let others decide the veracity of that statement. Here's the exact response I emailed to you: We'll be more than happy to unarchive it when there's a cache in place. On what planet is that a denial?