darepabe

lol...so funny! (and I tend to agree ) Now you lot, kiss n makeup!

Lots of smileys might mean the cacher is more experienced but it's no excuse for rude or arrogant log entries. A polite email to the cache owner, especially where the cache owner is a newbie, will speak volumes and will help the newbie in their next cache placement rather than rubbing them up the wrong way. There is always a right way and a wrong way to complain. Complaining the right way will result in all parties being satisified with the outcome. Complaining the wrong way will almost always end in dissatifaction - usually in both parties. If the Cordon Bleu chef, knowing this is only the 3rd steak I've ever cooked, tells me it's rubbish but this is how to do it right - I'm more likely to learn from the experience and endeavour to make my next steak even better. The Cordon Bleu chef who kicks off and starts yelling Gordon Ramsey style, is just going to pi@s me off and cause resentment. We're all in it for the fun.....lets keep it that way.

If the guidelines are clear, why did the reviewer approve our cache when it shows a nano as 'other' cache type? If the guidelines were clear, or it was a point worth arguing about, surely we would have been asked to amend the cache description? Excuse my ignorance, but are the revieweres not there to police the process? Hmmmm...... Frankly, I don't really care about it either way....if it's supposed to be a micro then fine, if it's supposed to be an 'other' then fine, if it's going to have it's own category then fine. But either it needs to be policed (if it is so important) or it needs to be dropped as an 'issue'.

Clearly they're not.. why else are so many nano's marked as other. I've even explained my own thought process at the risk of getting flamed.. but that's all you can say? 'Clearly' the guidelines are not clear. Otherwise why would the reviewers approve a cache which was marked as 'other' but states that it is a nano, when others maintain that this is incorrect to do so? If the reviewers are happy that a nano is classed as 'other' (and approve the cache accordingly), why the argument?

My reason for selecting 'other' wasn't even as scientific as that! We'd already done some caches that were nanos but had been marked as 'other'. So that's what we did too. Yes - like sheep, we just followed the herd. Baaaa.

Oh no! Shoot me now!

To the OP...why did you use a ? (unknown) for cache size? You mention in the clues that it's a nano - why not choose micro size? One thing that makes an urban cache (or any cache) more enjoyable is when the size is clearly spelled out unless knowing the size would somehow be a spoiler. It seems, like many other cache planters, we mis-interpreted the guide and understood a 'micro' to be the film canisters and therefore our container (being approx 1cm long) was a nano. Why are they called nanos if they are infact micros? Lesson learnt (Although I do wonder why the reviewer has not pointed this out if it is such an issue as it clearly says in the description that it's a nano?) As a young family, we do this for fun and it gets the kids outdoors for a few hours without too much of the my-legs-hurt-are-we-there-yet syndrome. We hadn't realised the whole 'sport' was such a hotbed of political quagmire and we certainly didn't lay our (few) caches in order to disgruntle people or cause anarchy

Ref GC1XBC3 For avoidance of doubt TWR, the cacher is a she not a he - we're not all 'single males' ;-) The village location is beautiful and well worth a visit - a number of visit locations were already mentioned in the cache description prior to my editing suggestions provided by nick_h_nz (thankyou btw!). As the area is a tarmaced carpark, I see no reason why wheelchair access is questionable?! And I believe there was mention of the recycling point - although I have expanded this notation now. I removed the notes from my log for 2 reasons 1. I didn't want my log to be a clashing of horns over what is and isn't a good cache site as our views were merely different but not necessarily wrong (as is also evident from the posts on this thread). So I set up this thread and pointed to it. 2. Your note was agressive and not terribly constructive. I'd be happy to forward you my correspondence with nick_h_nz for future ref. The dnf was removed in error while I was removing the notes (eeehhh, women and technology eh?) and I have already emailed the reviewer and asked for it to be re-instated. Again, apologies for this. Ooooh, what a hornets nest. But, this afternoon we're going out to do a few of your ESE's TWR! - I have no doubt they will be as good as the previous ones we've done of yours and I'm also introducing a newbie too. What fun!

In an urban, populated area - what makes a good cache site?