DragonflyTotem

That wasn't the point of my post -- to argue. I think that I've gotten my answer in that it is a rule and apparently has been one since some long ago time. And I got my answer in that a reviewer will apparently answer you and discuss it (and I appreciated that very much!). I'll move along then and won't be following the thread any more. Thanks much for all that left useful answers and comments!

But that's not what the language appears to say. "The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another." The above says that: 1) It is a "rule of thumb" (Wikipedia: "A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation.") 2) It is an arbitrary distance" (Wikipedia: Arbitrary -- Based on individual discretion or judgment; Determined by impulse rather than reason.) 3) Goal stated is "to reduce...number of caches hidden in a particular area" and to "reduce confusion...when one cache is found while looking for another" (Implication: increasing the number of caches in ANY area must therefore lead to an increase in confusion, and decreasing the density must therefore be positively correlated to a lack of confusion.) And from that it seems pretty clear that nowhere is it said that "close is close enough" or that it is a "minimum distance" or that you need a "compelling reason" to place one closer. Which brings me back to my original question -- how did this then become a rule? If, as it seems to be clearly indicated by past experiences detailed here and other threads, that there appears to be no variation of the "guideline" then it is in fact no longer "arbitrary" or a "rule of thumb." The point that I'm trying (hard) to make here has nothing to do with arguing the merits of preventing cache density nor is it whining. It instead has to do with that it appears that (by the very words in the guidelines) an arbitrary decision has been made that regardless of the circumstances that there must be a standard minimum distance between any two caches or else assumed confusion exists. But if the confusion doesn't come to play, and nobody is complaining about caches being too close (I searched and didn't find a post that complained about that) then this is no longer a rule of thumb (because it is applied in every situation) and is not an arbitrary distance (because everyone uses the same distance by practice) and it doesn't address confusion (because none was established and/or it cannot be proven that confusion was mitigated by that distance). It is a clearly then a rule. Hence my question. If it is no longer a rule of thumb or arbitrary, then perhaps it should be said that: "The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another." If in fact that is the intent or the actual application. And that would lead to less confusion.

Thanks for paying closely to that part of my OP that explained that I didn't want to degenerate this into an argument of exactly that sort. I simply asked WHY it is listed as a guideline when it is clearly being treated as a firm rule. If you don't want to address that....please consider picking another thread! Thanks! I mentioned that at the beginning of my post... Chris 1, You 0 :-D If so, then anything else was a waste of time as it has nothing to do with the question. Thanks!

Exactly, thank you. I had a reason for that exact spot that I provided to the reviewer who agreed that was in fact an issue. I'm not going to detail that but it has to do with the available camouflage in other areas not fitting with the camouflage of the cache. I spent about four hours wandering through this park to find a perfect match of the surroundings to my camouflage and had found none there that fit it (with the exception of some spots that were then too close to yet another cache in the other direction). So today I moved the cache from the perfect spot for it based on an exact match to my camouflage to a spot that is less than that. It's okay, but that's a shame. But I think that the reviewer well understood why the original spot was the perfect spot. And that was the point. Thanks!

Thanks for paying closely to that part of my OP that explained that I didn't want to degenerate this into an argument of exactly that sort. I simply asked WHY it is listed as a guideline when it is clearly being treated as a firm rule. If you don't want to address that....please consider picking another thread! Thanks!

Did you try e-mailing the reviewer referencing the cache name and id and giving a detailed explanation? Apparently not. Let us know how that works out for you. I did hear from the reviewer who agreed to reconsider it based on my offline description of my cache location vs the pre-existing cache and additional things that impact it. But I'd also said that I would go out and recheck all coordinates. I did that and confirmed that the pre-existing cache is in fact further away than is indicated. But I went ahead and moved mine to be more than the 528 feet away. Thanked the reviewer, revised the description and am waiting for approval on this one.

Agreed, and apparently that is no longer happening. The problem that happens when reviewers are that rigid is that hiders will simply leave their cache where it is, and alter the posted coordinates to make the reviewer happy. Result: deliberately "soft" coordinates. And most unfortunately, misleading all of your fellow geocachers wrt the cache location. This is not good. Yes, which is a good point. And if you start at your proposed cache location, and 528 feet later haven't yet arrived at the actual location of the other cache....that must be a "soft" coordinate I guess. I'm going to go back out there again today and recheck them both.

Yes, that is the situation with these two particular caches. A fence, in addition to other physical aspects that I'd just rather not go into here which wouldn't allow for anyone to possibly confuse these two.

Did you try e-mailing the reviewer referencing the cache name and id and giving a detailed explanation? Apparently not. Let us know how that works out for you. I did do that now. I first had to figure out how to do that.

Thanks for the reply and suggestion. I was planning on that but was going to first go back out and recheck the distances.

I was following this other thread regarding how strict they are about the distance "rule" between caches (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=232356) but then that thread was closed before I got to ask my question. So I'd like to go ahead and ask it here. What I'd like to KINDLY ask however is to not turn this into a debate about the merits of keeping cache distances (I get that, really I do) as I'm simply trying to get an answer related to the following -- who says it's a rule (as apparently it is not) and how did a guideline become a "rule"? Please see: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#sat And the very top of that page begins with -- "These are listing guidelines only." And if you read the cache saturation section it doesn't say that it is a "rule" and that you cannot do it. How this came up is (as you probably expected) in a cache placement request. Here is a note that I received by a reviewer related to the above, which says the same thing: "The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another." So clearly the above all say the say thing -- this is a "guideline" only. Which then prompts me to ask my question -- how did it get from a "guideline" (which would certainly allow for exceptions) to a supposed "rule" which cannot? I was told that my proposed cache is about 100 feet too close to another. From what I can figure out from the reply in the log I don't even have a way to discuss this with the reviewer (if I've missed that, hints are more than welcome!). But yesterday I was at the site and from an actual GPS walk from point to point, that distance appears to be wrong (or I wouldn't have placed it there). And without wanting to give too much away as I don't want to identify the specifics of where my cache was going to be -- if the concern is in fact to "reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another" let me say that this would be impossible in this situation. The pre-existing cache is located physically in another.....place (not wanting to say what that means, but a place in this case means two separate locations, where you go in to each from a specific location and you wouldn't possibly find yourself accidentially straying into the other "place" -- it isn't going to happen) and the geocacher searching for either would either have to go to one place to find the pre-existing cache or to another place to find mine. There is just no likelihood of there being any confusion and nobody could possibly mistake one for the other. But again, the other issue is that according to the GPS, the distance between my proposed cache and the pre-existing cache isn't correct anyway. So...back to my question if I could -- how did this become a "rule" instead of the "guideline" that it says that it is? There shouldn't be much confusion between a "rule of thumb" or "arbitrary distance" and "guideline" and something which is a "rule." And if it is a guideline, then why is an "arbitrary distance and is just a guideline" being applied this way and without even a process to discuss it with a reviewer to explain what the reviewer might have missed or not know? Thanks!

This was actually announced before the series started, along with other changes for this season. Yupper....been laughing over that myself as it would be the perfect justice for him, to try to play it only to find out that although it's a real idol he cannot use it. The real tell on this though -- did you notice at this week's tribal council that Jeff did NOT do his usual, "if anyone has the hidden immunity idol and would like to use it...."? :-)

Thanks all for the replies! I think that I have it figured out now, and am glad to learn more about what the "accepted practice" is in situations like this since I'm a newbie and don't want to do anything that that isn't what is viewed as the "right" way to do things! For those who were worried -- I have no plan to wipe the logs. It's helpful to understand how all of that affects those who had previously logged them as I wouldn't have had a clue about that. I bought them because I thought that they were interesting and I assumed when I bought them that they'd have some activity (surprised by how much for one of them) and thought that was kind of neat and would make for an interesting connection to the original owner and all those who'd discovered it. Thanks again for all the responses as each individually made this newbie post worthwhile and collectively they've helped me learn a LOT very quickly!

The two coin icons are listed in his trackable list. He needs to grab them if he wishes to show them in his inventory list. They are in his hands so the grabbing is just paperwork. With some of my adopted coins I have forgotten to do this LOL. After I grab them I drop them in one of my archived caches so they dont' show in my list. drdan01-- Welcome to the forums!! Just catching up on all the replies - can you please explain what you mean by "grab them" and the paperwork that I'm supposed to do? I'd have thought that the adoption thing was "the" whole process from what I've read but apparently not then. Thanks!

I purchased a couple of Geocoins that were previously activated and have just completed the adoption process. I then got adoption complete emails from Geocaching that indicated that the new owner should edit the listings "while preserving, as much as possible, the original character of the listing, and giving credit to the original owner." These were non-cached Geocoins that were apparently only shown at gatherings, etc. First question, what the heck does that mean (an example of the "right" way to do it would be wonderful!). And second question, as a part of that updating, is it typical that the new owner then "discovers" them upon receipt (or is there another customary way to do that)? Thanks!