Jump to content

Team Goju

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team Goju

  1. I don't know if you remember me TG, but we hiked a few miles together on one of the Bruce Trail Group Hikes. I can't believe you never went after this one. Are you saying I got it wrong, and they're not on the Albany River yet? Very possible. They are definitely on the Kenogami right now. Where the Kenogami runs into the Albany further north is another HBC outpost. The spot they are at now is Mammaamattawa, an old native meeting point where the four rivers meet: Kenogami, Nagagami, Kabinakagami, and Ridge. From what I've read online, the Kenogami up to the Albany and the rest of the way to Fort Albany has been travelled by boat and motor and even large rafts. They should make good time from this point on if the weather cooperates. I was all set to give this trip a go, but finding others who could take 2 weeks off and were willing was not successful. It's just as costly this way, maybe more than flying in, but the most adventurous way for sure. I still hope to do this trip one day, whether the cache is found or not....
  2. They are on the Kenogami River now,and stopped near an old Hudsons Bay outpost. That would seem an obvious spot for a cache.....
  3. Check this event cache out: Ishpatina Ridge Picnic GCYYQR A 5/5 event I attended in 2008 has a 14 part log, and a 12 part log. It ended up having it's own Flickr group with hundreds of pictures. A detailed Blog of the adventure from cacher who organized it. And even a couple of video montages nicely put together by another particpant. Part 2 There are still more pics, videos and even magazine articles about the event scattered around the internet.
  4. Well... now there would be a good argument as to why it cannot possibly become a multi. Nor is it to become a bunch of traditionals as also suggested, with a bonus cache. There is a good argument here for allowing this series as it exists now. If all else fails it will be listed elsewhere.
  5. This, the bold part, may be where most responding have the issue. 3 year olds need gold stars smileys. Beyond that, most are concerned with the experience, novelty, creativity, challenge, etc. Read my reply to Mr Yuck. That comma should not be in his sentence. It makes it sound like he was trying to reward people with extra smilies. Yes, forgive my bad grammar. The intent in the series is NOT to break a multi down into individual caches, to "reward" extra smileys. Quite the opposite. Each Cache in the series is a separate multi and each in it's own right a significant challenge. If this entire series was to be turned into a multi, even the most avid cacher would likely take a year or more to complete it. @ Mr. Yuck & Baloo&bd: Go back in the thread and read my first post in this thread on the details of the series. It is not unlike other series that HAVE been approved and DO exist.
  6. Just like to let you know that your attempt at wry humor wasn’t overlooked. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers…….. Just to clear up some confusion here. My cache series cannot be mistaken for a large multi. Simply because there are prerequisite caches, whether those caches need to found in sequence or in any order, does not make it a multi IMO. Many caches exist where the hints/codes are collected in order to find the final. They have not been forced to be a multi. And there are also caches where the prerequisite caches need to found in order as well to find the final in the series, several of which have been referenced in this thread, and one having been published very recently. I have found more such caches still. I should add that the series was not designed to fool a Reviewer into thinking that I have just placed a multi, but wish to reward the seeker with extra smileys along the way for their efforts. Each placed cache is a separate entity, and a multi on its own, with a puzzle whose solution requires a combination of info found on its cache page and within the prerequsite caches. And to repeat myself, yet again, each separate cache is far removed geographically from the other, very much unlike the majority of existing multis. This issue and the seemingly lack of the Reviewers or Groundspeak to have any flexibility to allow something a little outside the usual manages to shut down creative ideas, that in the past have provided considerable enjoyment within the caching community. Take Challenge caches, and the obvious ALR element to them. ALR's are discouraged elsewhere, but are acceptable with Challenge caches. Isn't this an obvious exception to the accepted rule? Challenge caches have become an unofficial cache type. The game evolves, as the community creates new ideas. My cache series has not come into being without precedence. They exist, just as I have designed mine. And should be recognized perhaps as an unofficial exception. That exception has obviously been granted many times already. The argument given for making a cache series into a multi should not, and does not apply in every case.
  7. As I have tried to explain, the series does not work in the manner as above. Each stage (or in my case, each separate cache) the coords are not in the previous cache. The Cache page has either a puzzle where information is needed from the previous caches to complete the puzzle, or the puzzle is in the previous cache, but the information needed to complete it is in the following cache's page. The purpose being is to engage the cacher and have them read the info on the cache pages and learn something besides how to follow a GPS to a particular point. Each cache page in the series has alot of educational information, such as in an earthcache listing. To satisfy your recommendation of turning the entire series into a multi-cache, I would have to work all that info into the physical placement somehow. The stages (each cache) are so geographically distant from each other that it would likely serve as a deterrent to it's completion. I have seen Ontario-wide and even larger multis in the past, and they never lasted long, getting archived by the owner before they were ever found. To change the entire series into a multi, would require reworking/redesigning the entire series, something I already spent 18 months already doing. I do not relish the thought of starting all over because of an interpretation of the guidelines that this thread has already shown is fuzzy; especially considering a series was published only months ago that has a similar structure. It would seem that a cache that may get denied by one reviewer, may in fact get approved by a different reviewer, depending on their interpretation of the guidelines, and/or understanding of the cacher's intent with the listing(s) submitted. The cache series I am submitting does not fit neatly into the guideline definitions, so I am being told to alter it in such a way as to make it fit. Yet as arguments presented in this thread show, there is nothing that explicitly prohibits the series as it is. The guidelines and knowledge books seem to be written in such an ambiguous way as to enable some flexibilty and creativity, so why is there no flexibilty in this case? There certainly was enough flexibility to get this series published. The arguments against my series would work against this one as well. The difference with that one, as stated earlier in the thread, is that a group of caches rather than one is needed to enable the finding of the next group, and so on. By simply adding one extra cache to a level in the "daisy chain" now makes it workable?? Should those caches not be a large multi? Or a series of separate caches that can be found in any order, that lead to a final? The argument would suggest that if those listings were presented to you, they would be denied as well. If that is not the case, please explain so that I can understand why the difference between the two. I am of the opinion that the only difference is one's interpretation the guidelines.
  8. Because the design of that series is quite different than yours. That's why. That series appears to comply with the "no daisy chaining" guideline, but yours doesn't. It's layed out different, yet finding the final depends on finding the 2 semi-final caches, which in turn depends on finding the 4 quarter final caches, which depend on finding the first ten. So if a cacher "daisy chains" groupings of caches together, rather than individual caches it slips through. The final is a "bonus" of finding the two previous. Each of those are a "bonus" of finding the previous 4. It's the same thing with a slightly different structure. The rationale that was originally used to deny my series was that if one cache had a maintenance issue, the others would be unfindable. The same would apply to this series. I don't see a difference. Please enlighten me how that series complies with the "bonus" definition you have provided.... Explain to me how it manages to not have a "daisy-chain" aspect to it.
  9. Because the design of that series is quite different than yours. That's why. That series appears to comply with the "no daisy chaining" guideline, but yours doesn't. It's layed out different, yet finding the final depends on finding the 2 semi-final caches, which in turn depends on finding the 4 quarter final caches, which depend on finding the first ten. So if a cacher "daisy chains" groupings of caches together, rather than individual caches it slips through. The final is a "bonus" of finding the two previous. Each of those are a "bonus" of finding the previous 4. It's the same thing with a slightly different structure. The rationale that was originally used to deny my series was that if one cache had a maintenance issue, the others would be unfindable. The same would apply to this series. I don't see a difference.
  10. The guidelines don't prohibit this sort of cache series, they just call it a Multi cache and expect it to be published that way. DanOCan, thank you for this succinct explanation. The relevant primary guideline violation is "the owner selected the wrong cache type." I can think of many examples where I've corrected the owner's choice of cache type. But, to further expand upon this logical concept, and in order to avoid allegations of "hidden guidelines," there is a Page in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books that provides guidance to hiders of mystery/puzzle caches. Quoting from that page: "Bonus Caches Clues to the bonus cache location (often coordinates, or partial coordinates in several caches) are hidden in one or more other caches. Clues for a bonus cache should not be placed in another bonus cache. Generally, the bonus cache belongs to the owner of the caches where clues are found." So, Groundspeak has provided detailed guidance warning hiders that the "daisy chain" method of stringing together multiple bonus caches ought to be submitted as a single multicache. So if having caches rely upon more than one cache prior to it being completed are considered unacceptable, please explain how a cache gets listed only a couple of months ago manages to get published by a veteran Reviewer? "Wayward" series I understand if this was a case with a series of caches published several years ago. But this is a recent listing, and happens to be in my area. It is this sort of inconsistency that frankly angers and frustrates cachers!
  11. Bet it is allowed on OpenCaching. Post the first one and the final on Geocaching.com. The other levels can be listed on other, more forgiving sites. Or.... make each cache a separate puzzle that when solved links to the opencaching listing of the caches as they currently exist. Bet that would get me banned for a bit.
  12. The original grounds for concern from the Reviewer: "It would appear from your description that this series is a "Daisy Chain"; one cache must be found in order to find the next. That is a cause for concern; if one of the caches in the chain is unavailable (for whatever reason) then all of the other subsequent caches would not be "Findable", either. If one cache were to be disabled/archived.. then all subsequent caches would follow the same fate." final decision of the reviewer: "As it stands today, your cache fits the definition of a "Multi Cache"; that is to say that one stage leads to the next, and it must be completed in sequence in order to reach the "Final" stage/cache. I would therefore be required to consider this cache/the remaining caches to be "Stages of a Multicache" and would hence request that changes be made to the listing to reflect that. You have clearly (and politely - thank you!) indicated your premise/intentions with the listing. You have referred to other listings that may have been published previously. As it stands, I am interpreting the Listing Guidelines today as they apply to your cache currently under review. I cannot speak to or consider previously published caches, as no cache listing sets a precedent. " Interesting that the Reviewer mentions using the Listing Guidelines, but makes no mention of the Bonus cache definition in the Knowledge Books
  13. Yup. The quite recently published "Wayward" series (with this as the "final") shows that such cache setups can indeed be published. Interesting how a series like this can get published just a couple months ago, that clearly is "sequential" in nature. Guess it's still a case of interpretation of each reviewer. Guidelines rather than explicit rules. So getting a cache published depends on who reviews it. Do all the work, and take your chances. Sounds real fair. Gee, can I ask for a different reviewer? I just may get them published after all....
  14. Having read Keystone's post after posting mine, I suppose I have no choice. Thanks to those who posted on the thread. It's just a shame that some of the more enjoyable series of caches I have done are ones that should have never been allowed, yet continue to exist.
  15. As the owner of the series that OP is talking about, I will provide a bit more info about the series that the reviewer, and Groundspeak Appeals has refused to publish. The original concept of the series, is a separate multi-cache (physical placement only) reperesenting each belt level in Goju Ryu karate. Obviously, a white belt student (in this case the cacher) needs to complete the White Belt cache, to "earn" the chance to work on the Yellow Belt Cache, then the Orange Belt cache, and so on. All the listings for each cache would be an unknown, since the coordinates need to be derived in some way from the previous cache(s). The caches in the series get progressively more difficult, with each "belt level". Each Cache is separated geographically, by as much as several 100km in some cases. Some of the higher belt caches include a multi-day canoe trip over 6 lakes, a difficult 36km hike that would likely require a night camping in remote back country. Another is completely placed in an extensive swamp. The final in the series (Nidan or Black belt 2nd degree) is atop very remote mountain in Northern Ontario and 500km from any of the other caches in the series. The series is designed in such a way that the cacher must read cache pages, as the info may be needed in the field while completing any of the caches in the series. The cacher will learn about Goju Ryu Karate while completing the series. Even all redirects in the separate caches are completely in Japanese kanji. For example: to find the Blue Belt cache, a puzzle on the cache page can only be completed after finding tags that are placed physically within the multis of the three previous caches, in this case the Yellow, Orange and the Green Belt caches. When I decided to design a series like this, my motivation was partially inspired by similar series in my caching area that are designed to be done one at a time, with each cache providing the needed info to do the next, sequentially. They can not be done in any other order. I know of three, very well recieved by local cachers. This "daisy-chained" layout worked very well with the Karate Belt concept, and so, seeing nothing in the guidelines that would prevent such a series from being listed, I began. Over 18 months, I have spent ALOT of time, money and effort placing these. Some of the caches have already been placed for well over a year, something I have purposely done to ensure the cache layouts would last, not get muggled, etc. I anticipate very little maintenance on these caches, despite their complexity. However, given the amount of work and expense invested, any needed maintenance would be given priority. So I publish the first cache without a problem. The second listing is submitted, and I am told, not that it is against the guidelines, but that they are concerned about maintenance issues of such a "sequential series". How is it that a reviewer, or Groundspeak can use such an argument to deny a series of caches, where maintenance issues have yet to arise. That is the responsibilty of the CO, and something that is acted upon when issues arise. Not before. Neither Groundspeak or the reviewer has yet to show me where in the Guidelines it explicitly says that such a series is prohibited. Instead it is something that is implied amongst themselves from their interpretation of the guidelines, and not clearly shared with us. So the reviewers suggestion is that I turn the whole dadgum thing into a series of traditionals with a bonus final. Even when Groundspeak Appeals reiterated this compromise, they added that it was a viable solution as it wouldn't alter the integrity of the concept of the series. Clearly it completely destroys the concept. Hey, let's go get the Black Belt, before finishing the White Belt. Makes no sense. Now, I had an issue before with a series of caches, that again was denied because of an "unspoken" interpretation of the guidelines. I had a cache that when completed was basically a seed cache, which provided the info for the other 5 in the series. Funny how, a previous post in this thread mentions just such a group of caches. Anyways, I was flatly denied, and told that a cache can only be a "seed" for one other cache, not several. Now notice how well a sequential series of caches fits that statement. A compromise was reached on that series, and I did as the reviewer suggested. Since I did not need to physically change the placement of the caches, and with just a few changes on the cache pages, I got them published. No big deal. This "karate belt" series is different though. To do as Groundspeak wishes, and destroy the concept of the series, and make them all traditionals, I will have to remove/remake various elements of the physical placements of the individual caches. At considerable expense and time.
  16. That can't be right, as I got 2 pocket queries in my e-mail yesterday. I did get e-mail notification of the queries being available for download an this link: http://www.geocaching.com/pocket/ There was no file attached as usual....
  17. Purplespider accidently logged in as Team Goju is the cacher posting the question. To answer the question though...pocket queries are no longer sent to your e-mail (at least I haven't received any either) but show up on your Pocket Query page under a tab called : "Pocket Queries for Download"
  18. YEs, but HOW to do you send it to the gps? I am a premium member but i cant get the things to arrive at my email account!
  19. Hi....we picked the coin up on Nov.12....and it got misplaced in my truck. Coin has since been found and logged, and will be placed in a cache soon.... Cheers! Steve (Team Goju)
  20. We need 22 caches. 1/4.5, 1/5, 1.5/4, 1.5/5, 2/4.5, 2.5/5, 3/4.5, 3/5, 3.5/4.5, 3.5/5, 4.5/1, 4.5/1.5, 4.5/3, 4.5/3.5, 4.5/4, 4.5/4.5, 5/1, 5/2, 5/2.5, 5/3, 5/3.5, 5/4 This may take awhile.....at least we don't need a 5/5
  21. Just watched the video, very informative and entertaining. Spotted another Canadian in the video, Jtee. Imagine my surprise too, when near the end I see a picture of myself, perched high above Lake Timiskaming at GC51E8.
  22. I've never snowshoed before, but I'd love to come out and join in the trek. The Saturday works fine for me. I'll probably use Chris-Mouse's extra set of snowshoes. We haven't decided yet if my son, Quinn is going to come yet, so there may be two of us.
  23. If there is any left, we'd love 1 of each metal. Thanx, Team Goju
  24. We purchased 2 coins in March, finally sent a e-mail on Friday, June 3rd, and have not heard from them. I hope it's just an oversight on their part.
×
×
  • Create New...