OReviewer

As the Delaware reviewer, I fixed the state on the cache to put it back in Arkansas so anyone late logging this cache won't get the Delaware souvy by accident.

I confirmed it showed up on the old search but not the new so most likely this again.

Follow up, I had an idea. I'm wondering if the new systems are all using the API to get its data. I say this as I tried pulling this cache in GSAK via the API and I get an error that it is not a valid cache. I got the gpx from the cache page and it loaded fine. I then tried to refresh it via the API and same error. Other side of the coin is that the API is getting its data through the same route as these other new systems.

It is not just you. One of the other reviewers and I were discussing this the other day. There appears to be some sort of disconnect between things at the moment. Old search sorted by newest publication, your cache shows up (19th cache on list at the time I post this). New search sorted by newest publication, your cache does NOT shows up. It did seem to take a couple of days for something to sync for the other cache I mentioned to show up on both places. My guess is this is the same thing. That said, it does appear to be an issue, especially if you can't see it on the app.

Just a friendly comment from someone who is not your reviewer. Do you have a second account? You have no pending caches awaiting review under this account.

Correct, we only do what the parks tell us to do. So far, no one in that area has said to do anything about them so I ignore the caches up there.

I agree with this part completely.

It may or may not be misleading. I don't know that their response isn't global. I know my interpretation of what they said read to me as global. Do I know if they did any data mining or comparisons; no. The point of appeals is to be a second view and to relook at and reinterpret earlier decisions if someone feels there is an issue. I think it makes sense to look at a challenge like this more regionally but at the same time, the answer, even with different data could be the same. Maybe they decided that multi caches are a dying type and shouldn't be used. Or maybe they want less regional policy and want something that is either yes or no so they have to deal with less back and forth. I can't and won't speak for them. I can just say, their response seemed like a global response to using other icon types in a 365 non-streak fill in the grid.

I believe you are reading it wrong, or at least not the way I read it. The person wants you to fill in your 365 day grid (non-streak so the fill ins can be from any year). This kind of challenge isn't really touched upon in the guidelines other than the leap day part of it. Originally, the challenge I sent to HQ was fill in your grid with 3x mystery caches a day. When I sent it to Appeals it was for two reasons: 1) Is a specific cache type 365-nonstreak grid an okay challenge? 2) Advice on "are there enough qualifiers being published of said type in a given area" The answer I got was due to what is being published in the area and generally (not sure about globally), there are enough traditionals and mystery caches being published to meet this challenge going forward. I decided to do a little data mining. Just a snap shot of one state. I ran a lot of PQs to get all of the caches in PA last month. The entire state which is bigger than what I would consider the region for a cacher, there are -1197 Multi caches -3755 Mystery caches -21 Letterboxes -20 Earthcaches What more, in 2016 to date published: -87 Multi caches -466 Mystery caches -151 Letterboxes -237 Earthcaches Based on all this, I think the 'ruling' makes sense to me. I also think that if you provide appeals info for ones area to show it is doable and that there are more than enough caches to do it and caches being published to make it feasible, they may allow it. You can understand why they might not allow some of the others though. It would be near impossible to fill in say a yearly grid of virtual or webcams or letterboxes. Edit: they also said 1x a day max for these kinds of challenges. My opinion is it can become a slippery slope of how many is too many; as you can see has happened with the 2+x Fizzy, etc.

I can tell you that here in the areas I review in the US, I use the same litmus test for traffic circles. If there is a crosswalk or other reason people should be there I publish. If there isn't, I don't.

Great! 2 down, 9 to go? I hope you can make it all before it becomes too hard to get out there.

Who owns/placed the buoy?

I wouldn't be surprised if more of them get notes, especially after the topic was brought to the forefront here.

So you know there are problems (or not even there) and you didn't disable/fix them and are mad that the reviewer saw there were problems and disabled them? You just answered your own question.

I hope you emailed your reviewer and asked him to update your coordinates on your two breakfast event since you moved them since publication. You might be having people go to the wrong place...

That is weird. I can confirm that based on what I can see, the log was made back in 2002, it isn't recent and that does mesh with the coords.info information you posted. I know there have been some recent hiccups in the matrix lately so it is possible it is related to that.

38 unarchived so far (1 re-archived by CO right away; sigh)...

Remember, local laws and guidelines apply so talk to your reviewer(s) about it. There have been some issues with having geo-art submitted in your area that don't meet the local laws/guidelines.

The list they provided was 2 months old (of course didn't realize that until after the archive). All but one who contacted me have had their caches unarchived already. The one is a single cache where their info didn't seem to match the satellite view. Following up on it.

I think about 400-something.

It happens, we serve the community and sometimes that is late in the night. I can say, it is frustrating to receive multiple emails of "I have a permit, I just never put the required info on the page". Double work is not appreciated.

This is strictly my opinion, not guidance we've received or anything of the sort. I see the same problem as always. At 4 letters, it is probably reasonable; that is, until we start getting $,#,!,+ and F,#,@,^ as the words to create. Then someone else thinks EASY is too easy and we get floccinaucinihilipilification and we have to judge the merits and availability of every letter in the alphabet in relation to where the challenge is located. When we have to judge, it becomes like a WOW factor and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners, especially when random area A is okay with a 7 letter word and random area B is not okay with a 6 letter word. The other issue is that we'd inevitably run into: -Spell "your username", "Challenge Owner's Username", name of "my favorite sport team", etc -Start and end letters, third letter, or some other letter combo(s) -Can use county and country, or state and country, or county, state and country (fourth letter of country ONLY) -Is the "name of country": Germany or Deutschland? -Is the "name of city": Mumbai or Bombay? Again, my opinion, is that this is a can of worms I'd prefer not to see opened.

Field notes or found it logs or either?

As pointed out, it is at the posted coordinates. That said, even before that, when it wasn't, if people were anywhere near close and requested the coordinates, we provided them.

I would disagree with this. The last page of the cache submission form says: