Jump to content

OReviewer

+Reviewers
  • Posts

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OReviewer

  1. I can confirm I found my account (both home and work) both logged themselves out. I didn't get any errors though.
  2. So I see where the error came from and I understand why the reviewer (not me) said what s/he said. The onus is on you to explain that the PVC pipe was there to begin with and that you didn't place it. Not once did you say that, even after the last exchange. S/he has no reason to think you are lying. Styles differ from reviewer to reviewer. Some may have asked you if you placed the pipe. S/he didn't and you haven't said you didn't. Try saying that and maybe it will be published.
  3. They can log the PM caches, even as a not PM. Go to http://www.geocachingadmin.com and put the GC code of the cache in the GC code field then click the button next to it, "Log".
  4. Go to http://www.geocachingadmin.com and put the GC code of the cache in the GC code field then click the button next to it, "Log".
  5. And so what? He asked if there were reviewers who would say no. I answered. Of course there are reviewers who would say yes. That wasn't his question.
  6. Again, I think the Jasmer is a bad example because it is time proved acceptable challenge that people are interested in and want to attain. That said, I don't believe there to be one in Alaska; because there is only one (I think) cacher who could publish it under the new guidelines. If the Alaskan reviewer said to that person No, it is too unattainable based on what caches are available up there (IE, its not just a couple that state doesn't have, it appears to be missing a lot of early months), I would support them. Same goes for Hawaii. I definitely think that some challenge caches can/should be reviewed regionally whereas others should be reviewed globally (or much larger regionally, continentally for example). I think Jasmer is one that would be more under the global review than local but I can see where hard lines can and should be made. An example I often throw out (no longer publishable under the new guidelines) is 1k finds in a day. I would have no problem with this being published near the ET trail or something like that where it is attainable at least once (if not twice) but I would never publish it in say PA/DE where I review because there just isn't the density stock to be able to do that. EVEN the ET trail runs into the issue of if you've done enough of them not 1k in a day, there might not be enough left to qualify. There should never be caches published that a certain segment CAN'T be qualify for (and I don't mean because the can't/won't climb a tree, etc).
  7. Bolded for a question. The Jasmer challenge requires travel (hundreds of miles). Would you or any other reviewer publish a Jasmer challenge if it were submitted in any area that currently doesn't have a 100% Jasmer nearby? It depends (stock answer, I know). There is a big difference between those though. The Jasmer doesn't have a time aspect to it so its not like you can mess it up. With under represented cache types, their publication rate is so low that if you get say 6 days into the challenge and screw up, you not only have to start over, but you might have screwed yourself out of doing it because you no longer have those 6 to use. Another real world example would be earthcaches. Last year had a single day souvenir and a summer souvenir based on them. At an event I attended, there were people who had to drive hundred plus miles to get to the closest unfound earthcache. This is one of the reasons so many time based challenges were an extra headache to do. To your specific question of Jasmer being published not near caches needed to qualify it, yes, there are some reviewers who would say no (I would be one if I were reviewing in a country that didn't have them all). The NZ version doesn't include months not available in NZ. I have been told (not checked mind you and that makes it hearsay), that there are some European versions that took those limitations into account. Now whether that is reviewer telling them to or they are just being forward thinking cache owners who want to make challenges their locals can find with out trans-continental flights, that I can't say.
  8. If you actually move an existing cache of yours by a short distance and update the coordinates to match your field measurements at the new location, I don't see a problem with that. Assuming these movements don't lead the original cache(s) to come into a proximity conflict with other caches.
  9. You didn't read far enough back. The CO removed the container and was accepting photo logs. I highly doubt any reviewer would archive a physical cache because someone(s) posted photo logs instead of signing the log.
  10. Reviewers treat every correspondence as true unless we know better (or have been previously burned). I think most cachers are honest and as a player, when I get logs like that, I accept them and move on. Is there a reason to think they didn't find it in 2014? Maybe there was a divorce (and separating of accounts), maybe a child got old enough that they wanted their own account, maybe they are that far behind in logging, etc. I can think of other reasons; lying because they need a single find on your archived cache isn't anywhere near the top of that list.
  11. Its funny you mentioned this. I qualified for this on Friday, I no longer qualify for it since I haven't found a May 2016 cache yet!
  12. Did you include information in the reviewer note about how and where it is hidden?
  13. While I am not your reviewer, I can tell you not a single one of these is 0.1 miles from the next. It is harder to tell because your caches aren't published but for example, put the coordinates of Don't Fence Me In and Bike Trail Booty into here and it will spit out the distance between them. You will see the problem for yourself. I would suggest checking all of these that way (how close it is to the next closest).
  14. I agree with this and from a reviewer stand point being relatively close to that area, it is a real headache. I can't tell you how many times I get a reviewer note with "This is an exact copy of WVTim's xyz cache." I have to reply with "Do you have permission to put the 4x4 post (or whichever guideline violation it is) that WVTim has?" The problem is that the majority say no. When placed with permission, it does not hurt geocaching. It sets a terrible example that people emulate without permission in places they shouldn't. That is the issue to me.
  15. Maintaining + Caching is always an issue whether in the field or at home. As a Reviewer, I wonder about the Bigcall since my understanding is that it is just a list of acceptable cache owners. That list would need to be maintained as Charter members quit/die/etc. That is the opposite of what most people are doing (adding animals to their lists as an example). A general comment, it does seem like having multiple challenges that are exactly the same, having the checker in there multiple times is both redundant and multiple places for errors to come about (IE, Challenge A owner updates is checker but challenge owner B does not). It seems like it would make more sense to have a http://project-gc.com/Challenges/BigCall-50CM/ rather than http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC56CKN/ + http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5652B/ + others that are exactly the same criteria. I would imagine there are a ton of redundant checkers like that.
  16. I would say whatever you do, don't do #2. At least tell them you got the message. As a puzzle cache owner, I understand completely why you wouldn't want to give them the answer, and it is your prerogative not to give them. In helping with building community I would suggest you ask them for a 5 sets of coordinates and give let them know if one (or more) of them work. This way they can put out a cache and you can still have your puzzle in that area.
  17. I would imagine there is a misunderstanding somewhere, either in what you wrote (or didn't write) or what your reviewer read on your page/logs. Do you have something outside so the GPSr usage is set up? Do you have an additional waypoint for the final? Did you include a reviewer note telling him/her exactly how it is hidden, including confirmation that you don't have to interact with the staff to do this? Did you tell him the permission your had from the librarian(s)?
  18. I'll have to try again. After the Oregon not being able to do what I need, I stopped using it. I almost 10 years later, I couldn't be happier with the 60CS/CSxs I've had and will keep buying them until I can't find them anymore.
  19. You sound like Garmin (which isn't a good thing). I have an Oregon that is a glorified PDA at this point and still use the 60CSX much of it is because I want to, in one click, pull out my tracks with the caches I did (didn't do, etc), waypoints I created, etc. I have them all saved and often refer to them when I am planning my next trip to that area to find parking, trails, access, etc. You can't really do that with the newer models unless you do it as a multi step process. Pull tracks/onsite created waypoints in one Mapsourse/Basecamp, put the gpx in a different instance of Mapsourse/Basecamp, edit the icons to finds/DNFs/etc (if you do that), copy them into the first instance.
  20. It looks like there was a cache placed but never published near yours. I'm guessing they didn't pick it up. That said, it was placed way after yours so it doesn't pre-date yours. There is no other cache near or archived listing for them to log. Sorry.
  21. I would imagine no one gets carte blanche, heck, even when my player account hides a cache, I ask a different reviewer to look it over to make sure I didn't make a flub. There may be some hiders who get more or less questions based on previous hides. I can tell you, in my last 10 caches that required a reviewer note there were: -In front of someone's house that wasn't theirs -A parking coordinate and posted coordinate the same (one was obviously wrong) -A couple of general proximity issues -A couple of people that provided no information on hides/location/etc When I review a cache, I read the cache page, read the note(s) provided by the cache owner and look at the maps. When two of them don't match what I expect, I ask questions. Sometimes the answer is that the maps are outdated, sometimes I get more info that lets me publish, sometimes I get info that doesn't let me publish, sometimes it points an issue out to the cache owner. We ask the questions we need to be able to feel comfortable that ones' listing meets the guidelines and are publishable.
  22. User was CHAS7336. Trying to figure out now how to report this. My player account just got the same one from Gavin6935.
  23. Pennsylvania: SEPAG Storms the Castle Started: 07/31/04 GCJHRP Current: SEPAG Storms the Castle XII 08/08/2015 GC5ZFH1
×
×
  • Create New...