keeweechris

Oh well, I tried. Guess it will stay there until someone accidently finds it. It's in no danger of spilling itself all over the ocean, trust me. Its very well concealed and secure. Yes, ofcourse I read the guidelines at time of creation, but was under the impression that in certain circumstances novel caches could be published after consultation with the reviewer. That was my plan, to plant it then discuss the finer details once home. Won't try that again! I've learnt a lot about publishing a cache through all this, and a lot about the type of person who makes up the majority of the geocaching community. I have to admit though, and I know I'm in the minority, that I rather see a few less "guidelines". I'm just a normal guy who got excited at the prospect of hiding treasure in a cool place and wanted to see others go there too. It's definately easier to hide a cache in a flax bush in your neighbourhood. Maybe thats the type of cache the majority wants? Maybe I had the wrong end of the geocaching-stick? Over and out.

Haha, you guys are funny! I'm not going to start into a pointless argument over the internet though. At the end of the day, I'm just a guy who found a cool place to hide a cache, though it would be a fun challenge to lead people here, and decided to make the best use of the equipement at hand to place a cache and have it approved later. Some of you guys are treating the situation like I've tipped a boot load of rubbish bags out my window on a drive-by! Anyway, I totally agree with all of your concepts (not particularly the way you chose to put them across). I emailed the reviewer to ask if my cache can be a "help me retrieve this cache" cache. There will only be one FTF, and they properly dispose of it. Everyone wins. Unfortunately he has come up with a reason why this isn't possible. Can any of you geocachering-guru's guess what it could be? Yeah, NZ flax is a hardy plant that grows all over NZ (I thought it was all over the world!), and many many boring caches are placed in/behind them. C'mon, I think geocachers can be a bit more imaginative than that... unless it's all about the numbers.

Thanks for all your replies... some productive, but most not so productive. Lets get something clear, I'm not one of those ultra serious geocachers who revel in the big numbers beside their names. You know the ones, who love finding the cache-in-a-flax bush and hiding more caches in other flax bushes. I swear some day I'll find a container in every flax bush in the world! "clean up the mess" "get the geo-litter from where you placed it and dispose of properly" "I stopped reading right there." "I live somewhere where people on vacation dump caches and then never return to maintain " "you have to click a little box stating that you've read the guidelines. It seems pretty clear that you haven't." "if you can't properly maintain your cache your no longer following the rules" Haha, in the grand scheme of things, I doubt anyone would find my little bottle (with its interesting contents inside) and think to themselves "this is litter" or "what a mess" or consider it rubbish. My container is still a container like all the your other geocaches behind flax bushes (prepared nicely) and sitting hidden in nature somewhere. It just hasn't been found yet. Litter and mess and dumps are the wrappers people drop after opening a pack of cigurettes, or old fridges they can't be bothered disposing of properly, or all the packaging that most people on this forum just throw out after buying their precious new ipod. If you think about it, the bottle I re-used as a container is now put to (what I consider) good use, instead of ending up in Vanuatu landfill. Next time you guys who place your cache behind that flax-bush, consider re-using an existing container instead of going to your local Walmart and buying one. I bet there are many non-cachers out there who would consider every geocache to be litter! Sigh. "Dude, seriously. Would you like to waste your time looking for a missing cache?" Seriously dude, you would not feel like your time has been wasted if my cache led you to this idilic spot on earth and you chilled out for 1 day of your life. If you found my cache and got a number beside your name, binus. Claudis192, great idea! It's given me new ideas. Yes, I think me heart is in the right place. I only wanted to lead people to this spot to experience the beauty of it. "why not try to come up with a maintanence plan" I did contact the owners of the other 2 caches on Vanuatu and asked if they could look after it. The only reply I got was from a nice guy who explained he was in the same boat but convinced his reviewer that his mate living on Vanuatu would look after it. He said he'd be happy to ask his mate to "maintain" mine. I considered this "not a great maint plan". At the end of the day, I understand where most of you are coming from, and see you have difficulty explaining it in a productive way. Can I also remind you that nowhere (I've seen on geocaching.com) does it refer to the set of rules as "Rules". They're refer to as "guidelines", and I believe that's not a conincidence. Geocaching is not meant to be serious. People do it as a game, for their (and others) pleasure. That is the basis for any cache I plant, and any I seek. Go have a read of my one (and only) cache comments. What would you guys say if I told you there was a sizable amount of money inside my Vanuatu cache, as a prize for the FTFer? Would that change your opinion of whether it was liter or not? Would that incent you to seek it out, regardless of the concept of Geocaching and its Guidelines? Watch this space! :-)

Hi there, I'm kinda new to cache placing (have done 1 before), and I got rejected on my 2nd attempt. So I am interested in what the community thinks. I was recently in holiday in Vanuatu, and while there found what I thought was a great hiding spot in a structure, 1.5m below water in a wonderful publicly accessible marine reserve. I asked the holiday resort (who ran the marine reserve) if they'd mind me placing a cache there. Ofcourse I had to explain the whole geocaching thing to them ;-) I did it all by the books... made a "read this first" sheet, found a waterproof container (bottle), got a GC number and wrote it on it, etc. Upon returning to New Zealand, I submitted my request and was denied on 2 main points: 1) I had no maintenance plan and 2) It was deemed as a commercial cache because it was within the "grounds" of a commercial operation. I agree, I had no way of getting out there again if something happened to the container, but I don't mind at all if it disappears or needs to be archived for any reason. As long as a few people get to find it first, I'm happy. I tried to convey this to the approver, but no joy. Does anyone think a clause for "not caring if it gets archived sometime in the future" should be an option in the guidelines? And regarding the commercial thing, I only asked the resort out of respect. They don't necessarily benefit from my cache, and I'm in no way associated with the resort. It's a great place to go for a daytrip though, and that would benefit geocachers. Anyway, I'm not too fussed either way, it was fun making the cache and hiding it :-) But I'd be keen to hear what other geocachers thought. I feel a little misunderstood as far as the review went, especially since he/she didn't ask any questions at all, just a flat "no" in the first reply, then he/she archived it. Many thanks Chris

Well, 6 months on, and I'm so glad I persevered with this one. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c1-5756a5b93e82 It won some award at a local caching event!

Is that directed at reviewers or me?

Absolutely. I'm thinking half a mile would be about right. Can you please give a reason? Maybe here in NZ I don't understand some of the issues of more populated area's, in which maybe there could be different rules for different countries...?

Yeah, sorry, after years of uninterrupted hosting, my website hoster is having issues. I'll try to get that sorted.

Yeah, after all of this, I can't help feeling like the "supporters" are just supporting the rule cos its written in the guidelines, rather than because it makes complete sense. I'm sure if everyone in the gc community were to vote, a majority would either vote for a reduction in the proximity distance (to me 100m sounds more than enough), or more of a case-by-case approach to applying the "guideline".

Just an update on my cache... I finally got it published! Yay! Thanks to my reviewer "warming" to my cache idea, and a bit of good ol' persistance, he allowed me to cable-tie a tag inside the tunnel which redirects the player to the tree above ground. I also invited the owner of the other cache to use the tree as his final, which in my humble opinion is a far better camo than hi current hide (on the ground behind a tree in shrubland) but after weeks of "sure, I'll check it out and get back to you", he never did. Anyway, I think everyone is happy now. If you're ever in Auckland, please pay my cache a visit :-) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c1-5756a5b93e82 Thanks to everyone for their comments... it was educational! Chris

How about you comentate from another topic?

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee. Jim How would you feel about both? Hey great idea! Cold blue with a GJ chaser. Jim I guess you need something to kill the taste of the Blue (gag) How about some St Ambroise? I even knew that one of the beer snobs would chime in. I am surprised it took so long. Ah, I had to go out and do maintenance on one of my caches... Can a mod please delete/move all the off topic posts... its a bit annoying to anyone taking this seriously to filter out the relevant posts.

Well said, but I could never say it first... I only have 20-something posts... I'd be flamed instantly! I too felt like these guys had nothing positive to add, so made do with their own sarcastic humour. Big deal if I raised an old idea... truth being that I had no idea it had been mentioned before... it was just an idea I had. Like I said before, maybe the fact that people keep bringing it up is a sign that something positive should be done. I'm almost positive that such a tool could be inplemented, without any serious resulting problems.

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee. Jim How would you feel about both? I can now see why you guys have over a thousand posts!

The reviewer would still have ultimate say when you publish the cache for approval (to incorporate the technicalities you mention above), but it would cut down on the time taken to get a potentially viable spot. I mean, in my experience a reviewer will reply once a day, which I've heard is a good response time. This means that it would prob take a good few weeks, when finding a spot in a city or popular place. If there was some way to automate and reduce the time to find un un-used hiding place, thats good for everyone. But yeah, I'm easy, it was just an idea I had.

Thanks for your idea's mrbort. I like the premium member one! Its easy, and would filter out 99% of ungenuine geocachers.

Well seeing as people bring the topic up regularly, maybe thats a sign that it should be addressed...?

Unless the tool tells you "that coord is within 150-170m of an existing wp". You get the idea it is close to something, and to either try again elsewhere, or ask a reviewer for further clarification. So if the cheating ahem-geocacher-ahem did his homework, I guess he could still get a 40m circle the wp is in, but he'll only know that something physical is there, not the name of the cache. I mean, if someone wants to do that, they're not really geocachers, or honest people. This seems like just another case of the dishonest minority making it hard for the honest majority. I'm not really in favour of them winning to tell you the truth.

Hmmm, very true. End of topic I guess.

It doesn't have to tell you WHERE the existing waypoint is, or what the name of the waypoint is, just that you're within 161m of an existing wp, and to try again.

Oh, thought GOF was on drugs :-) OK, so its been covered before... I'll go searching. But what I'm getting at, is that for example Finals to multi-caches are not going to show up on any map... so you may think you have a valid cache spot, but its within 161m of a "invisible" cache.

Hi all, When planning to hide a cache, perhaps the hardest part is finding a viable spot to plant it. Among other restrictions, there's the 161m rule, which stops you hiding a cache within 161m of another physical waypoint, whether it be the final container of a cache, or a physical waypoint to a multi/puzzle cache. Even if the spot looks good from GC.com maps, there may be a cache in the vicinity. Following a previous struggle to hide my cache, I was told by my reviewer to always check with him before I starting work on hiding a cache. He said I should create a "skeleton" cache on gc.com, with "**CHECK**" as the name, and the proposed coordinates. He would then be able to easily see if it interfered with any existing hides. But to take this chore away from the already overworked reviewers, how about Groundspeak adds some sort of online tool on gc.com, where you could enter your co-ords, it would do a lookup, and it tell you if it was ok to proceed or not? Does anyone else think this is a good idea? If not, maybe some mention of the **CHECK** technique in the guidelines would be good. Regards Chris

Happened to me (I think), but the shoe was on the other foot. In 2006, the day before I flew out of London bound for home in New Zealand, I planted a cache in Kensington Gardens. I was then hoping to set the cache up from NZ, and have it published. Yes Mum, I know, I should have been more organised, but I simply ran out of time. Due to a few complications, it has never since been published, but my parents visited the tree where I hid the cache a few years later whilst on holiday, but it wasn't there. Found by a geocacher? Found by the gardener? Stolen by a squirrel? ;-)

Thanks hukilaulau. I guess it comes down to how you define impenetrable. I can cross a river in a canoe, scale a wall with a rope, and climb a cliff by climbing up tree roots and the like. Nothings really impenetrable, and it really only refers to the Accidental Discovery part of the Saturation Guideline. I think what it boils down to is that the cliff and the concrete-lined tunnel are substantial enough obstacles, resulting in a very low chance of either being found accidentally.

OK, point taken, sorry.