Nomex

If it's the Listing you created today ("Oh Canada"), you merely need to Enable the Listing to send it to the Review Queue. At the top of your Listing page there are two actions that you can choose: "Submit for Review" and "Edit Listing". Clicking on "Submit for Review" will Enable your Listing and your Local Reviewer will be able to see it in the Queue.

How long ago did you email him? There are no less than FOUR reviewers in Northern California, so it's not like you didn't have someone else to contact. At any rate, I took care of it for you. You probably need to update the description now. Thanks Hemlock! Got the email from the OP on the 18th. Totally spaced out with all the other Holiday preparations going on. My bad. Repeat emails might have been more effective than the Forum, but hey, whatever works. Good luck with the CITO!

As PP pointed out, probably an incorrect format. Looking at your Listing submitted on 9/12/15, it does appear that you have an Additional Waypoint entered for the Trailhead, however it is exactly the same as your posted coordinates. It appears your local Reviewer questioned if that is what you intended (particularly since it appears your cache is some distance from the closest road, and having a "trailhead" in the middle of the forest sounds rather peculiar). In answer to your other question on the Listing page (which the Reviewer answered correctly), here is some additional information from the Help Center: Display and Image in a Geocache Description .

I look at the date submitted. Looking at your Listing that was rejected, it was a pretty close call. Appeals is always an option, but if your submitting an Event < two weeks out, I wouldn't expect to win that argument. Looking at the wording on your Event Listing, I probably would have questioned it. It sounded like you were putting on the Event for the Conference Attendees, which would have been in violation of the spirit of the Guidelines: If the nearby Conference is irrelevant to the Event, it probably doesn't belong on the Listing page.

It was stated in a private Note to the Reviewer that a fence separated the active tracks from the cache site. The Reviewer did question the placement initially. The nearby Puzzle Final might have been missed, or given a *pass*. Not sure on that one. Private Notes appear that the CITO Host(ess) was *counseled* on this type of practice and not to do it in the future. At any rate, the Publishing Reviewer was aware of the situation. I basically follow Keystone's advice:

I took a look at your Listing and it appears that the Unpublished Listing was Archived by HQ yesterday during their periodic sweeps of Unpublished/Disabled Listings. Just glancing at the area, there appears to be another conflict with another active Listing, but you might try Enabling your Listing and see what your Local Reviewer has to say. It's not uncommon for people to mislabel their Waypoints, but again, I'm not familiar with the area (let alone the language ). To answer your question, I generally give a couple of weeks to hear back from the Unpublished Listing CO. Sounds like from one of the posts above, that parts of Germany have a more structured system in place, so you would have to ask your Local Reviewer. Groundspeak doesn't offer specific guidance that I'm aware of, but I typically will favor a Listing that is ready to be Published over one that is not.

I checked the PA Review Queue, and your Listing is there. Do not submit a new Listing, as that will merely confuse things. I'm sure Keystone will chime in eventually, but there have been a couple of Guideline changes to Event submissions that might explain the delay. Thanks for your patience. It'll all get sorted out fairly soon I'm sure.

But... but... but... you already did: http://coord.info/GC5XE3Y (well, not really... but if that is the bridge you are talking about... forget it. Ain't happening. Please don't. A pretty good example of a bridge-cache-gone-bad is the following: Short Circuitry Caltrans makes regular inspections of bridges like the Carquinez Bridge just South of your current cache location. It WILL be found and removed by the highway workers/inspectors.

For the record, I haven't received any email from you I've Reviewed a number of your Listings in the past, so feel free to send me the GC#'s or links to the Listings you're interested in Unarchiving. It would save you a bit of time, rather than going through the forms again, but it's really up to you. Good to hear that you're on the mend.

The more info, the better. Where in Indiana? (ideally the coordinates where you found it, otherwise a nearby cache's GC code, or maybe even a street address) Were there recent signatures on the log, or were they all fairly old? http://coord.info/GC5KNJ2 This is the link to the one I was looking for what I stumbled across this mysterious one. There were signatures, but it sounded like the people who signed it stumbled across it like we did. It was in an ammo box. The log was newer but I didn't think to take note of the dates on it. Looks like you found an Unpublished cache. The CO hasn't logged in since 2013, so they may have forgot about it, or listed it on an alternative site. The Listing was Archived back in December during the database clean up of Unpublished/Disabled Listings on the site.

This is correct. On private property or off, we strive to be good neighbors first, and geocacher's second. Having interacted with the cache owners, I know them to be fairly active and responsive to issues. I've Archived the Listings in question, and invited the CO to join the discussion here, or if they prefer, they can contact me privately. Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention Aran365. Sorry for the trouble this caused you, and hopefully you won't see any more of the visits you mentioned. I'm pretty confident that the cache owner would have complied with your request immediately, had they known the problems that it caused you.

Generally speaking (and there's always exceptions to every rule), I would not change it if there are Finds posted on the Listing. As Keystone pointed out, actions like that will alter the statistics of the Finders on the Listing. If they're working towards completing a Challenge or something, that could make some folks very unhappy. Best to be careful at the submitting point to make sure things are correct in the first place.

Just Disabled it, so you can see it in the Quick View of your Profile under "Your Unpublished Disabled Caches" near the top of your screen.

Ummmm...no, not quite, and I do believe there is a difference between being a Volunteer vs. being a doormat (i.e. being called a liar in post #7) Although I have the utmost confidence in Keystone's ability to step back and resolve the issue objectively (once again, post #7 would normally have resulted in some sort of sanction in most cases), it might be best if the OP took the issue directly to Groundspeak for a final ruling. Thanks for the kind words WarNinjas.

You posted a note on 02/01/2015 saying: By definition, that is an ALR. While I understand why a cache owner may want to prevent people from finding the final of a series without finding the others, if they logged the physical logbook then it stands as a find. Any restriction on doing so is an ALR. I assume you deleted this note after Keystone replied to you. A scare tactic and nothing more. All this took place after the discussions of the Geocheck being compromised. That was a Note...not added to the cache description. Which would have been removed when the GeoCheck site was back in order. Whew! Thanks for clearing that up. It's so tough to know when people are serious or not on the internet.

Truly amazing. Just for the record, if this Listing were in my territory, I would probably have to decline to Unarchive it based on the violation of turning it into a personal Forum

Thanks for the heads up. I always strive for consistency

Marty is correct. It's not a matter of Groundspeak making changes, it's a matter of some professional association willing to work with Grounspeak to make this happen. Not all Associations are as forward thinking as the GSA

+1 As a Reviewer, this is the guidance that I follow. Judging from the Archived Notes on your most recent Event submissions (circa 2012), your Local Reviewer had an issue with the business name apparently emblazoned in LARGE RED LETTERS, and a logo (hard to tell if that was a company logo...which is a no-no). Quite frankly, I'd be asking for that sort of thing to be removed as well. Commercial links, solicitations (i.e. "best [insert product/service] in the world"), and the like, should be removed. There are plenty of websites on the internet to promote products and services. Geocaching is not one of them. Thanks for hosting your Events and good luck with your future submissions

Looking forward to seeing your submissions in the Review Queue......with different titles of course Best of luck with your caches!

Ummmm....actually two of the Reviewers for that territory just replied, and a 3rd from the East Coast confirmed our opinion. I'm thinking that's good enough. I sure don't recall getting any email, but maybe it got lost somewhere along the way

Well I can tell where this is headed, so as they like to say on the Forums.....IBTL

+1 I could check with the other two Reviewers that also cover your area, but I think you got the general idea. In general, Groundspeak asks the Reviewers to take a somewhat innocent read of such puns, but I'd say that title you referenced (and the accompanying video) are not so nuanced, but more like a 2x4 between the eyes.

I should add that there are a number of useful Notes posted as we'll; things like coordinate checks, maps are incorrect or not up to date, cache is in place and ready to be found ( you'd be amazed how often this happens ), please publish on a specific date/time and things of that nature. It's not a totally useless box

Most of the Notes I've been seeing are kind of on the silly light hearted nature (Hi!...I don't know what to put here...have a great day). I think that the intent was for people to use it to clarify some potential Guideline issue that might otherwise result in a number of back and forth exchanges that could be resolved right from the beginning, and result in a faster turnaround on the Publication. If you really have nothing to add, you can put a space or a period there for all I care. The other up front checks on the submissions I wholeheartedly endorse. Many of the checks are of the Oops variety which hangs up a Listing from getting Published (coordinates mistyped, obvious proximity issues with Traditionals etc). As always, the intent seems to be to expedite the Publication process for the vast majority of users. I'm sorry that you find the new forms so burdensome.