Nomex

I don't know what the standard is, but with the one cache I have submitted so far with the new form, I got that warning, and rightfully so, because it was about 70 miles away with a maintenance plan in effect. I just clicked "next" after the warning, and it went to the next screen. It let me explain in the "notes to reviewer", as I would always have, and the cache was published the next day. This has come up several times in the past, and I'm kind of surprised that it even gets mentioned anymore since it's been answered so many times. From the Guidelines:

I had something similar happen to one of my older units many years ago. Required a call to Tech Support, and they had me do a factory reset on the unit to clear the corrupt file.

Hi GeoRRider, and Welcome! I took the liberty of looking at your submission in the Review Queue, and will attempt to clarify the Reviewers concerns: 1. You chose a Traditional cache type, although you state that the cache is, "not located at the posted coordinates". By definition, a Traditional MUST be located at the coordinates at the top of the Listing page (aka posted coordinates). You will need to change your cache type to properly reflect the type of cache hunt that is involved. Your choices are either a Multi cache, or a Puzzle cache. It's not clear from reading your Description whether you placed a container at the starting coordinates or not. If you did, a Multi would be more appropriate. I didn't see any indication in your Description that the Final coordinates could be derived from some nearby object, or from the Description itself. If you provide further clarification, I might be able to give further guidance. 2. As Nirad mentioned, you must enter the coordinates for the Final cache location as an Additional Waypoint. For further instructions on how to go about that, please see the following Help Center article: How do I create an Additional Waypoint Hope that helps. Good luck with your submission.

I think that this is all a matter of working with your local Reviewer. Groundspeak must place the bar somewhere, if you you think 3 months is too short, you're entitled to that opinion, but I dare say that present company excluded, if someone hasn't returned to a project in over 3 months, it's more than likely abandoned. Case in point... This happened in my Reviewing area, in an extremely cache dense area. It took weeks to sort out the proximity issues with the numerous Stages/Final for this complex Multi. Months passed while the cache owner worked on the project, kind of on and off again. Listings would get submitted that would conflict with the various Stages (did I mention this was in a very cache dense area?), and I would patiently ask how the progress was going, and sadly reject Listings that were ready to go. This went on for over a year, with seemingly very slow progress (I might add that the distance between Stages would probably have involved a couple hundred miles of driving back and forth). After 6 months of seemingly no activity/no response, I posted a Note stating that I would not be able to Hold the locations any longer. In the absence to any response to my most recent Note, I ended up Archiving the Listing to free up the areas that the Stages/Final blocked. If you have something on the order of that sort of complexity, which ties up a significant amount of prime real estate, I'd suggest getting in touch with your local Reviewer to work out a plan and timeline for completion. I know I sure learned a lesson from this experience

I believe this is a rare and one time process, and your concerns appear to be out of proportion to the reality. The way I've been told to handle conflicts with Unpublished Listings, is to make an attempt to contact the cache owner to see if they are still intending on submitting it. From my experience, 99% of the time I get no response, and the Listing eventually gets Archived during my monthly clean up of Disabled Listings. If your local Reviewers are handling things in the same way, this should have zero impact on the way you do things currently. Believe me when I say, this is good customer service. I can't tell you the number of annoyed cache owners I've dealt with because someone is squatting on a spot with an unused placeholder.

This is also true of Challenge Listings as well, so the original assertion that the system should ignore the posted coordinates on Mystery/Puzzle types would not work so well in that situation. This option is available at this time. It's called, "don't generate a Listing page on the site". If you don't have a need to "hold" a spot, then merely work on the Listing offline on your computer without creating a Listing page. If you must test formatting of the HTML or something, create a page to test it, then Archive it when you're done. This has become almost a daily issue in my Reviewing area, so even though a few of the Listings on my Player account got caught up in the sweep, I was quite happy to see the clean up take place.

Why would you pay them $25 to $30 per hour plus benefits. I'm sure it could be outsourced to India for a fraction of that. I can see it now: Brilliant-thank you for that. I have just added it to my menu of boilerplate messages and will be sending you a 10 rupee royalty check for each and every time that I use it. समीक्षक स्वयंसेवक +1 Thanks for that Probably my 3rd or 4th used template letter in my stockpile. Now if people will just read it

Whoa fella! Way too much conspiracy theories in this post. Said Reviewer sent a polite email asking the cache owner to remove the rather heavy handed sounding language that came across as an ALR. Said cache owner sent back a very polite reply almost immediately that they had decided to Archive the cache voluntarily due to their concerns about the cache and it's location, and the possibility of some unpleasantness that might arise if there were any confrontations with families in the park. Sorry, but no police called in, no calls to Groundspeak. Just a responsible cache owner doing what they think is best for everyone.

That is correct. I did a search under the Username for ALL Listings, which included the Stairway to Heaven Listing mentioned.

I checked your Listing, and it is indeed Disabled and not visible in the Review Queue to be Published yet. The Enable check box is almost half way down on the page, just below the box where you entered the coordinates for the Listing. You'll see some text beside the check box which reads:

You are correct. niraD's post has a link to the relevant Help Center page that says as much. For all Update Coordinate log types, an audit log is generated, in which the Local Reviewers (in their copious "free time"), can recheck Listings to make sure they still comply with the Guidelines. Beyond +/- 528 feet, you'll get an error message that directs you to contact the Publishing Reviewer for assistance.

Just to clarify one slightly misleading point. It appears that you submitted your Listing on the 7th (when the page was generated), but you did not Enable your Listing for Review until the 12th. Krypton posted a Note regarding the issue with the Wilderness Area on the same day. I know there's some confusion with that pesky Enable box on the Listings, and hopefully that will get cleared up with the next Update or two. It's pretty unusual for a Listing to go stale in the CA Review Queue

Since it's likely that a quick search of the OP's area would turn this one up, I'll just preempt the criticism with a mea culpa: http://coord.info/GC31GKN I honestly can't remember the Short Description being there, and I would likely have asked for it to be removed. Looking at the flag waving part gives me a bit of pause at this point in time, although there are so many silly flas mob events out there I could easily see going "meh" at the time. Sorry for any confusion.

Yes. For Northern California, where you appear to be located, there are three active Reviewers. Southern CA has two. The dividing line is approximately N36. We monitor the entire Northern California region. Our duties include reviewing Updated Coordinates log entries, and Needs Archived log entries and taking action when it appears to be necessary. Answered in the link from the KB posted earlier. In my case, when one of the Reviewers in our area took a sabbatical, a search was made by asking respected members of the Geocaching Community for a list of candidates. People I thought were my friends nominated me (just kidding guys ) Once every couple of months or so, I generate a PQ of Disabled caches in the region. I flag those that appear to have been Disabled for quite some time (usually on the order of 2-3 months). If the Cache Owner responds to my Note that they intend on fixing the cache up, I leave it be. Otherwise the Listing gets Archived after +/- 30 days, with a Note offering to Unarchive the Listing provided that the cache placement still conforms with the Guidelines. I usually get half a dozen requests to Unarchive Listings after sweeps of this sort. I'll also add, that I'm a little surprised at this question, since I just finished such a sweep about a week or so ago, and the month before that, one of the Reviewers that I share the region with did a similar sweep (I noticed that our PQ's overlapped a bit). If there are specific Listings that you have some concerns about, please feel free to contact me.

..wrong thread

In general, I believe this to be a bit erroneous. Like the general Geocaching Community, the number of Reviewers that actually monitor the Forums is about the same I would imagine (i.e. very small percentage). To answer your original question: Although I Review in CA, I believe the following portion of the Guidelines would apply on a National level: I know of one or two "Casino parking lot" type hides in California that were granted permission, but this may vary from one Tribal Authority to the next, so it would be impossible for me to know what is required in your area. Your best bet would be to contact your Local Reviewer for a definitive answer.

Yes they do...from Voodoo Donuts would be best. Voodoo Donuts would be awesome Maybe I'll check with my wife to see if she'd like to renew our vows there on our next Anniversary Many happy returns to all you guys and gals that keep hiding great caches. That's what REALLY keeps this site going

It appears as though you found an Unpublished Listing. Unfortunately in an Unpublished state you will not be able to view the Listing page or log a Find. It looks as though there were a couple of issues with the submission that the local Reviewer was working on with the Cache Owner. Hopefully things will get resolved soon.

That seems to be a common theme among folks that don't get their submissions reviewed. It must be confusing on the first try. I agree, it is quite common, although it is nearly as common as people not reading the Notes very closely for relevant instructions, like the following quote from the Note I mentioned: Perhaps the nomenclature is confusing to people. I know that it takes some folks one or two submissions before grasping this concept though. I'm not sure what the answer is

Snooping around a bit, it appears that your friend has addressed the Reviewers concerns regarding the proximity to the school grounds by relocating the cache and updating the coordinates. However, your friend will need to Enable the Listing to return it to the Review Queue where the Volunteer Reviewer will *see* it. Unless the Reviewer has Watchlisted the Listing, they are probably unaware of the changes. Good luck with the cache, but considering the numerous issues regarding cache placements near schools, your Reviewer was completely justified in questioning it IMHO. I didn't see anything in the Reviewers Note that would justify your original posting (i.e. it was a form letter that is commonly used).

I did a search for the cache name that you posted above. Since I have some limited Admin permissions on this account, it allows me to see Unpublished Listings. The Cache Owner had changed the owner field to, what apparently is, their actual names rather than their Username (an editable field on the Listing form). Just kind of lucky that they didn't decide to change the name of the cache when they got home, although a search by coordinates or nearby caches would have probably yielded the same results. Thanks for following through on the issue. It's great to see Community involvement like this

It was submitted back in 2008 and rejected by the original Reviewer for a lack of a maintenance plan (they live in the UK apparently). Here is the original Cache Owner: Elfie You might try contacting them and ask them what they want done with the container, although it appears as though they haven't logged on the site for quite some time.

I agree. I much prefer posting under my alter ego than my Reviewing account precisely becuase I prefer being on the same footing as everyone else. Most of the time, it's just My opinion, and nothing else. And I agree, not a gig I would sign up for. Well, maybe if they paid me with chocolate

It had a proximity problem with this Listing: Obelisk They talked about relocating it, but it was eventually Archived for inaction and to clear the area of Unpublished Listings and from blocking other potential submissions (not an insignificant problem in CA). Like Camel680 said, they may have ended up Listing it on another site, but it's not Loggable on GC

1. Mostly for newer folks, but please update Home Location in their Profile. 2. Before submitting a Listing, click on the Nearest Caches link to see if there are any nearby caches. 3. For folks in my area, if you have a suspicion that there might be a Stage/Final too close to your proposed placement, email me the coordinates before wasting your valuable time in making your one of a kind creation so that I can let you know of any nearby caches that might interfere. 4. Don't submit Listings with business or product names in the Title. In general, avoid promoting nearby businesses in your Description.