Nomex

The Cache Owner of the nearby Multi that you're having problems with on your two Listings has 6 caches Hidden. What exactly would you put as the upper limit?

Sorry if my Log Entry wasn't clear tozainamboku. My intent was to convey: 1. Acknowledgment of the Log Deletion and who authorized it. 2. Please don't Log comments about the Log Deletion that are irrelevant to the Listing. Typically what I've seen is that something of this nature spawns about a half dozen "comments" about the action, and nothing about the cache, and that is why I suggested bringing that sort of discussion to the Forums. Logging your adventures is perfectly appropriate. Quoting someone out of context only works up until the quoted individual contacts Groundspeak and complains and threatens more drastic measures if things aren't corrected immediately. Sorry for the confusion.

My apologies to the cacher for not following up with a private email. I had written a Note on the cache page, which I posted to deflect any criticism on the Cache Owner, which they unfortunately deleted relatively quickly (I told them that they could if they wished). The log deletion was a result of a complaint that was sent to contact@ and was forwarded on to me. The complaint mainly focused around this portion of the log entry: which was characterized as a gross misquote of the exchange that went on. Since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for the exact wording, but I'd suggest being careful when quoting someone. Particularly when the individual is in a position of authority and can just as quickly shut down Geocaching in a very large area under their control. Thankfully, I was aware of a thread in the Regional Forums in which this exchange was described, and the effort of the local Community to diffuse and clarify the situation (many thanks to Photom for taking the initiative in this situation). As a result of a few misplaced words, this could have had a very unhappy ending for a number of cache owners in the area. Thanks to the efforts of the Community, and to the Lackey that deftly handled this issue, we can hopefully expect many happy years of Geocaching to continue in this area. Please tell cacher that they are welcome to repost their Find (sans the part about the interaction with the Security folks).

Uh-oh! Sounds like big trouble in Little River City Carry on

A fair question to ask This is probably the most oft piece of guidance that I use, and the one I most frequently include in Notes when I have some concerns over Commercial content in a Listing: Guideline Changes and Clarifications Concerning youtube videos, this portion of the Guidelines would more than likely apply: If a link to a video with commercial overtones is there just as window dressing, not created by the cache owner , and not integral to the Listing, I would more than likely question it as well. I hope that helps.

Oh pinch me....I must be dreaming

I also took a look at the Listing, and yes, Reviewers can see the Additional Waypoints as well. Unfortunately, you have the Additional Waypoints for your Listing marked as Questions to Answer, so the Proximity checker would ignore those, and would not protect the area from other cache placements. The most likely explanation for this is that the other cache owner accidentally labeled their Additional Waypoint as a Stage of a Multi, therefore protecting it in the system. Contact the other cache owner to see if they'll change it to a Question to Answer. I also happened to see that you made up another Listing to presumably replace your Multi cache idea. I can tell you right now that it will most likely get rejected as well. Listings need to be active for more than two days.....oops....I see the Reviewer beat me to it

Looking at your submitted Listings, it appears that you have multiple Proximity issues between adjacent caches. Your Local Volunteer Reviewer left a Note on one of the submissions a couple of days ago which appears to be unanswered. You might begin with responding on how your group of Listings conforms with the spirit of the Guidelines after reviewing the appropriate portion of the Guidelines which can be found at the following link: Saturation portion of the Guidelines Good luck!

Ummm....not quite. Most, if not all, were developed from a handful of Listings that had some adverse negative outcomes, usually with Law Enforcement involvement (the "528" Guideline excluded of course). From looking at three of the Listings you had rejected, I'd have to agree with your Reviewer action, even though that may sound a bit self serving It even appears that on the most recent Listing, your local Reviewer took the rather extraordinary step of contacting the NFS Office for clarification on the boundary question (clearly a Cache Owner responsibility in my book). I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer for you, but I think hammering on the Reviewer and maps is the wrong end to be working on this problem. I think you'd make better progress by developing some relationships with the nearby NFS and providing contact information and/or permit status in the future.

This doorknob completely agrees with the above. I think the OP had an excellent and most appropriate question as well. Good luck with the cache

I wouldn't recommend this sort of thing because Volunteer Reviewers read the Forums too Besides, it would take about one Find/DNF on the cache to get reported and quickly Archived. There's tons of beautiful places down in SLO. I'm sure you can find something better.

Happy Holidays to everyone!

At the request of Keystone:

Seeing as I Review in the OP's territory, I'd suggest that before running out and buying a bunch of Firetacks etc., to begin with finding a location that does not close at sunset. Many Parks in CA (including State Parks), are generally Day Use Only, unless they have camping facilities or something similar. The second thing I would suggest would be to scout out the Final Cache location and send the coordinates for a Proximity Check to your helpful Volunteer Reviewer Considering how much time it takes to set one of these things up, it would save you a bunch of footwork by getting a quick check on nearby Puzzles/Multi's etc. before getting things in place.

Good luck with the Event. Sounds excellent.

...oops..wrong thread.

I'm not exactly sure who told you that, but for clarification, the Guidelines say.... I would think that an Event to promote Earthcaches through education, would make a fine Event. Just because there happens to be an Earthcache nearby doesn't mean you can't fashion Event around the same area, no more than you would exclude a location because there are several Geocaches nearby. I would think, that as long as you avoid phrasing the Event page like this.... And put more emphasis on the Earthcache program like this..... You would probably be OK. I would recommend working with your local Volunteer Reviewer to find out what would be acceptable and what to avoid. Hmmmmm....I wonder if I should check with my buddy at the USGS to see if there's some interest for an Event on October 12th

My feelings exactly For me, I would much rather be *inconvenienced* at the cost of about 30 seconds of my time, than to see people wasting, sometimes hours, of their valuable time trying to relocate a cache in order to comply with the Guidelines. Believe me, it really is that easy to check. On a follow up side note, I did get a request from a cacher, who had read this thread and understood the concern over the plethora of hidden Additional Waypoints that folks have to deal with these days, to move his Puzzle Cache page coordinates closer to the Finals so that folks would be able see pretty readily that a Puzzle Final was nearby. Although I responded back that I thought that was a nice gesture, even though he didn't have to do that. I went ahead and changed them, and thought, at least for the Urban hides, maybe that would be something helpful to the Community, particularly some of the new folks coming into the sport and trying to get their first cache approved.

FWIW, I've had this similar issue with my last couple of hides, requiring one abandoned concept (e.g. the park was saturated for all intensive purposes), and some adjustment on another to avoid a nearby Trad that *looked* far enough away (darn parallax....objects in mirror may appear closer than you think) Nomex ducks as he sees Michael raise his hand ready to smack him Since this appears to be a California *issue*, just judging by the responses, I'll weigh in with my opinion. There appears to be two sets of opinions going on here. On the one hand is the OP that suggested we should have an online Proximity checker on the site, which I believe has been answered and the current work around that is available. The second opinion is that we should ignore physical intermediate Stages and Finals to Puzzles? To the OP; Yes, I have a fairly open door policy for checking coordinates. As long as it's not excessive (e.g. someone trying to put together a 50 cache powertrail for instance), and it doesn't appear to be a game of *battleship* going on, I'll cheerfully answer these types of inquiries. I think I can say with a certain amount of confidence that I have maintained a 100% response rate to these types of requests. If it appears, in my judgment, that the area is Saturated, I'll usually tell people so. I usually don't give directions (e.g. N, S, E, or W), as Keystone suggested above, as I feel that might giving out too much information. Rather, if a person is bent to pursue a placement "no matter what", I usually refer them to the nearby cache owner to resolve the issue. To the opinion of the second camp, I'd have to say, considering the amount of time and effort some people take to put Multi's/Puzzles together, I think I can safely say that the response from angry cache owners would probably limit my choices to something between getting "drawn and quartered" and the more traditional "tar and feathering". The Guidelines are the Guidelines, and is the framework that I work within. My *wiggle* room is generally limited to "substantial natural barriers" when faced with a Proximity error. I believe that straying from this basic principle would run the risk of violating the Cardinal "Consistency" Rule that the Community so oft mentions on these Forums. In conclusion, I have to say that generally speaking, the urban hides in places like San Jose, Sacramento, and God Forbid, Yuba City (...sorry Roger, I just had to say that ), are going to be tough nuts to crack to find a place to shoe horn in a cache. Nonetheless, people still find spots, and I'm more than happy to Publish them Edit to add....the aforementioned Proximity problem that I mentioned at the top of my post required 20 miles of driving....Each Way! In both cases, I don't think an online Proximity Checker would have helped me since I didn't have an Internet connection in the field.

Make sure you have the following requirements for the Builder install before you try installing: Operating Systems: Windows 2000 SP3; Windows Server 2003; Windows XP SP2 Memory: 128 MB of RAM Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package (Get it now) Hint....it's usually the last one that hangs most people up. The .NET Framework is free, but it does require some time to install.

Is there some intrinsic reason for the Zone to remain Active? If I have some Input getting called up within a Zone, I (most of the time) make the Zone Inactive at the same time that the Input is called. I haven't had any crashes like you describe, but it's quite common to get the Input called twice (once entering the Proximity, and once leaving it). Someone probably has a more elegant solution, but I tend to use blunt instruments in my Cartridges

I also agree. Well said I just wanted to post my support for our friends in Southern CA, and if Marko needs anything in my official capacity or otherwise, that I'm at the Communities disposal if any help is needed.

Are we veering slightly OT from the OP Since I've filled in on occassion in Idaho I'll be glad to render an opinion. In one of your posts a few up RK, you state that the following Note was attached to a cache that presumeably had a link to the SEIGO site. That doesn't sound like one of my Notes (I could be wrong), but it's not too far off from my template letter for commercial Listings (yes, I'm a shameless user of form letters in order to maintain consistency). Unfortunately, you've left off what I consider the most important part of the Note (and I believe most/all of the Volunteer Reviewers say something similar): The Admins are the ultimate arbiter in this situation. They, and only they, can determine if the link to SEIGO or any other organization is acceptable or not. Rest assured, that if I'm incorrect in my assertion, they WILL notify me. Consistency with the Admins wishes and the rest of the Reviewer Team is my primary objective. My apologies if it was me and it caused some concern amongst the members of the SEIGO.

Feliz Navidad to all