Rude Reviewer Won't Approve Cache

[+Huntnlady]

I have a recently approved cache, GCPG9Y, Nightcaching- Star Clusters, which starts at the beginning of a long tree-lined walkway. It is a puzzle cache classification, and the actual cache location is one-half mile east of the start.

At the same time I placed "Nightcaching", I also placed a micro, GCPG9Z, Under the Power Lines. The micro is hidden in a unique feature on a telephone pole, and is also the only place to park to walk across the street and start "Nightcaching". The microcache is only 138 feet from the start of "Nightcaching".

I had planned to have this cache in place so that cachers could find the micro before going on to the other cache. I was not aware that there would be a proximity problem, because the nightcache is nowhere near the start, and there is nothing physical relating to the nightcache at the start. It is simply the place where the cacher starts his/her quest.

 

I have traded over a half dozen emails with the reviewer, who insists that any part of a cache counts for the proximity rule.

 

Under cache saturation, the Geocaching Listing Requirements read as follows:

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

This says to me that it the location of the cache itself that is important and that this is a guideline.

 

Here is a copy of my last reply from the reviewer:

 

You don't understand I have presented it and you either need to move the coordinates or the moicro

enough said

Krypton

----- Original Message -----

From: Huntnlady

To: Krypton

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 2:28 PM

Subject: Re: [GEO] Huntnlady contacting you from Geocaching.com

 

You don't seem to understand. There is no first stage to the mystery cache. There is nothing at the starting coordinates. Just like other caches where the coordinates lead to the parking lot and say, "there cache is not there."

 

I would like to present my case to your private forum. I don't feel that you have read the cache descriptions or understand the puzzle cache.

 

Krypton <Kryptoncacher@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I just was discussing this and another one like it with the reviewers in our private forum and the agree that it is in fact too clost to be listed. We are back to the situation of moving the coordinates of the first stage of the mystery cache or not listing this. The call is now yours. If you need help with the coordinate change feel free to contact me

[Keystone]

Ahhh, but the posted coordinates for "Nightcaching" aren't just for a parking lot, and they aren't just random coords for a puzzle cache. They represent the beginning of a trail for a night cache. Presumably, along the way the finder gathers the clues from firetacks in order to solve the puzzle for the final cache location.

 

The proximity rule applies to all cache stages. And, when the starting coordinates of a mystery/unknown/puzzle cache have a real meaning, as is the case here, then draw a 528 foot circle around them.

 

There are a number of easy solutions; perhaps the reviewer suggested them. Two that come to mind are moving the micro a little bit, and moving the start point of the Nightcaching hunt to a point closer to the first set of firetacks.

[The Junkyard Dogs]

Something similiar happened to us. No matter how you present it, they will stand firm on there decision.

 

Its thier rules and when your in thier house you need to play by there rules. It is kind of a pain, since you spent all the time to create the cache experience.

 

Good luck with the situation.

[+Team Teuton]

And they're you go.

[+IV_Warrior]

Do you really think coming in here, and calling your reviewer rude (who's just doing the job he/she was volunteered to do) is going to help your case?

 

Move the micro, or move the start of the other, you need to have 528' seperation, unless there's a physical seperation (opposite sides of a river, no nearby bridge, top and bottom of cliff, no nearby route down) between caches. This includes stages of multis in relation to OTHER caches. (but not other stages of the same cache)

[+Glenn]

The reason for the cache saturation rule (guideline?) is to keep one cache from being confused with another. Just because one cache doesn't have a physical presence at the location doesn't guarantee that the one won't be confused for the other.

[+caderoux]

Don't take it personally: I'm sure it's frustrating because, as you see it, this cache pair is perfectly formed and any of the recommended compromises to fit this listing site's guidelines will make it a lesser cache. But that's not a reflection on your design - your design is just outside the limits of this listing site.

 

Don't waste your breath: Raising it publicly in the forums is only going to make things worse - it seems to come up all the time in the forum, and the cachers always lose. Unless you like getting beat up in the forums, I don't see what you'll get out of the experience of trying to convince people here. Some will take your side, some won't, but nothing will change.

 

Keep your eye on the prize: Spend your effort getting it in front of the intended audience instead of working to change site policy. It's your cache, there are certainly other listing sites where you can list the micro and still preserve the experience as you have designed it.

[+halffast]

Do you really think coming in here, and calling your reviewer rude (who's just doing the job he/she was volunteered to do) is going to help your case?

 

Move the micro, or move the start of the other, you need to have 528' seperation, unless there's a physical seperation (opposite sides of a river, no nearby bridge, top and bottom of cliff, no nearby route down) between caches. This includes stages of multis in relation to OTHER caches. (but not other stages of the same cache)

I agree with IV warrior.Krypton is just making sure the rules are being followed.

[+hmarq]

So move the start of the night cache to some set of ambigous coors in the middle of nowhere (I use rock quarries and shopping malls myself) and say "To hunt this cache, seek out the power line micro for the starting coords" ... stick a clue inside your power micro and you're set.

 

BTW, having made the same mistake myself many times, it isn't a mystery cache if the posted coords take you to a required point, it's then just a multi even though there might be some puzzle components .... granted mine have always been approved even when this definition was violated, but I've learned and moved on anyway.

[+Jamie Z]

Must be a pretty amazing telephone pole.

 

Honestly, I didn't follow your OP, but I gather you have two caches to hide. A mystery night cache and a micro on a telephone pole. You even said yourself that , "I had planned to have this cache in place so that cachers could find the micro before going on to the other cache." So it's placed just for the smiley?

 

I don't see a good reason to have a micro at the parking lot of the mystery cache. Just go with the one cache, it sounds like it's a good one.

 

Jamie

[+Deliveryguy428]

I can understand her logic in wanting to knock out 2 caches at one time but rules are rules and saying bad things about your reviewer in a public thread, is just uncalled for. Yes you are encouraged to bring out disagreements into the thread but be polite about it.

[+Ltljon]

"To hunt this cache, seek out the power line micro for the starting coords" ... stick a clue inside your power micro and you're set.

 

This sounds like the best solution if they still allow two different cache names to have the same coords. Theres one around here like that & it works pretty good.

[+ibycus]

First, I don't see what the reviewer did as being rude in any way. It seems to me that you've gone back and forward over this a number of times, and this is a clear cut case as to where the reviewers have decided that the rule definitely apply. You keep comming back saying 'but no they don't, because there is nothing physical there'. Yes its just a guideline, but the reviewers have decided that this is a case where the guideline must be followed.

 

Here are a few possible reasons that the guideline is appropriate in your case.

Many people hunt without their cache pages, and nothing beyond a simple coordinate in their GPS.

Many people will extend their search quite far from the posted coordinates when they don't find the cache. 138' is certainly within the realms of possibility as far as extending the search goes. Given that your cache seems like it is in a reasonable location to look, it seems reasonable that your cache might be found by someone looking for the other cache. This is exactly what the cache saturation guidelines were intended to prevent.

 

I would think moving the coordinates of the night cache would be the way to go. Just place them an extra 400' away, and say proceed on a bearing of xxx for x ft until you come to the trailhead. That would seem to me at least to solve the problem the reviewers are concerned about.

[+caderoux]

This sounds like the best solution if they still allow two different cache names to have the same coords. Theres one around here like that & it works pretty good.

 

It may also be in violation, depending on the definition of "stage" in that cache.

 

Two "stages" of separate caches (physical or not) cannot be within .1 miles.

 

The approver considers the starting point of the nighttime path a stage on the multi (cacher does not consider it a virtual stage, approver does, and even virtual stages count), and this conflicts with the guidelines.

 

Of course, this also means that any two intersecting multi-caches which have selected a local landmark (or even nearby monuments) of significance for virtual stages should also be disallowed - but guess what, that doesn't happen - Two of the Chief's Special's virtual stages along Jeff Davis Parkway probably intersect, but no one cares and no one notices and no one in their right mind would bother to change such excellent caches based on not being able to look at some carved up bits of granite on a neutral ground because they're too close to some other carved up bits of granite.

 

It does kind of suck to live in an historical city. You never run out of history, but you can't use it when it's all too close together. I was working on a the first of a "New Orleans Elements" mega-multi-puzzle-cache series, which would have had many virtual stages about the history of city street names (if you've read "Frenchmen Desire Goodchildren" - you'll get the picture), but the caches would never have been approved.

 

Application of the guidelines are, and always will be (until all the details of every multi are tracked in a database), inconsistent. There's no point arguing about it.

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

similar topics have been posted before. The point of a cache is not the extra smilie although those are nice it is the location which the geocache takes you to. that is the basis of the geocache. Why not just add the micro as part of your nightcache?

[CoyoteRed]

The proximity rule should be re-written or tossed out. It's the wrong answer to a problem it was trying to solve and as other sites become more popular it does nothing but give them more opportunities.

 

What to place a cache 400' from another when there isn't some hugh obstacle seperating the two? No problem, list it on another site. You could put it 10' away or right on top of it if you want. So, now, how does the proximity rule help in those cases? Bingo! You got it. It doesn't.

 

Now, if instead TPTB advocated marking the cache with the cache name, and saying "tough nuts" to those who weren't paying attention and logged the wrong one, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Yeah, I hear that next refrain "what about people putting caches right on top of mine?" Well, that would be frowned upon be the community and would be considered "poaching." How far away is it considered to be polite before you place a cache? It depends on the location and the purpose of the cache. The point though is you wouldn't be getting a message saying, "Well the cache you submitted is only 522' from a nearby, established cache. Would you consider moving it a few feet?"

 

Now, with that, the mindset is you shouldn't be placing caches too close which is determined by the location and it would have fostered a cross-site mentality that would have, well, worked across all sites.

 

But, no, geocaching.com is the center of the universe, therefore nothing else matters.

 

Uh huh, whatever.

[+cachew nut]

If the micro was approved, you would need to modify the description of your Nightcaching cache to let people know that is where to park, otherwise people might just do the micro as a drive-by and avoid the one that requires more hiking. They may not do these as a pair.

 

Given that the description would need modifying anyway, why not just do away with the micro altogether, and just add "park under the powerlines 138 feet away" to the description of the Nightcaching cache?

 

I'm not sure what you felt was rude in the approver's answer, I thought he spelled out what needs to be done rather clearly and to the point.

Edited July 3, 2005 by cachew nut

[+Ed & Julie]

Since the Night Cache is listed as a mystery cache, just list a bogus set of coordinates (say...a mile away) and make a note that "the cache isn't at the listed coordinates", then put the parking/starting coordinates in the description.

 

That way, the listed coordinates are not close to the micro in the area.

 

Ed

TB&TB

[+IV_Warrior]

Since the Night Cache is listed as a mystery cache, just list a bogus set of coordinates (say...a mile away) and make a note that "the cache isn't at the listed coordinates", then put the parking/starting coordinates in the description.

 

That way, the listed coordinates are not close to the micro in the area.

 

Ed

TB&TB

But the starting spot still is, and you need to list coords for all stages (including virtual ones), so your "solution" does nothing.

[+budd-rdc]

Krypton has approved many of my caches. I've also communicated with Krypton on final locations of at least two future cache series I've been thinking of placing, and he (or she) has promptly replied back on whether those locations are valid or not.

 

Advice to hiders: before working on something that requires effort, contact the volunteer approver early so that your efforts aren't wasted.

 

Advice to approvers: be consistent.

 

There's something very positive about what Huntnlady went through, because she was honest about the location and her intentions which helped Krypton make a decision on the micro.

 

You'll sleep much better at night knowing that your cache was rejected from good and honest information, instead of it being approved from your being sneaky, only to have it archived from complaints later.

Edited July 3, 2005 by budd-rdc

[+Huntnlady]

Yes, I call this reviewer rude. I asked for a chance to appeal my case. The reviewer took the stand early on that "what I say goes, and that's that." There is no room for discussion with this reviewer, he or she is the great and all-powerful reviewer.

 

When this same reviewer first came on the scene, I had five caches inactive in the remote Long Canyon of Napa County. Without reading that there had been a fire in the area, this reviewer put notes on all the cache pages to make them active or archive them because there were caches waiting to be approved in the area. This was an outright lie because it was winter and the whole area was inaccessible due to the creek running over the low water crossings on the road in. When I wrote to Krypton, he or she removed the notes, but never apologized for the inflammatory notes or the lie.

 

I think this reviewer is rude. I miss Hemlock.

[+El Diablo]

Chris,

Bringing this into the forums has solved nothing. You should take this argument up with GC directly. There is nothing that we can do to change the reviewers mind here in the forums.

 

The reviewers are given guidlines to follow and the best that I can tell they do an outstanding job! This is one of many reasons why being a reviewer or a mod is a thankless job. These are human beings and fellow cachers. Calling them rude in these forums are in my opinion is in bad taste.

 

El Diablo

Edited July 4, 2005 by El Diablo

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

WOW, I didn't know the "Guidelines" were chiseled in stone.....

 

John

[+El Diablo]

WOW, I didn't know the "Guidelines" were chiseled in stone.....

 

John

If they were...they wouldn't be called guidelines. They would be called rules.

 

El Diablo

[+M&DofKJE]

Rules=bad. Guidelines=good. But guidelines are still a fancy polite way of saying rules. I must side with the reviewers on this one. I say this having about 10 caches in the archived-never activated slot. I appreciate all the VOLUNTEER approvers do and all the challenges they face. The reviewers must all work by the same set of rul... errr... guidelines to have consistency across the world. There are some simple steps to bypass the problem; but what crossed my attention was the title of the topic. The first thought when I see one of these is "Which crybaby didn't det their cache approved this time?" I like to see what people whine over. Lessee; you're complaining about a micro in the woods.... (geee, that better be one IMPRESSIVE telephone pole) and what sounds like a great night cache. The core argument is giving us 2 smilies for the price of one. Speaking on behalf of number ho's who love the site of a Wal-Mart or Cracker Barrel we haven't visited (especially when they are 529' apart), many of us still go for the awe of a cool cache. There is always that twist or turn on the tried and true that keeps us going after micros. Don't mess up a great cache by throwing in a micro just for a number. Us number ho's will come to a great cache, even for one smilie. Go with the night cache, dump or move the micro, and I'll send you some tissues to dry those tears. Then we'll all go find that night cache!

[+Hemlock]

I think this reviewer is rude.  I miss Hemlock.

I won't comment on the first part of that. I think Krypton is doing a fine job. On the second part I'll say Thanks I'm still around, just not reviewing as much as I used to. I have to agree with Krypton that the cache is not listable as submitted, but Keystone suggested some great alternatives above. The 2nd one would probably work well in this case.

[+sept1c_tank]

.... (geee, that better be one IMPRESSIVE telephone pole)

No comment on the approval issue at hand, but I've seen one of Huntnlady's telephone pole caches; as I recall, I spent more than 30 minutes trying to figure it out. Don't assume that the words telephone pole and lame are synonymous.

[+Deliveryguy428]

I think this reviewer is rude.  I miss Hemlock.

I won't comment on the first part of that. I think Krypton is doing a fine job. On the second part I'll say Thanks I'm still around, just not reviewing as much as I used to. I have to agree with Krypton that the cache is not listable as submitted, but Keystone suggested some great alternatives above. The 2nd one would probably work well in this case.

ok so if the reviewer SHE LIKED said they agree with the new reviewer then the issue should be a done deal.

[uperdooper]

WOW, I didn't know the "Guidelines" were chiseled in stone.....

 

John

If they were...they wouldn't be called guidelines. They would be called rules.

 

El Diablo

if they were chiseled in stone wouldn't they be called commandments?

Edited July 4, 2005 by uperdooper

[ju66l3r]

WOW, I didn't know the "Guidelines" were chiseled in stone.....

 

John

If they were...they wouldn't be called guidelines. They would be called rules.

 

El Diablo

if they were chiseled in stone wouldn't they be called commandants?

Commandant? Lassard?

 

Mahoney!

 

 

 

I think you meant "commandment"...

[uperdooper]

WOW, I didn't know the "Guidelines" were chiseled in stone.....

 

John

If they were...they wouldn't be called guidelines. They would be called rules.

 

El Diablo

if they were chiseled in stone wouldn't they be called commandments?

Commandants? Lassard?

 

Mahoney!

 

 

 

I think you meant "commandment"...

oops! i guess spellcheck isn't perfect.

[+M&DofKJE]

Now if it an impressive hide on a telephone pole.... MOVE THE START OF THE NIGHTCACHE! (As a number ho, I did not mean to imply that a phone pole hide is lame.... although some are. Some ammo cans are lame too. Attaching an alarm to an ammo can.... priceless! Adding an alarm to a micro.... revenge!)

[+Ltljon]

Cut from the Guidelines:

 

The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging emails with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be listed. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the “Geocaching Topics” section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an e-mail with complete details, waypoint name (GC****) and links to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Bringing this into the forums has solved nothing. You should take this argument up with GC directly. There is nothing that we can do to change the reviewers mind here in the forums....

Unless they have changed it's in the guidelines that if you want to appeal the decision on your cache you are supposed to bring it up in the forums.

[+welch]

...Bringing this into the forums has solved nothing. You should take this argument up with GC directly. There is nothing that we can do to change the reviewers mind here in the forums....

Unless they have changed it's in the guidelines that if you want to appeal the decision on your cache you are supposed to bring it up in the forums.

yes, but it seems like their is a difference in 'appeal' and 'trash the reviewer'.

to me appeal, would be to explain the situation and ask for second opinons in as neutral a way as possiable. Not characterize the other party as rude and incompetent while complaining your cache was denied.

(and so noone brings it up, Yes I realzie the opening post doesn't say incompetent, but thats basically what I get from the quoted emails. "I explained it but they too dumb to get it, see")

[+budd-rdc]

Events surrounding Geocaching has changed significantly in the past year, including the South Carolina cemetry cache affair. It's possible that Krypton is aware of these types of issues and is trying to enforce the guidelines more strictly than in the past, and is taking the heat for it.

 

I know of at least one disapproval and a "note of caution" in my area where Krypton was involved. I've had one cache rejected (proximity to school grounds). After my disappointment wore off, I realized that Krypton's decision was consistent with the guidelines.

 

Don't forget Krypton can have a bad day once in a while, so curtness may have been misinterpreted as rudeness. I don't expect volunteer approvers to have the time to explain each decision with great detail to satisfy everyone and everything, so I'd cut them some slack, go to sleep, and wait for a new day.

[+Huntnlady]

I moved the first group of firetacks, so the nightcache will start halfway down the avenue.

 

I think the micro is worth doing. I don't have any micros under lamp skirts in WalMart parking lots. If you don't believe me, put the micro on your watchlist and read the comments for yourself- Under the Power Lines.

 

When I asked to appeal the cache, I wrote up the appeal and asked Krypton to present it. Krypton refused, so according to the guidelines, I brought it to the forums. I still believe that the forums are an open, honest place where we can talk about all aspects of Geocaching. My posts were my opinion, and I accepted the flames as they came.

[CoyoteRed]

It's possible that Krypton is aware of these types of issues and is trying to enforce the guidelines more strictly than in the past, and is taking the heat for it.

There is major differences between guidelines that deal with outside forces and perceptions, and guidelines that deal with internal issues.

 

Guidelines concerning burying caches, caches on military installations, railroad property, and on school grounds is hughly different than the guidelines that require physical caches have logbooks and a certain distance between unique hunts. Let's not muddy the waters by lumping the two together.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I know of at least one disapproval and a "note of caution" in my area where Krypton was involved. I've had one cache rejected (proximity to school grounds). After my disappointment wore off, I realized that Krypton's decision was consistent with the guidelines....

I had a cache within 10' of the school fence. It was on a trail by a creek. Proximity to school grounds in and of itself is only a reason to pay more attention to the cache it's not reason for an automatic archive.

[+Marky]

I moved the first group of firetacks, so the nightcache will start halfway down the avenue.

 

I think the micro is worth doing. I don't have any micros under lamp skirts in WalMart parking lots. If you don't believe me, put the micro on your watchlist and read the comments for yourself- Under the Power Lines.

 

When I asked to appeal the cache, I wrote up the appeal and asked Krypton to present it. Krypton refused, so according to the guidelines, I brought it to the forums. I still believe that the forums are an open, honest place where we can talk about all aspects of Geocaching. My posts were my opinion, and I accepted the flames as they came.

It seems like you did everything right, and have reached a workable solution. The only thing I would have avoided is the name calling. I think you could have acheived the same result without having to include your opinion that Krypton is rude. From the information that you presented to us, I think you are mistaken, but you certainly have the right to your opinion. The approvers are given the guidelines and are told to follow them. You presented your case for the exception, he went to his peer reviewers and asked for a consensus and the consensus was that there wasn't justification for the proximity rule to be relaxed in this case. I'm happy that the system works and that you were able to find a solution. I look forward to attempting those caches the next time I am up your way.

 

--Marky

[NatureFish]

Geocaching at night, in strange places, in small groups, with out-of-state license plates, I get stopped regularly by the police. Never a problem, just explain the game, maybe they run my license, have a good day, off we go.

 

One day I and a friend are hunting a cache that's in some woods adjacent to a school. Some kids - 4 kids around 8-10 years old, playing on the school's playground, see us and come into the woods to see what we're doing.

 

I know trouble when I see it, so I tried to brush them off, tell them we're busy, scoot on back to your school. They walk a few yards away and, as kids will do, stop to watch.

 

This time my partner and I tell them to move on, go back to the playground, and two do, two just move a bit further away.

 

We really should have just gotten in the Jeep and split, but didn't.

 

Next time I look up there are three seriously upset mommas standing there, hands on hips and fire in their eyes! I explained the game, showed them the cache page, told them we'd tried to send the kids back - they weren't buying it.

 

We told them we were sorry for scaring them, asked them to warn the kids about approaching strangers in the woods, and left.

 

Half the cop cars in the county descended on us before we'd gone a mile, and they were not a bit amused.

 

After a thorough check-out of both of our ID, a search of the car AND insisting to be taken to the cache (we'd DNFd it, so we couldn't take them and show them - which did NOTHING to bolster our story!) they let us go with a stern warning both to never return and to have the owner remove the cache.

 

Shortly thereafter caches in school proximity were banned, this one among others removed, and I fully support that decision. Not because of the cops; getting investigated is part of the game, but because we put ourselves in a compromising position and upset some moms pretty badly.

 

I just can't see any benefit in attracting strangers, well-meaning as they may be, to school zones.

[+Mopar]

It's possible that Krypton is aware of these types of issues and is trying to enforce the guidelines more strictly than in the past, and is taking the heat for it.

There is major differences between guidelines that deal with outside forces and perceptions, and guidelines that deal with internal issues.

 

Guidelines concerning burying caches, caches on military installations, railroad property, and on school grounds is hughly different than the guidelines that require physical caches have logbooks and a certain distance between unique hunts. Let's not muddy the waters by lumping the two together.

But guidelines that deal with perceptions are just as important. You especially, should be sensitive to the damage a perceived "wrong" can do.

A few legislators in SC perceive geocachers as desecrating graves and historical areas and you have a huge problem.

A few land managers look at a cache map of "their" park and see caches every 100 feet and perceive a problem. They don't know or care that one is a tiny micro on phonepole and another is just the start of a glint trail. All they know is there are these geocache things all over their park.

Land manager's concerns about cache density are a very real problem ialready in many parts of the country.

I think it's pretty rude for one cacher to think their cache is soooooo special it's worth risking a general ban on caching to list it.

[CoyoteRed]

Land manager's concerns about cache density are a very real problem ialready in many parts of the country.

If the proximity rule is trying to solve a density problem, then that is yet another example of poor problem solving. Proximity and density are two different issues.

 

You can easily have way too high a density even with 528' seperation while at the same time being overly restrictive by not allowing two seperate and distinct caches which may be closer than that.

 

For instance, if you are applying the proximity rule of 528' to control density and you could place a cache every 528' you could average around 112 caches per square mile. Perfectly within the guidelines, but may very well be alarming to land managers.

 

Yet, OTOH, in an area rich in interesting locations one cache could block several other caches--all distinct, seperate, and with no chance of confusing one with another--because of the proximity rule.

 

Besides, what's wrong with allowing a landmanager to set whatever maximum density he chooses? If he's okay with it, why shouldn't we be?

[+robert]

Besides, what's wrong with allowing a landmanager to set whatever maximum density he chooses? If he's okay with it, why shouldn't we be?

Who's going to keep track of all that? The reviewers? State orgs (I know I don't plan on contacting all the parks in the state to find out how many caches they would like to have in the park)? Seems it's easier to just keep the 528' rule. Most people seem fine with it.

[CoyoteRed]

Besides, what's wrong with allowing a landmanager to set whatever maximum density he chooses?  If he's okay with it, why shouldn't we be?

Who's going to keep track of all that? The reviewers? State orgs (I know I don't plan on contacting all the parks in the state to find out how many caches they would like to have in the park)? Seems it's easier to just keep the 528' rule. Most people seem fine with it.

You're kidding, right?

[+Hoppingcrow]

Y'know, when you submit a cache, there's a box you check saying that you have read and agree to the guidelines and terms of use as set forth by Geocaching.com. If your reviewer tells you you can't place a cache in a spot because it's contrary to the guildelines (and that's clearly the case here...you're not 528' away with the second cache), the answer to your question is pretty well covered under the "I agree to..." part. Guidelines, rules, whatever you want to call them. If you agree to abide by them, you agree to abide.

Edited July 4, 2005 by Hoppingcrow

[+robert]

Besides, what's wrong with allowing a landmanager to set whatever maximum density he chooses?  If he's okay with it, why shouldn't we be?

Who's going to keep track of all that? The reviewers? State orgs (I know I don't plan on contacting all the parks in the state to find out how many caches they would like to have in the park)? Seems it's easier to just keep the 528' rule. Most people seem fine with it.

You're kidding, right?

Weren't you?

[+Robespierre]

Huntnlady 

Posted: Jul 3 2005, 06:18 PM

Yes, I call this reviewer rude. I asked for a chance to appeal my case. The reviewer took the stand early on that "what I say goes, and that's that." There is no room for discussion with this reviewer, he or she is the great and all-powerful reviewer.

 

When this same reviewer first came on the scene, I had five caches inactive in the remote Long Canyon of Napa County. Without reading that there had been a fire in the area, this reviewer put notes on all the cache pages to make them active or archive them because there were caches waiting to be approved in the area. This was an outright lie because it was winter and the whole area was inaccessible due to the creek running over the low water crossings on the road in. When I wrote to Krypton, he or she removed the notes, but never apologized for the inflammatory notes or the lie.

 

I think this reviewer is rude. I miss Hemlock.

not to mention....... that he's right this time! Sorry that you're having such a negative experience because of some dang rules..... but what part of "no" don't you understand?

[+Team Cotati]

And they're you go.

Beautiful. Thank you.

[CoyoteRed]

Besides, what's wrong with allowing a landmanager to set whatever maximum density he chooses?  If he's okay with it, why shouldn't we be?

Who's going to keep track of all that? The reviewers? State orgs (I know I don't plan on contacting all the parks in the state to find out how many caches they would like to have in the park)? Seems it's easier to just keep the 528' rule. Most people seem fine with it.

You're kidding, right?

Weren't you?

Hardly.

 

If you think you can do whatever you please, don't let legislation be your wake up call.