Jump to content

Why Was This Allowed?


bigdog999
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

A new cache was just posted locally. It's a micro in the woods, but no logbook. It's a cigar tube with a code to be emailed back to the owner. Since it clearly violates the guidelines and doesn't really make sense ( a cigar tube is more than big enough for a logbook), I'm a little curious how it was approved.

Link to comment

I know that cache referred to and it seems a tad strange to me too since Groundspeak outlawed codeword caches a while ago.

 

The cache reviewer is listed at the bottom of the page and you can always shoot him over an email if you have concerns.

Link to comment

I'm curious too. I found an itsy, bitsy, teeny, weeny cache about 1/4" deep, 1/2" wide, but even it had a very narrow piece of paper in it that you could sign.

 

The only cache I found without a log to sign was placed a couple of years ago, when those were allowed.

Link to comment

AN honest question......and Just curious i was looking at (or maybe scanning would be a better word) the guidlines.. and didnt see where this cache would be in violation... would you point that out to me .. ive seen this type before and didnt know that it was in violation. I'm curious where it said you can't do that type of cache.. so i can show others in my area that have this type.

Link to comment

Here's a snippet from the cache placing guidelines that specifically refer to traditional caches.

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache.
Link to comment
AN honest question......and Just curious i was looking at (or maybe scanning would be a better word)  the guidlines.. and didnt see where this cache would be in violation... would you point that out to me .. ive seen this type before and didnt know that it was in violation. I'm curious where it said you can't do that type of cache.. so i can show others in my area that have this type.

On the Guidelines page:

"A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache."

 

(edit: slower than a green dinosaur)

Edited by the hermit crabs
Link to comment

Traditional Caches

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

edit: slower than a green dinosaur and a crab

Edited by bigdog999
Link to comment

It is possible that the reviewer just missed it. Reviewers are human and make mistakes. It is also possible that the page did not say it was a code word micro when submitted and listed. In the end it doesn't matter in the whole scheme of life. This is just a game after all. Send the local reviewer an email pointing it out, or post a SBA note if it is all that troublesome. The cache will then get looked at and life will happily go on. :lol:

Link to comment
It seems that the operative term in the text provided is 'traditional' cache . . . could it be that the cache is simply NOT a traditional one. but legal just the same?

Then what type is it?

 

Its not a puzzle

Its not a multi

Its not a virtual

its not an earthcache

its not a webcam

 

or any other variety.

Link to comment

I have seen other caches that seemed to violate the rules, but they have been around a bit. I didn't want to bother the reviewer without seeing if others may have an explanation for it. It doesn't bother me, I was just bouncing the question of everyone's head. I'll probably be there tomorrow to pick up the two caches.

Link to comment
I have seen other caches that seemed to violate the rules, but they have been around a bit. I didn't want to bother the reviewer without seeing if others may have an explanation for it. It doesn't bother me, I was just bouncing the question of everyone's head. I'll probably be there tomorrow to pick up the two caches.

Caches listed before a guidelines change are unaffected by the revisions.

Link to comment

option C. The reviewer knew what he was doing

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

Note the generally statement. This indicates that the reviewer has the option to allow it if he sees reason to. While not the norm they can be allowed occasionally.

 

 

Don't everyone get all excited.

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

 

This sentence is very clear that the bare minimum for a cache is a container and logbook. Since there is no logbook, it cannot be a cache.

Link to comment
Why is this anybody's damnn business?  Is it really so frightening that we need tattle?  It's a micro in the woods, put it on you ignore list and be done with it!

Well, in my particular case, I'm interested in it because I had wanted to do something similar but was turned down because of the logbook requirement. I was genuinely curious as to why this one was allowed and the one I wanted to do was not.

 

It's not "frightening"; it's just unusual enough to warrant discussion.

 

I didn't put it on my ignore list; there's no reason to ignore it. I went and found it.

Edited by the hermit crabs
Link to comment
This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

 

This sentence is very clear that the bare minimum for a cache is a container and logbook. Since there is no logbook, it cannot be a cache.

Yes, but it also goes on to say:

 

A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

By the way, I agree with Criminal. Who the hell cares, and what does it accomplish to bring this up in public?

Link to comment
Who the hell cares, and what does it accomplish to bring this up in public?

It's strange to me, how forum posters are ready, willing, and allowed to jump all over somebody who dares to bring up something they don't consider "important."

 

Nobody forced you to read the thread. Nobody forced you to respond. And in my opinion, your response belittling the OP and his question is clearly a violation of the forum guidelines.

 

How do you think the OP should have dealt with his perfectly valid, if not earth-shaking question? Should he:

  • Bother the already-overworked approver?
  • e-mail the geocaching.com contact address? (Yeah, right. That's gonna work.)
  • Ask in the forums in the hope that somebody will know?
  • Shut up and not ask questions?

Seriously, I want to know.

Link to comment

It was approved, that's enough. I don't second guess why caches were approved, and I dont like when people take time to question my caches. The choice people have is to hunt them or not.

 

If they need to understand the nuaces of the approval process as it relates to that specific cache they should ask the approver who approved it.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
It was approved, that's enough.

In other words, shut up and don't ask questions.

 

later modified to:

If they need to understand the nuaces of the approval process as it relates to that specific cache they should ask the approver who approved it.

In other words, bother the approver. Fair enough.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.

 

This sentence is very clear that the bare minimum for a cache is a container and logbook. Since there is no logbook, it cannot be a cache.

Remember, you are quoting "guidelines", not rules set in stone and notorized with the county clerk.

Link to comment

I published the cache page in question and have since retracted the cache page pending the addition of a log book.

 

There are several possible ways this could have evolved, the most likely of which is that I just plain missed it. In any case, it is on its way to being resolved.

 

Thanks to those who sent me an e-mail to alert me to the issue.

 

-gpsfun

 

(Edit - I need to read my sig line...)

Edited by gpsfun
Link to comment
If they need to understand the nuaces of the approval process as it relates to that specific cache they should ask the approver who approved it.

I agree. But since the topic appears to be of general interest, perhaps it would be better to discuss the decision and the reasoning behind it in a public forum.

 

[Humor]But on occasion, it has appeared that the 'nuances' of the approval process for 'exceptional' caches amounted to smashing a "Signal the Frog Bobblehead Figure" with a sledgehammer and then counting the pieces ... Odd number, the cache is approved. [/Humor] :lol::lol::lol:

 

A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

Right. So, apparently, quite a few people are interested in knowing the compelling reason or circumstance that caused the CIQ (cache-in-question) to be approved when, generally, other caches of a similar nature are routinely denied. It's a fair question, and of general interest. Forum material.

Edited by Yankees Win!
Link to comment
[Humor]But on occasion, it has appeared that the 'nuances' of the approval process for 'exceptional' caches amounted to smashing a "Signal the Frog Bobblehead Figure" with a sledgehammer and then counting the pieces ... Odd number, the cache is approved. [/Humor] :lol::lol::lol:

Actually, if there are an odd number of pieces, I pick one of them and break it in half.

:lol:

 

BTW, Yankees Win!, I explained what happened in my post time stamped Aug 6 2005, 02:44 AM just above yours.

 

-gpsfun

Link to comment
Actually, if there are an odd number of pieces, I pick one of them and break it in half.

 

Cheater. :lol:

 

BTW, Yankees Win!, I explained what happened in my post time stamped Aug 6 2005, 02:44 AM just above yours.

 

I know. But as I understand it, a discussion has not concluded until either photos of a dead horse or train wreck have been posted a minimum of five times. Or people start talking about ice cream, or someone writes "and there was great rejoicing." :lol:

 

It also didn't alter what I wanted to say, because another similar issue will appear very, very soon, and people should not be scared of voicing their concerns in these forums. Without them, the General Discussion Forum is too often indistinguishable from the Off Topic Forum foolishness.

Edited by Yankees Win!
Link to comment
Either a: the reviewer screwed up and missed it, or b: the owner changed the page after it was approved

I vote for 'B' :lol:

 

. . .  Just seems weird.  Why would you want to be continually emailed when you could easily throw a log in there.

I agree. Weird. :lol:

 

yer gunna get an e-mail for evey log anyway so how does that make a difference?

 

cc\

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...