Problem With An Admin

[+BatteriesIncluded]

I am having problems getting my geocaches approved by my admin. I have been trying to get a cache approved with no luck. After my cache was NOT approved the admin published someone elses geocache that was almost identical to mine. Now, when I email him, he will not even respond to my emails. What do I do now? Is there someone above the local Admin that I can communicate with?

[+welch]

Appeals AT geocaching DOT com

email them with your complaint.

 

edit, make that Appeals not contact

Edited August 10, 2005 by welch

[+mtn-man]

Write to appeals AT geocaching DOT com and you will get a reply from the main office.

Edited August 10, 2005 by mtn-man

[+Stunod]

edit: mtn-man beat me to it

Edited August 10, 2005 by Stunod

[+AuntieWeasel]

I prefer the Steel Cage Match, myself.

[+mtn-man]

I prefer the Steel Cage Match, myself.

You're hired.

 

 

[+StarBrand]

Maybe give details of the cache (not the volunteer or communications) here and the community can respond to your idea.

[Keystone]

And for everyone's reference, here is the full explanation of appeal rights, quoted from the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines:

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that “pushes the envelope” to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. 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.

 

In summary:

• you can try to work it out with your reviewer; this is always best
  
• you can ask your reviewer to discuss the issue with the other volunteers in our separate forum
  
• you can start a forum thread here about the merits of your cache
  
• you can appeal to Groundspeak if you believe the reviewer's acted inappropriately
  

[+Renegade Knight]

At what point should a reviewer stop responding to emails?

[+AtoZ]

Maybe give details of the cache (not the volunteer or communications) here and the community can respond to your idea.

This seems to be almost a USELESS thing to do as the approvers are not bound by what the community thinks. There is also NO presidence for placing a cache just becaues it wsa done before does not mean it can be done now. So I guess you can try to appeal it but I have found most approves will work it out it just may take time as they have RL interferance and are not at our beck and call 24/7/365.24. So try to work it out.

cheers

[Keystone]

At what point should a reviewer stop responding to emails?

Good question. The basic answer is that the reviewer ought to do the following:

• provide a clear explanation of why the cache cannot be listed as submitted, because of violating one or more listing guidelines
  
• if the cache owner disagrees and writes back, provide a follow-up response if the answer has not changed
  
• if there's a way to modify the cache so that it can be listed, work with the owner so long as they're being cooperative in that effort
  
• if an impasse is reached, advise the owner of their appeal rights as stated in my earlier post
  

[+briansnat]

Did you send your e-mails to the admin or just post a note on he page? If its the latter the admin may not be aware of the new note. If you sent an e-mail did you include the GC# and (or) a link to the page in question. If you don't do this the admin will have to do some detective work to see what you're referring to. Because of that it may take extra time as it goes to the back of the list and he works on the easy ones.

[+sbell111]

Maybe give details of the cache (not the volunteer or communications) here and the community can respond to your idea.

This seems to be almost a USELESS thing to do as the approvers are not bound by what the community thinks. ...

I disagree. On several occasions, caches were approved after being hashed out in the forums. That being said, I would recommend that BatteriesIncluded thanks those that answered his question and locks this thread. He should then follow his other courses of action to see if he can get the issue resolved. If they fail, start a new thread, I'd love to hear about his issues.

[Jeremy]

I am having problems getting my geocaches approved by my admin. I have been trying to get a cache approved with no luck.

You didn't provide the requested information. Your listing on the map is shown as being in a cemetary.

 

After my cache was NOT approved the admin published someone elses geocache that was almost identical to mine.

 

Almost is the key point here. The one you pointed to is a mystery (puzzle) cache. The cache itself is outside the cemetary though the initial waypoint that determines the location is inside the cemetary.

 

Now, when I email him, he will not even respond to my emails. What do I do now? Is there someone above the local Admin that I can communicate with?

 

Yes. The appeals address outlined above. However the reviewer note was very courteous. You'd need to fully understand the history of cemetary caches and the issues with South Carolina as to why the reviewers take cemetary caches very seriously.

[+DocDiTTo]

At the risk of goinf off topic (ok, I am) are cemetery caches now banned? Just discouraged? Can someone markwell another thread that might have covered this?

[+carleenp]

At the risk of goinf off topic (ok, I am) are cemetery caches now banned?  Just discouraged?  Can someone markwell another thread that might have covered this?

28 pages of it are here.

 

Another 11 pages is here.

 

They are not being listed now in South Carolina and other states are being quite cautious about them.

Edited August 10, 2005 by carleenp

[Team Misguided]

At the risk of goinf off topic (ok, I am) are cemetery caches now banned?  Just discouraged?  Can someone markwell another thread that might have covered this?

There is no site-wide ban on cemetery caches. I will say that as a reviewer I am extra cautious about listing them now. The best thing you can do is make sure you include all the details of who you spoke with to obtain permission in a reviewer note.

Edited August 10, 2005 by Team Misguided

[+AtoZ]

Maybe give details of the cache (not the volunteer or communications) here and the community can respond to your idea.

This seems to be almost a USELESS thing to do as the approvers are not bound by what the community thinks. ...

I disagree. On several occasions, caches were approved after being hashed out in the forums. That being said, I would recommend that BatteriesIncluded thanks those that answered his question and locks this thread. He should then follow his other courses of action to see if he can get the issue resolved. If they fail, start a new thread, I'd love to hear about his issues.

The whole point is GC.com is NOT democratic and many a time I have been told there is NO presidence involved when placing a cache. Just because it wsa done before doesn't mean it can be done now. What I have seen when posting a failure for a review to approve a cache because it had gone beyond the posted 72 hors that another review would invesitgate and usually the cache would be approved if there were NO problems. But I have never seen in the last year that someone thought a cache should be approved snd posted it that it was done because other cache saye yeah approve it.

cheers

[+Renegade Knight]

At the risk of goinf off topic (ok, I am) are cemetery caches now banned? Just discouraged? Can someone markwell another thread that might have covered this?

They are not banned, however due to the battle going on in South Carolina they are recieving a lot more scruteny there. Since I haven't placed one in a Cemetary I can't say if it's the same outside SC.

[+K0BKL]

A geocacher in my county had a problem getting 5 new caches approved

in a state forest, so, he not only withdrew them, but pulled all 12 of his

previously approved caches and archived them. Today there are 5 new

caches in that same state forest placed by someone else.

What happened there?

[Jeremy]

A geocacher in my county had a problem getting 5 new caches approved

in a state forest, so, he not only withdrew them, but pulled all 12 of his

previously approved caches and archived them. Today there are 5 new

caches in that same state forest placed by someone else.

What happened there?

Unfortunately without anything more than some vague ideas of the situation it would be very difficult for anyone to respond to this. Try contacting the individuals and ask them, or post another topic.

[+BlueDeuce]

A geocacher in my county had a problem getting 5 new caches approved

in a state forest, so, he not only withdrew them, but pulled all 12 of his

previously approved caches and archived them. Today there are 5 new

caches in that same state forest placed by someone else.

What happened there?

Yeah, that one had me scratching my head too. The bits and pieces I gathered were concerning proper permission and compliance with rules.

 

I never bothered to ask IowaAdmin since the caches were approved. (Certain cachers are a bit feistier than others and I didn't want to stick my nose into the issue.)

 

I'm sure he'd answer you if you sent him an email.

Edited August 10, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+carleenp]

A geocacher in my county had a problem getting 5 new caches approved

in a state forest, so, he not only withdrew them, but pulled all 12 of his

previously approved caches and archived them. Today there are 5 new

caches in that same state forest placed by someone else.

What happened there?

My guess is that the first ones had some problem so that they did not meet the guidelines, or perhaps they needed a park permit or something. The next person probably did things correctly.

[+sept1c_tank]

At the risk of goinf off topic (ok, I am) are cemetery caches now banned?  Just discouraged?  Can someone markwell another thread that might have covered this?

They are not banned, however due to the battle going on in South Carolina they are recieving a lot more scruteny there. Since I haven't placed one in a Cemetary I can't say if it's the same outside SC.

Cemetary caches are alive and well in my neck of the woods. One local cacher has placed approximately 70 since April and I suspect he has plans for plenty more.

 

I have not found any of these caches yet (they are swarming all over my closest cache list), but I have read many of the cache pages and maybe someday I'll hunt for all 200+.

 

All the cache pages are done quite professionally and with great respect, and each page contains a fascinating bit of history about that particular cemetary. The owner has obviously done a lot of homework as well as legwork.

[+sbell111]

I disagree.  On several occasions, caches were approved after being hashed out in the forums.  ...

... But I have never seen in the last year that someone thought a cache should be approved snd posted it that it was done because other cache saye yeah approve it.

cheers

No one is claiming that caches are approved based on majority rule. However, many times we have seen that discussion in the forums can work out any issues with a cache. The cache is then either approved as is, or with acceptable changes. A perfect example is the thread from a couple weeks ago regarding a cache that was in a park, yet close to train tracks.

[+AtoZ]

I disagree.  On several occasions, caches were approved after being hashed out in the forums.  ...

... But I have never seen in the last year that someone thought a cache should be approved snd posted it that it was done because other cache saye yeah approve it.

cheers

No one is claiming that caches are approved based on majority rule. However, many times we have seen that discussion in the forums can work out any issues with a cache. The cache is then either approved as is, or with acceptable changes. A perfect example is the thread from a couple weeks ago regarding a cache that was in a park, yet close to train tracks.

But this was more likely from communication between the ower and approver taking place then GC.com relenting on it's policy of caches within 150 feet. This has happen here where the cache appeared to near a train track but once the owner explianed it was on a walkway over or under the track then it was apporved. But no policy changes occured just communication. That could have occured offline, so to speak.

cheers

[+sbell111]

The one I was thinking of had nothing to do with a walkway. You're thinking of the 'cache near a bridge' one.

 

The one I mentioned was a micro hidden on a statue in a park, next to a track. The cache owner made a couple of pleas to the approver and then made his case here. Once it was shown that there wasn't a problem, TPTB approved the cache.

 

This, in my opinion, is why it's right to use the forums as a last resort.

Edited August 10, 2005 by sbell111

[+K0BKL]

I am just puzzled as to what happened.

The cacher in question is a friend of mine, but

did not explain much what the Admin's reason

was for refusing. Maybe too many all at once?

The ones now came in one or two at a time.

[+K0BKL]

A geocacher in my county had a problem getting 5 new caches approved

in a state forest, so, he not only withdrew them, but pulled all 12 of his

previously approved caches and archived them. Today there are 5 new

caches in that same state forest placed by someone else.

What happened there?

 

I am just puzzled as to what happened.

The cacher in question is a friend of mine, but

did not explain much what the Admin's reason

was for refusing. Maybe too many all at once?

The ones now came in one or two at a time.

Edited August 10, 2005 by K0BKL

[Jeremy]

Again, this is not the topic so it is not the place for this discussion. If you wish to discuss this further, kindly create a new topic and provide some facts.

[+BatteriesIncluded]

I am having problems getting my geocaches approved by my admin. I have been trying to get a cache approved with no luck.

You didn't provide the requested information. Your listing on the map is shown as being in a cemetary.

 

After my cache was NOT approved the admin published someone elses geocache that was almost identical to mine.

 

Almost is the key point here. The one you pointed to is a mystery (puzzle) cache. The cache itself is outside the cemetary though the initial waypoint that determines the location is inside the cemetary.

 

Now, when I email him, he will not even respond to my emails. What do I do now? Is there someone above the local Admin that I can communicate with?

 

Yes. The appeals address outlined above. However the reviewer note was very courteous. You'd need to fully understand the history of cemetary caches and the issues with South Carolina as to why the reviewers take cemetary caches very seriously.

I was never asked to provide additional information verifying the coordinates. I can undersatnd that some areas may not be accurately surveyed. I placed my cache outside of the fence bordering the cemetery and I received the following information:

While I enjoy finding cemetery caches that are tastefully placed, they can easily be disrespectful to those resting there. By placing a cache near or on a grave you have involved a dead person in a "GAME".

 

Cemeteries, while typically open to the general public are private property and permission must be granted before placing a cache there. If you could tell me that the cemetery management has given permission for a geocache to be placed here, and the name/title of the person granting permission posted on your cache page that would make listing your cache much easier.

 

If you have any further information that would help in evaluating your submission, please send me an e-mail.

 

Not at any point did he say "Your listing on the map is shown as being in a cemetary." Giving more accurate information would have at least given me an idea of what to look for as to why it was not approved. The cahe has been moved and the coords updated to clearly reflect that they are outside the cemetery on GC.com maps.

 

In addition, I would just like to mention that I have nothing against any reviewer or Admin here and that I DO appreciate the jobs they do as volunteers. I think alot of the cachers just get frustrated by the sometimes cryptic communications that they receive from them.

[+sbell111]

The message seems pretty clear. Did you email him and let him know that it was outside the fence?

 

BTW, did you notice the advice I gave you in my first post to this thread?

Edited August 11, 2005 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

BatteriesIncluded,

 

You have to apply a little common sence. It's clear from what you posted that they found the cache to be in the cemetary. Given the accuracy of both maps and GPS units putting one on the outside of the fence can show it as in the cemetary when a reviewer or finder looks at it on a map. Even if you didn't know that, you should have bene able to see the error and contanct them to correct it with what you said here in the forums. That is what you should do now. Not every reviewer tracks the forums.

 

There is some mis-information posted also. Not all cemetaries are private property. Some are actually public and supported by taxpayers. It's a moot point if your cache is outside it though.

Edited August 11, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[Jeremy]

In addition, I would just like to mention that I have nothing against any reviewer or Admin here and that I DO appreciate the jobs they do as volunteers. I think alot of the cachers just get frustrated by the sometimes cryptic communications that they receive from them.

I won't quote your entire back and forth here unless you give permission, so I'll try and summarize. The initial post was requesting more information about the placement of a cache since it was shown in a cemetary. You responded by SHOUTING in text to say that it wasn't in the cemetary but not saying anything like, for example, it was outside of the fence of the cemetary. Some straightforward answer would have been nice.

 

Then, you proceeded to contact the reviewer through the email form and insuate that the reviewer was a racist because the cache listing was relating to a black artist. I'm suspecting that the only reason you weren't thrown out of a window by the reviewer at that point was because this was on the Interweb. I'm shocked even more by the fact that the reviewer's response was so incredibly polite and restrained considering the insult that took place.

 

If anything, IMO, there seems to be more problems with your attitude than the exemplary restraint that the reviewer had in this case. Courtesy goes both ways, you know.

[+sbell111]

This is the other reason that I like things to be hashed out in here sometimes.

[+sept1c_tank]

This is the other reason that I like things to be hashed out in here sometimes.     

Hashing can be very entertaining, indeed.

[+wimseyguy]

It must be the heat, I'm seeing triple.

:D

[+Team Perks]

I ALWAYS see triple.

[+deimos444]

Off Topic

This is one of the most entertaining threads I've seen yet!

[+fly46]

In addition, I would just like to mention that I have nothing against any reviewer or Admin here and that I DO appreciate the jobs they do as volunteers. I think alot of the cachers just get frustrated by the sometimes cryptic communications that they receive from them.

I won't quote your entire back and forth here unless you give permission, so I'll try and summarize. The initial post was requesting more information about the placement of a cache since it was shown in a cemetary. You responded by SHOUTING in text to say that it wasn't in the cemetary but not saying anything like, for example, it was outside of the fence of the cemetary. Some straightforward answer would have been nice.

 

Then, you proceeded to contact the reviewer through the email form and insuate that the reviewer was a racist because the cache listing was relating to a black artist. I'm suspecting that the only reason you weren't thrown out of a window by the reviewer at that point was because this was on the Interweb. I'm shocked even more by the fact that the reviewer's response was so incredibly polite and restrained considering the insult that took place.

 

If anything, IMO, there seems to be more problems with your attitude than the exemplary restraint that the reviewer had in this case. Courtesy goes both ways, you know.

Thank you for once again coming in and letting us see both sides to the issue.

 

As for the original poster... What in the world do you think

Cemeteries, while typically open to the general public are private property and permission must be granted before placing a cache there.

means? That they think the cache is at the dairy queen?

[+JMBella]

Then, you proceeded to contact the reviewer through the email form and insuate that the reviewer was a racist because the cache listing was relating to a black artist. I'm suspecting that the only reason you weren't thrown out of a window by the reviewer at that point was because this was on the Interweb. I'm shocked even more by the fact that the reviewer's response was so incredibly polite and restrained considering the insult that took place.

 

If anything, IMO, there seems to be more problems with your attitude than the exemplary restraint that the reviewer had in this case. Courtesy goes both ways, you know.

That's a pretty heavy accusation as well. I'll wait to hear all the facts before I buy that one.

Edited August 12, 2005 by JMBella

[Keystone]

Then, you proceeded to contact the reviewer through the email form and insuate that the reviewer was a racist because the cache listing was relating to a black artist. I'm suspecting that the only reason you weren't thrown out of a window by the reviewer at that point was because this was on the Interweb. I'm shocked even more by the fact that the reviewer's response was so incredibly polite and restrained considering the insult that took place.

 

If anything, IMO, there seems to be more problems with your attitude than the exemplary restraint that the reviewer had in this case. Courtesy goes both ways, you know.

That's a pretty heavy accusation as well. I'll wait to hear all the facts before I buy that one.

He's just reading the written correspondence exchanged between the cache owner and the reviewer. I've read the same, and when I read things like

Is the reason you will not approve of this cache because the artist is a black artist?

I draw the same conclusion. What further facts were you looking for?

[+JMBella]

What further facts were you looking for?

That was it.

[+ATMA]

I am having a similar problem.

After visiting a site named Fallen Heroes in the 77058 Zip Code, I decided to do a similar Virtual Cache in a different Zip Code.

Went to the waypoint and got the location, took digital photos, submitted the new cache and was shot down by someone doing the review.

It is almost identical to the Fallen Heroes find and that one was allowed. What in the world do we have to do to get these things approved?

I have mentioned this idea to a few geocachers and they think it would be a great one.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

I am having a similar problem.

After visiting a site named Fallen Heroes in the 77058 Zip Code, I decided to do a similar Virtual Cache in a different Zip Code.

Went to the waypoint and got the location, took digital photos, submitted the new cache and was shot down by someone doing the review.

It is almost identical to the Fallen Heroes find and that one was allowed. What in the world do we have to do to get these things approved?

I have mentioned this idea to a few geocachers and they think it would be a great one.

Hi, ATMA. Welcome to geocaching! I see you have a fairly new account here, so you probably haven't had a chance to check out all of the resources here.

 

Virtual caches such as you describe are very rarely approved anymore. There is a new successor cache type on its way, that will take over some of the aspects of virtual and locationless caches.

 

Did you see the guidelines for virtual caches on the listing requirements page? Perhaps that will give you some more insight as to why your proposed cache wasn't approved. Most likely, it didn't pass the "WOW" test, which basically means that the subject there must be SO distinctive that someone is likely to go WOW when they see it. Also, virtuals are typically only approved when there is absolutely NO way to place a traditional cache at that location.

 

If you really think you have a distinctive site worth bringing cachers to, an alternative you might consider would be to set up an "offset" cache. This would be listed as a traditional cache. Your initial coordinates would bring the cacher to this special site you want them to see, and then perhaps they would have to get a number or some piece of information from a sign there. They would then use that information, along with instructions on the cache listing, to determine the coordinates of a second location, where you would have a traditional physical cache listed.

 

I hope this gives you some good ideas!

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Well, to shed a bit of light on this, lets look at that cache you referenced. First off, it was placed back in '03, and next, it is a memorial.

 

My guess is that now, with todays more tough requirements to get a virtual approved, that this one didn't meet up with the new expectations.

 

I'm sure that if you read through the forums, you will find plenty of other virtual caches that didn't make the cut. Right now, it is extremely tough to get a new one approved. Just do a search for "Wow factor" for plenty of more info.

 

There are two main things that I see as issues. First, I think that the guidelines specifically list memorials in the list of things that will likely get turned down.

 

Next, existing caches have no bearing on the approval of new caches. Caches that don't meet changed guidelines are grandfathered in, butdo not set a precident for future caches.

 

If I'm wrong on any of these points, I'm sure we'll all hear about it

 

EDIT: Hey, look at that, WZK said it all much better than me while I was typing

Edited August 13, 2005 by VegasCacheHounds

[+ATMA]

That is cool. Who needs education anyway?

This thing is right under the feet of thousands of people and I bet 1% or less of them them even know it is there. Funny thing is that it has been there 40 years so far.

The traditional geocache is more fun anyway. I will just concentrate on making a tradional one with an ammo box or Tupperware.

We picked up a TB last weekend and will relocate him a couple of hundred miles from here soon and look forward to participating more in the hobby.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Well, if you really want to show this spot off, and it sounds like it is worth it, try to figure out a way to do a multi-cache out of it. For instance, place a regular cache in a nearby park or such, post the coords for the memorial, and use something at the memorial to send the cachers to the final spot. That way you can show everyone this great spot and provide an actual geocache to find.

 

Also, there is a new solution for virtual caches in the works. Of course, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you

Edited August 13, 2005 by VegasCacheHounds

[+robert]

Well, if you really want to show this spot off, and it sounds like it is worth it, try to figure out a way to do a multi-cache out of it. For instance, place a regular cache in a nearby park or such, post the coords for the memorial, and use something at the memorial to send the cachers to the final spot. That way you can show everyone this great spot and provide an actual geocache to find.

Good suggestion.

 

Something like using the numbers off a date (or dates on the plaque), projecting a waypoint from that location, etc. would be a great opportunity to:

• Get people to the memorial
  
• Get your cache listed on the site
  

Good luck!