Jump to content

Cache Denied! Argh!


jpass
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I recently put out my first cache and it took forever for it to be reviewed. And then, it was denied because the reviewer said it was in a national park. But, it's not. It's on the Georgetown University campus next to a national park. How do I get this cleared up? Help. Anyone?

 

J n Jeena

Link to comment

Reply to your reviewer, explaining the specifics. Or move it further away from Rock Creek Park. The maps they werk with are not the most accurate. No maps are. A detailed explanation of the boundaries might work. ("This is in a parking lot at Georgetown University. It is 128' from the boundary with Rock Creek Park, and is not in that park.")

Link to comment

I'm sure the reviewers map is showing it to be in the park. Either your coords are off, or the map is wrong. First, make sure you coordinates are correct. If they are, then work with your reviewer to make sure he's looking at accurate maps.

 

I'm moving this over to the general form because it really isn't a 'getting started' issue.

Link to comment

briansnat nailed it. The maps and even the aerial photo clearly show the cache to be in a wooded area that is marked as NPS land. If you say it is in a parking lot, then the coords are most definitely off. Go back and take some more readings and then update your cache page and email the reviewer and ask him to take another look.

Link to comment

I placed a cache on the highest mountain top in this area and reported it.

It was denied because it was too near another cache.

The next day I had to move it to another location and report the new coordinates.

 

The trip, both days: 10km by car, parked at altitude 200m, walked 3-4km to the top at altitude 700m, and returned. :)

Link to comment
Who is the reviewer for this area?? I have a concern about a cache named Forest Heaven which is located within NPS land.

 

Here is the NPS boundaries of Greenbelt Park.

Greenbelt Park

 

Here is the topozone map showing the coordinates of Forest Heaven.

Topozone Coordinates

 

Shouldn't this cache be archived?? - Thanks.

That cache has been in place for more than three years, but Geocaching.com is always interested in checking out any issues or concerns about a cache listed on their service.

 

In any situation where you don't know which volunteer reviewer to write to, you can send your inquiry to the "contact @ geocaching.com" e-mail address and it will be forwarded to the proper person.

 

You can also log a "should be archived" note on the page if you think it's warranted under a particular set of circumstances.

Link to comment
Who is the reviewer for this area??  I have a concern about a cache named Forest Heaven which is located within NPS land.

 

Here is the NPS boundaries of Greenbelt Park.

Greenbelt Park

 

Here is the topozone map showing the coordinates of Forest Heaven.

Topozone Coordinates

 

Shouldn't this cache be archived?? - Thanks.

I prefer that you post SBA notes with your player account and not a sock puppet account. It's pretty tacky to hide behind a sock puppet account.

 

What NPS official complained to you about this cache? Some NPS areas do allow caches, such as my "1st Anniversary Geocache -- SOAP?"

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
I recently put out my first cache and it took forever for it to be reviewed. And then, it was denied because the reviewer said it was in a national park. But, it's not. It's on the Georgetown University campus next to a national park. How do I get this cleared up? Help. Anyone?

 

J n Jeena

The archive note on the cache page did say that you should email me through the geocaching.com email system with questions. That is standard on pretty much all reviewer notes now.

 

If the coordinates are just wrong then the cache can be easily fixed and unarchived. You do not have to even enter a new cache page. Click my name on the left and you will go to my profile page. From there, click the link to send me an email. It looks like the cache is supposed to be east of there from what you are saying, but right now it is smack in the middle of the NPS area.

 

I wish everyone would check the map when they list a cache. If the maps don't look right, then you know you have a problem right away. It is a good way to double check that you have not "fat-fingered" one of the coordinates somehow. It happens fairly often.

Link to comment
It's pretty tacky to hide behind a sock puppet account. 

Let's not mention tht alo of cache reviewers and forum mods do just this.

Do as I say, Not as I do :mad:

I don't think its so much that, I can understand someone wanting to keep their private caching life seperate from their official cappacity here. Just think about it, people get mad at mods here a lot, would you want people who were getting mad at you being able to find your caches and travel bugs and what not? I wouldn't (even though I don't have any) but I can understand the idea.

Link to comment

Welch, you are generally supportive of the volunteer team's work, so you have a free pass on laughing along -- this time. But for everyone else's benefit, I want to make it very clear that Groundspeak supports the right of its volunteers to do their forum moderating and cache review work using separate accounts. There are very many benefits from doing this in addition to the perceived "anonymity." Probably the greatest benefit is that it keeps our "official" duties and "player" activities separate. When you hear from Keystone, it's official.

 

Only a minority of volunteers actually operate using totally anonymous accounts, by the way.

 

I now return you to the discussion of this denied cache hidden on NPS-managed land. Thanks.

Link to comment
Welch, you are generally supportive of the volunteer team's work, so you have a free pass on laughing along -- this time. But for everyone else's benefit, I want to make it very clear that Groundspeak supports the right of its volunteers to do their forum moderating and cache review work using separate accounts. There are very many benefits from doing this in addition to the perceived "anonymity." Probably the greatest benefit is that it keeps our "official" duties and "player" activities separate. When you hear from Keystone, it's official.

Thank you for the leeway :D

 

I don't disagree with MODs and Reviewers using seperate accounts. Its merely a way to keep things, especially hate mail, segregated (and that's sad). However, though I understand why some use them I still find it a little hypocritical, hence the laugh.

If I offended any of the MODs or Reviewers I apologize that wasn't my intent :mad: .

Link to comment
Welch, you are generally supportive of the volunteer team's work, so you have a free pass on laughing along -- this time.  But for everyone else's benefit, I want to make it very clear that Groundspeak supports the right of its volunteers to do their forum moderating and cache review work using separate accounts.  There are very many benefits from doing this in addition to the perceived "anonymity."  Probably the greatest benefit is that it keeps our "official" duties and "player" activities separate.  When you hear from Keystone, it's official. 

Thank you for the leeway :D

 

I don't disagree with MODs and Reviewers using seperate accounts. Its merely a way to keep things, especially hate mail, segregated (and that's sad). However, though I understand why some use them I still find it a little hypocritical, hence the laugh.

If I offended any of the MODs or Reviewers I apologize that wasn't my intent :mad: .

Naw,

we still love you

 

mtn-man

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
Welch, you are generally supportive of the volunteer team's work, so you have a free pass on laughing along -- this time.  But for everyone else's benefit, I want to make it very clear that Groundspeak supports the right of its volunteers to do their forum moderating and cache review work using separate accounts.  There are very many benefits from doing this in addition to the perceived "anonymity."  Probably the greatest benefit is that it keeps our "official" duties and "player" activities separate.  When you hear from Keystone, it's official. 

Thank you for the leeway :D

 

I don't disagree with MODs and Reviewers using seperate accounts. Its merely a way to keep things, especially hate mail, segregated (and that's sad). However, though I understand why some use them I still find it a little hypocritical, hence the laugh.

If I offended any of the MODs or Reviewers I apologize that wasn't my intent :mad: .

Naw,

we still love you

 

Mtn-man

:D You signed as mtn-man...but you are CO Admin?

 

Hmmmmmm..........we've been Quiggled. :mad:

Link to comment
Thank you Keystone for the quick reply. I've just logged a "should be archived" note on the cache page. Do I still have to send an e-mail to contact@geocaching.com also?? ;)

 

Thanks!

Cache Flows

I sure hope you contacted the cache owner FIRST, as he or she will have much more information about the location of the cache and any issues with its appropriateness. Becoming a self appointed cache policeman will not endear you to the hider.

Link to comment
Thank you Keystone for the quick reply.  I've just logged a "should be archived" note on the cache page.  Do I still have to send an e-mail to contact@geocaching.com also??    B)

 

Thanks!

Cache Flows

I sure hope you contacted the cache owner FIRST, as he or she will have much more information about the location of the cache and any issues with its appropriateness. Becoming a self appointed cache policeman will not endear you to the hider.

Well Duh, why do you think they did it under a sock puppet account? ;)

Link to comment

And the sock puppet was banned. The cache mentioned has been addressed.

 

This one has gone pretty well off topic and the OP knows how to contact me if they move their cache. I might send them an email as a reminder of how to contact me.

 

Since *I* am Spartacus, I will shackle this topic.

(Or just close it.)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...