Ridiculous Requirement

[+Pushkin]

I just think I should bring this up:

 

I hid a nightcache recently and I was asked to provide the waypoint for every single firetack leading to the cache, all 20 of them, I don't know what everyone here thinks, but I think it's just plain ridiculous, I mean whats the point of it? the firetacks are all only about 20 metres away from each other (or less). It's gotta be the most ridiculous requirement for cache listing I've ever seen. All it does is cause a great deal more work for the cache hider, nothing more. Just want everyone to know that.

[+ATMA]

What's a firetack?

[+Pushkin]

A firetack is a reflective tack only visible at night.

[+ATMA]

Thanks. Learning as I go and understand.

[+TeamAO]

That doesn't sound right, the firetacks are part of the "trail" and most definately not "stages" of the cache.

 

To my understanding it was only stages that need to be submitted. I'm not positive, but if you really want to I think you can "appeal" it to TPTB and they will review the listing for you.

[Sadie]

Since I do not have opposable thumbs, I can't open an ammo can or plastic storage boxes. Having these locations does make possible to leave my "signature' without messing up the cache location.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Sadie

[+Pushkin]

The cache was approved, I'm just warning other hiders of nightcaches.

[+Criminal]

The unpaid approver job can sometimes attract the control freaks. Seattle just needs to weed them out.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Criminal

[+Kit Fox]

When I submitted my latest night cache, I submitted ten sets of coordinates. I did this without being asked.

 

I included the starting point, each Trail Tack, and the final location. I have another night cache in the same area, and I wanted to let my reviewer know in advance that the two night caches didn't collide with each other.

 

Of course, I also explain how to solve my puzzle caches when I submit them for review.

 

I don't see the problem, especially if there are other caches in the area (not saying this happened in your case).

[+welch]

Record locations of things left in the woods.

 

got it, thanks for the message

[+Ambrosia]

We just had a nightcache approved in our recently. I don't know, but I highly doubt that all the tacks were waypointed and given to the approver. There had to be around fifty or so!

Edited November 9, 2005 by Ambrosia

[+BlueDeuce]

Perhaps they need to verify that the route doesn't cross into private property.

 

kinda like multi waypoints.

Edited November 9, 2005 by BlueDeuce

[+Yamahammer]

It sounds unethical but you could have said there were only 5 or 6 tacks.

 

[+Shop99er]

Sounds like someone just flexing "muscle".

 

I helped another cacher hide a night cache, and there was no request for the coords of the glints. Which would have been a booger, since thre's .2 miles of them.

[+Snoogans]

The unpaid approver job can sometimes attract the control freaks. Seattle just needs to weed them out.

Doooood, THAT'S a knee slapper.

 

Best joke I heard alllll week.

[+Mudfrog]

We've hidden a few night caches, each one having bunches of reflective tacks. Ain't no way i would have wanted to get coordinates for each tack and thank goodness, we didnt!

 

Seems you could have just left a note for the approver when you submitted the cache. Maybe stating that all the tacks were placed in the confines of the area where you got the permission in the first place and that none of them broke the .10 mile too close to other caches guideline.

[CoyoteRed]

How many months is it going to be before we have a thread complaining about reviewers requesting a route so no route is within .1 miles of each other.

 

The only legitimate reason I can see for needing the coords for each glint is property issues. Then it would only be needed if it appeared to be an issue.

 

I'm sorry but trying to apply the proximity rule to glints doesn't make any sense. Really, you're going to confuse a firetack with an ammo box? Come on. If there comes a time there is another night cache submitted fairly close then there might be an issue.

 

Otherwise, I agree with Criminal.

[magellan315]

Annoying yes, is it possible they approver asked for the coordinates so in the event the cache is archived someone can remove the fire tacks, just like an archived cache can be trashed out.

[+briansnat]

It sounds unethical but you could have said there were only 5 or 6 tacks.

 

And when the reviewer goes to find the cache (they often live in the states they review for) and finds out he lied, then what?

[+donbadabon]

This is another example of the "guidelines" not being consitant from approver to approver. The guidelines are vague enough to let requirements like this happen.

 

Hell, I found a new 5 stage multi-cache in Maryland recently, and the last four stages were within 100 feet of each other!

Edited November 9, 2005 by donbadabon

[+briansnat]

Hell, I found a new 5 stage multi-cache in Maryland recently, and the last four stages were within 100 feet of each other!

 

Not to go off topic, but there is nothing in the guidelines that would prevent that. There is no proximity rule for waypoints within a multi. The rules apply to proximity of the stages to other caches, or stages of other multis.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Edited November 9, 2005 by briansnat

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The guidelines could be codified as rules, I suppose, and every Reviewer required to rigidly apply them to every cache listing.

 

Sheesh. Talk about a nightmare! World-wide cookie-cutter caches, every one alike?

 

No thanks, flexibility is just fine, even if it does occassionally lead to decisions we don't agree with!

 

There are 213396 active caches in 218 countries today, every one different, every one reviewed by somebody. Thank goodness this game has enough flexibility to accomodate that while ensuring basic guidelines for all!!

[Clan Riffster]

I placed just over 200 reflectors on my night cache. I can't imagine having to log coordinates for all of them.

[+donbadabon]

There is no proximity rule for waypoints within a multi. The rules apply to proximity of the stages to other caches, or stages of other multis.

Wow. I did not know that. I thought all stages had to be .10 from each other.

 

Regarding the OP, it seems as if no one really knows why the approver requested the information. Can't you just ask them why, and shouldn't they be required to answer?

[+WascoZooKeeper]

Ain't no way i would have wanted to get coordinates for each tack and thank goodness, we didnt!

Hmmm, on my Garmin, it's "Mark", then "Save". That took me all of about two seconds.

[+cache agent]

Pushkin....

 

Mmmmm, truthfully... you didn't need to bring this to the forum... cause... (I'm probably going to get a speech for this)... well we were just pulling your leg and well.... I'm sorry.

 

Cache Agent

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[CoyoteRed]

Pushkin....

 

Mmmmm, truthfully... you didn't need to bring this to the forum... cause... (I'm probably going to get a speech for this)... well we were just pulling your leg and well.... I'm sorry.

 

Cache Agent

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

ROLFMAO!

 

You got me, too!

[+DreadPirateRoberts]

How many months is it going to be before we have a thread complaining about reviewers requesting a route so no route is within .1 miles of each other.

But for a nightcache, if the routes crossed or were too close, isn't there a chance of the person hunting the cache getting on the wrong trail by spotting one of the other fire tacks? I have no idea if that was the issue in your case, but if there was another nightcache anywhere near this one, it seems like that could be a legitimate concern.

[+Pushkin]

Pushkin....

 

Mmmmm, truthfully... you didn't need to bring this to the forum... cause... (I'm probably going to get a speech for this)... well we were just pulling your leg and well.... I'm sorry.

 

Cache Agent

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Actually CA, it was cache tech who reviewed the cache and he refused to approve it until I gave him the waypoints for each firetack (or lied), it had nothing to do with what was said on the MGA forum.

[+cache agent]

well -WE- were just pulling your leg and well

 

Both CT and I were on at the same time and well.... like I said... sorry.

 

Cache Agent

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Edited November 9, 2005 by cache agent

[+Cache-tech]

Pushkin....

 

Mmmmm, truthfully... you didn't need to bring this to the forum... cause... (I'm probably going to get a speech for this)... well we were just pulling your leg and well.... I'm sorry.

 

Cache Agent

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Actually CA, it was cache tech who reviewed the cache and he refused to approve it until I gave him the waypoints for each firetack (or lied), it had nothing to do with what was said on the MGA forum.

I look at the MGA forum quite often and was on chat at the time with Cache agent, but I do prefer to have the fire tack locations. If there are a high number of them, a sampling, taking into consideration other caches in the area and for removal should the need arise. In the end I asked a question to which you gave an answer and I listed your cache without delay. We were just pulling your leg, I apologize.

[+honeychile]

Well, as Trumpkin said, "a jibe won't raise a blister," although it may raise a ruckus. When I saw this, I started thinking about my own night cache and worrying about whether, in the daytime, I could even find all the markers I put out. I'm glad to hear it was just some friendly teasing going on.

 

As a peripheral note, I had such a hard time finding a place for a night cache. In our area, flashlights in the woods are often followed by cops making sure no nonsense is going on. Sometimes, sadly, they think geocaching is nonsense. But it's such fun to follow the tiny glints...often seeing the eyes of a raccoon or rabbit reflecting back instead of the tacks!

 

I hope you and your geocaching buddies have loads of fun with your night cache, Pushkin.

 

--honeychile

[+Pushkin]

Pushkin....

 

Mmmmm, truthfully... you didn't need to bring this to the forum... cause... (I'm probably going to get a speech for this)... well we were just pulling your leg and well.... I'm sorry.

 

Cache Agent

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Actually CA, it was cache tech who reviewed the cache and he refused to approve it until I gave him the waypoints for each firetack (or lied), it had nothing to do with what was said on the MGA forum.

I look at the MGA forum quite often and was on chat at the time with Cache agent, but I do prefer to have the fire tack locations. If there are a high number of them, a sampling, taking into consideration other caches in the area and for removal should the need arise. In the end I asked a question to which you gave an answer and I listed your cache without delay. We were just pulling your leg, I apologize.

Oh okay, it's kinda hard to tell if someones joking or not if you can't see the expression on their face or hear their tone of voice when they're saying it.

[+Sue Gremlin]

Now THAT'S comedy!

[+sept1c_tank]

Glad to see it confirmed; the reviewers really are human.

[+erik88l-r]

Glad to see it confirmed; the reviewers really are human.

 

Not all of us.

 

I'd always assumed the reason why the night caches I'd reviewed never had more than 500 refective tacks is because that's the max number of waypoints most GPS recievers can hold.

 

erik - volunteer cache reviewer and joker

[+KoosKoos]

I placed just over 200 reflectors on my night cache. I can't imagine having to log coordinates for all of them.

But if you did, and I found all of them, then I could log each stage as a FIND!!! the way that some people do with multi's....sounds like a great idea!!!!!!!

 

[+Mudfrog]

Ain't no way i would have wanted to get coordinates for each tack    and thank goodness, we didnt!

Hmmm, on my Garmin, it's "Mark", then "Save". That took me all of about two seconds.

Actually, as with any cache hide, to do it properly you would need to average each tack so that you get the best numbers. Not hard but that would end up being time consuming.

 

But thats not what i meant anyways. Im saying that on a cache with 50 such tacks, it would be a pain to have to mark them properly, go home and get the numbers out of the GPSr, then type them into a reviewer note for submission to that reviewer. After you're done with your part, then is the reviewer going to look up every waypoint you submitted and make sure they are not in conflict with any other cache? (they may have software that does this easily, i dont know)

 

I just dont think this would be a good requirement for this type of cache placement!

[+Riddlers]

I am glad I came back and read the later posts. I had planned to place a night cache later this month but when I saw that each tack had to be logged and coordinates posted to the reviewer I desided that it might be harder than I expected. Since most tacks are under trees it would be really hard to get a clear reading.

 

Glad to hear it was all a joke. Maybe I will go for a night cache after all.

[Reviewer Web-ling]

Glad to see it confirmed; the reviewers really are human.   

Not me. I'm a recycled TRS-80 color computer.

[+Web-ling]

Glad to see it confirmed; the reviewers really are human.   

Not me. I'm a recycled TRS-80 color computer.

Really, he is! He's been sitting in my garage for 20 years!

[+slinger91]

The unpaid approver job can sometimes attract the control freaks.  Seattle just needs to weed them out.

Well said.

[+Cache-tech]

The unpaid approver job can sometimes attract the control freaks.  Seattle just needs to weed them out.

Well said.

Please weed me

[+Sue Gremlin]

Hey, this is a family forum. Watch yourself.

[+Lil Devil]

OK Pushpin got his answer. Can we close this now before it degenerates.

[+sept1c_tank]

But degeneration is what makes de world go 'round...

Edited November 10, 2005 by sept1c_tank

[+Pushkin]

OK Pushpin got his answer. Can we close this now before it degenerates.

thats PUSHKIN

[+Tharagleb]

Well, I just wanna get this in before closure.

 

I was all set to jump in on the side of the OP and against the approver, this would have been uncharted territory for me. Then I find out what happened... glad I kept my mouth shut for once.

[+Team Perks]

Can we close this now before it degenerates.

Before????

 

[+DreadPirateRoberts]

Also, no one ever responded to my comment about two fire tacks paths crossing... this seems like it could be a real problem. But as someone not really familiar with nightcaches, maybe it's not. Anyone have any thoughts about that possibility?