Jump to content

Ridiculous Requirement


Pushkin
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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).

Link to comment

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 :anitongue: 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.

Link to comment

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. :anitongue:

 

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.

Link to comment

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 by donbadabon
Link to comment
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 by briansnat
Link to comment

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!!

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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. :anitongue:

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

Well, as Trumpkin said, "a jibe won't raise a blister," although it may raise a ruckus. :anitongue: 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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. :D

 

erik - volunteer cache reviewer and joker

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

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

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!

Link to comment

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.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...