I Despise Doing This...

[+Thrak]

My first "hide" turned out to be 29 feet too close to another cache. There was a "power station" kind of thing, a playground, a picnic area, a horsehoe pit area, an open grass area, and a day camp area between them. The creek along which these were laid out curved around and there was no way the sites were even remotely visible to each other or would have impacted each other. The physical walking distance from one to the other was more than .1 miles but the "crow flies" distance was just short of that - 29 feet short of it as stated above - due to the curvature of the creek.

 

The cache was denied (with a very polite note) on the basis of being too close to the existing cache. Now, had I been a cacher with a proven record of well placed caches who had exibited that I was fully aware of all factors of geocaching I might have gotten the cache approved. Although I wasn't happy about the hide being denied (since I know that the 528 rule is a guideline rather than a set-in-stone rule) I didn't complain to the reviewer. I was new and he had no track record to look at.

 

TRUST is important when a reviewer looks at your caches. It seems that trust was an issue with the OP. I can't blame the reviewer for taking a long hard look at the caches in question. Just because someone wants to place a cache somewhere doesn't make it a good place for a cache. I'd definitely have to side with the reviewer both in the case of MY cache which was denied and also in the case of the caches being discussed in this topic.

[+Harry Dolphin]

My take on this, from the first post, is: You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you think that arguing with your reviewer in a public forum is going to make him think more kindly toward your request, perhaps a course in tact might help you. Fortunately for you, I'm a far grumpier person than your reviewer. I'd have hit the 'not approved' button long ago.

There are reasons for the rules. Exceptions are made in some cases. Previous exceptions are not considered a carte blanche for future exceptions. For goodness sake, interact with your reviewer, and give him a chance to spend the time necessary to properly review your responses to his initial objection. He is a volunteer, and does have a life of his own. The need for instant gratification is a malady of the modern times. Will it hurt if it takes a month for a decision?

All that being said, I have done one cache within 150' of an active railroad. It would not be permitted today. And I have complained about a few caches not being approved within three weeks. Guess what. My approver was on an extended trip, and other reviewers stepped in to take up the slack.

My suggestion? Chill out, dude.

[+Ambrosia]

From the information you have provided, the caches appear perfectly approvable to me.  BTW, how do you know the reviewer hasn't offered this information to their private watering hole?   

From my discussion with the approver 4 days ago. And the images you are viewing are hosted by Groundspeak from each unapproved cache page. They will be deleted before the cache is approved.

 

It's still my intention to post your caches for discussion by the other reviewers, as part of a larger discussion of the 150 foot guideline for caches near railroad property.  Today is the second time I've blocked out time to do that, only to be frustrated by a broken forum server.  I'll try again sometime during my holiday vacation this week.

 

I'm not sure what the reason is for this whole thread. You say that you hate coming here, but you feel that you have to because things are not being taken care of.

 

But it seems very clear by the quote from the note the reviewer sent you that he is taking care of it, just not as fast as you would like. This reviewer is not ignoring you, in fact he let you know that he would take care of it, but because of forum problems and the holidays, it will just take a bit longer. So really, you didn't need to bring this issue here at all.

 

Let the volunteer reviewers have their life, and when you really are having an issue with a rude/totally unresponsive reviewer, then send a formal complaint to gc.com.

[+unicyclist]

I found this cache on vaction. The description says there are gates completley surrounding it,,,,,,There are two gates that are never closed if they even have a gate(bad memory) It is literaly 10-15 feet from a major railroad. Amtrack stops and picks up people, and there are cargo trains that go through. I have no idea how it got approved? GCPZ521

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...25-414f165bf793

[+CO Admin]

I found this cache on vaction. The description says there are gates completley surrounding it,,,,,,There are two gates that are never closed if they even have a gate(bad memory) It is literaly 10-15 feet from a major railroad. Amtrack stops and picks up people, and there are cargo trains that go through. I have no idea how it got approved? GCPZ521

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...25-414f165bf793

Sometimes we reviewers make a mistake, Sometimes things are changed after the cache is listed. We don't know on the one you pointed out. Something everyone should remember from the third paragraph of the guidelines.

 

If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it.

 

You just did that. Thank you.

[+CO Admin]

Although I appreciate a good debate from time to time.  As has been stated previously, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU INTERPRET THE GUIDELINES, the reviewer has the responsibility of approving the cache and ensuring it reflects properly on the activity.  Hence, if they tell you you can't use a purple container, then you can't use a purple container and it really doesn't matter why.

Purple containers are not addressed in the listing guidelines. I would have to have an awfully good reason to disallow a purple container, and I'd have to cite to the sections of the guidelines that are catch-all's for problems that aren't mentioned specifically.

 

I say this simply to illustrate that cache reviewing ought to be done objectively, rather than subjectively, to the extent possible. If a reviewer despises lamp post caches, or puzzle caches, he still needs to list the ones which meet the guidelines. I happen to be a railroad history fan, and would love to visit the locations highlighted by these cache placements. But my personal opinions should have no bearing on the matter.

 

I think this is a wonderful location.  I think I would approve at least one of the caches.  But, I am NOT a reviewer.  (And my hat is of to those who are.)

 

I am going on memory here, as I haven't had time to look at all of the cache pages this afternoon due to family obligations. But if I recall correctly, one cache is hidden with permission, and the final location is hidden in an area where the tracks are removed. But the group is to be listed as a series, and some or all of the remaining caches present legitimate issues under the "Off Limits" section of the Listing Guidelines.

There had better not be a ban on purple caches!!!!!

 

 

As for the RR track Issues in this thread. The reviewer in question had pointed out this series to me a week or so ago. I agreed with him that it needed to go on the the "collective". All time references to caches being handles always indicate that "Most" caches or "Normally" is x number of days. This is not normal. The reviewer seems to be keeping you informed of the progress. I would have archived these as being too close and for the terrorist angle.

 

I'm not even going to touch the trust issue.

Edited December 23, 2005 by CO Admin

[+Lux]

I find it interesting and odd that this thread has turned into a discussion about a geocacher vs an approver.

 

This thread is about train caches. Being able to see them safely and how that can be done within the bounds of groundspeaks guidelines.

 

Interestingly enough only one person actually offered a suggestion on how this can happen. I didn't make this about the reviewer. I clearly stated that I was following protocol and doing what I was asked by Groundspeak to do.

 

You don't have the benefit of the emails between the reviewer and I, had you been privy to that information you may feel differently; you many not. I was reluctant to post this for discussion because I disagree with groundspeaks procedures of open forum discussion and group thought on cache approvals. I interestingly note that a majority of the no's in this thread are from approvers but yet non have offered one way to resolve this dilemma.

 

Is it law breaking to stand on a public walkway and view a train? As a matter of fact, there have been tripods and video cameras setup filming the trains near one of my locations.

 

Why are these forum so negative.

[+mcl143]

Lux,

I think the approvers have made it pretty clear that if you can provide proof that the land owner/manager is ok with these caches that they may be approved. Is there an issue with getting the approval of the land owner/manager? If so, then I would suggest that it may not be a good idea to hide these.

 

I have caches in public parks, even though these are micros I still got approval, because of the legal issues.

 

My suggestions for resolving this are:

1. Get written approval

2. Take pictures of the locations and give them to the approver.

3. Make sure your description clearly states which side of the tracks to be on, and how to approach.

 

If you do these things I am sure the approver would be better equipped to approve or further evaluate your cache. If you have done this already, then maybe it is time to give up if the approver still says no.

[+shorbird]

I just read Hillwilly's saga in Siskiyou County, California. Wow. Better to just keep all caches 150' away from the railroad than to invite trouble. My 2 cents.

[+Miragee]

 

Signing the logbook for a cache as an Amtrack train speeds by in the background . . .

[+CO Admin]

 

Signing the logbook for a cache as an Amtrack train speeds by in the background . . .

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

 

[+Renegade Knight]

Planets high risk location comment will have to be factored in now that she's mentioned it and the reviewrs have read it.

Obviously the reviewer was considering that right out of the gate. It didn't take planet mentioning it for it suddenly to become a factor. I mentioned the exact same thing above already myself. It was the first thing that I had a problem with myself.

If it's an active train station fair enough. It didn't look to be one to me and that's what my comment was based on. As always better information can yield a better answer.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The world we live in has changed, especially since 9/11, and we could waste our time griping about it, or strive to find new and creative ways to adapt and have fun anyway.

The irony is that the only thing that really changed is government. Before they were concerned about terrorists. Now they are concerned about everyone and everthing being a potential risk and they are acting like it.

 

We don't need to help them along any more than is needed. Active RR stations. Sure, give em a break, the muggles are thick enough to make it a bad location before you consider the bomb squad potential. A tourest attraction...sure, there is potential and while it may be busy at times permission is fairly easy and access during a lull isn't normally to much of an issue.

[+Ambrosia]

I find it interesting and odd that this thread has turned into a discussion about a geocacher vs an approver.

 

This thread is about train caches. Being able to see them safely and how that can be done within the bounds of groundspeaks guidelines.

 

Interestingly enough only one person actually offered a suggestion on how this can happen. I didn't make this about the reviewer. I clearly stated that I was following protocol and doing what I was asked by Groundspeak to do.

 

You don't have the benefit of the emails between the reviewer and I, had you been privy to that information you may feel differently; you many not. I was reluctant to post this for discussion because I disagree with groundspeaks procedures of open forum discussion and group thought on cache approvals. I interestingly note that a majority of the no's in this thread are from approvers but yet non have offered one way to resolve this dilemma.

 

Is it law breaking to stand on a public walkway and view a train? As a matter of fact, there have been tripods and video cameras setup filming the trains near one of my locations.

 

Why are these forum so negative.

I'm sorry, but I was responding to the first half of your first post in this thread, where you say things like, "Let me state up front that I despise making this post. I am only doing this because the approver has not, after four weeks, approved or posted these caches in the private, approver's only, forum as outlined in Groundspeaks procedures."

 

I must have gotten stuck on that, because I saw this more about you posting here out of frustration from a reviewer not responding the way you wanted, not about you wanting to discuss train caches. I guess I took the whole purpose of this thread wrong.

[+Lux]

I'm sorry, but I was responding to the first half of your first post in this thread, where you say things like, "Let me state up front that I despise making this post. I am only doing this because the approver has not, after four weeks, approved or posted these caches in the private, approver's only, forum as outlined in Groundspeaks procedures."

 

I must have gotten stuck on that, because I saw this more about you posting here out of frustration from a reviewer not responding the way you wanted, not about you wanting to discuss train caches. I guess I took the whole purpose of this thread wrong.

Fair enough and maybe others did too.

 

Bottom line, I'm attempting to make a series of caches I can take my nephew to. Yes you will see a train. No you will not trespass.

 

I'm just finding it difficult to get a solution to my problem.

[+mcl143]

Lux,

I will post again, since you obviously missed my previous post. What is wrong with getting written approval for placing the caches?

[+Ambrosia]

I'm sorry, but I was responding to the first half of your first post in this thread, where you say things like, "Let me state up front that I despise making this post. I am only doing this because the approver has not, after four weeks, approved or posted these caches in the private, approver's only, forum as outlined in Groundspeaks procedures." 

 

I must have gotten stuck on that, because I saw this more about you posting here out of frustration from a reviewer not responding the way you wanted, not about you wanting to discuss train caches.  I guess I took the whole purpose of this thread wrong. 

Fair enough and maybe others did too.

 

Bottom line, I'm attempting to make a series of caches I can take my nephew to. Yes you will see a train. No you will not trespass.

 

I'm just finding it difficult to get a solution to my problem.

Sometimes it's hard to communicate true intent in forums.

[+Lux]

Lux,

I will post again, since you obviously missed my previous post. What is wrong with getting written approval for placing the caches?

Nothing and I have permission on the private property hides. From what has been said previously it seems that there is no such thing as private property when it comes to train tracks. I guess the railroad owns 150 feet into the house next to the switching yard.

 

Then again I have yet to have my caches issues details other than > 150 feet from active track regardless of who actually owns the property.

 

So I come back to, I'm willing to do an offset. But before I move do the work to move the caches I would like to get an approvers buy-in that an offset is ok.

 

Seems easy enough.

[+baloo&bd]

Bottom line, I'm attempting to make a series of caches I can take my nephew to. Yes you will see a train. No you will not trespass.

 

I'm just finding it difficult to get a solution to my problem.

To be candid, I think this question was answered before you put up the original post in this thread. Move it 100 feet away or show proof of permission from the railroad. Issue resolved. The issue here is not the use of public property (this is private anyway) but protecting the cachers from legal hassles and saftey issues.

 

I recently posted a cache that was on the Illinois Prarie Path at a point where it runs thru a municipal parking lot that is used by the train commuters (of which I are one) however is not owened by the railroad. I got bit by the 150 rule and was asked to justify. While I understand the intent of the rule, I don't necessarily agree with it's implmentation.\

 

Having said all this, I simply moved part one (it was a multi) and decided that I would take up a discussion with the approver if and when I had time in private.

 

If the scenic/historic/whatever value is what you are seeking, move the cache and give the coords to go view after the cache is found or, put the coords in teh cache itself telling people to go look.

 

I mean no offense, however I am sure it will be taken no matter how I word this, however the intent of this thread was clearly to try to build up an alliance to push these hide through. That tactic usually serves only to help someone dig in there heels and cause collateral damage.

[+Lux]

I mean no offense, however I am sure it will be taken no matter how I word this, however the intent of this thread was clearly to try to build up an alliance to push these hide through. That tactic usually serves only to help someone dig in there heels and cause collateral damage.

No offence taken.

 

Your cache's purpose was not to view the metro, mine in essence is.

 

This so called consensus building thread is just that - A consensus building thread. It was posted in accordance to Groundspeaks procedures. I guess this just goes to show that the procedures are pretty dumb.

 

Since the point of the cache is to people to these locations, I'm once again asking would an offset cache be acceptable.

 

Hello week 5 of my quest to get an answer.

[+New England n00b]

I mean no offense, however I am sure it will be taken no matter how I word this, however the intent of this thread was clearly to try to build up an alliance to push these hide through. That tactic usually serves only to help someone dig in there heels and cause collateral damage.

No offence taken.

 

Your cache's purpose was not to view the metro, mine in essence is.

 

This so called consensus building thread is just that - A consensus building thread. It was posted in accordance to Groundspeaks procedures. I guess this just goes to show that the procedures are pretty dumb.

 

Since the point of the cache is to people to these locations, I'm once again asking would an offset cache be acceptable.

 

Hello week 5 of my quest to get an answer.

Um, it IS Christmas week. Actually, weekEND, now. The reviewer in question just might be spending time with family during this weekend. Strange as it may seem, the volunteers have their own lives to lead as well. With the existing issues in this thread, and certain things you've conveniently left out, I don't doubt that close family is going to take precendence over your demands.

 

Merry Christmas.

[+Lux]

I love this place.

 

Merry Christmas.

[+kayak-cowboy]

I'm not familiar with your area, but I do have a suggestion. Maybe you can make a three stage multi-cache out of this with the actual final stage at the place you have permission for a container. Have the start point at one of the locations where you have to do some caculations from a sign or counting windows to come up with coord's to next stop. Then do again at the second stage to get to the last. So the only container will be where you have permission for the hide. I'm sure if the stages are to far apart it might not be approved. But it might just get what you are trying to accomplish.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Nothing and I have permission on the private property hides. From what has been said previously it seems that there is no such thing as private property when it comes to train tracks. I guess the railroad owns 150 feet into the house next to the switching yard.

 

Then again I have yet to have my caches issues details other than > 150 feet from active track regardless of who actually owns the property....

150' is a number that Groundspeak made up. They needed to make a SWAG at a reasonable number for approvals. RR right of way varies and the actual right of way wins be it 100' or 2000'. When that isn't known they use 150'.

 

An approver should not hold to the 150' if you have better information. They may wish to verify that information, and that would be fair.

[+Renegade Knight]

I mean no offense, however I am sure it will be taken no matter how I word this, however the intent of this thread was clearly to try to build up an alliance to push these hide through. That tactic usually serves only to help someone dig in there heels and cause collateral damage.

No offence taken.

 

Your cache's purpose was not to view the metro, mine in essence is.

 

This so called consensus building thread is just that - A consensus building thread. It was posted in accordance to Groundspeaks procedures. I guess this just goes to show that the procedures are pretty dumb....

Almost every time a cache is brought up in the forums for discussion the cache owner is slammed and it does no good for getting the cache approved. Fortunatly every now and then one does make a case that leads to approval. Everone else is used for skeet practice.

[+New England n00b]

I mean no offense, however I am sure it will be taken no matter how I word this, however the intent of this thread was clearly to try to build up an alliance to push these hide through. That tactic usually serves only to help someone dig in there heels and cause collateral damage.

No offence taken.

 

Your cache's purpose was not to view the metro, mine in essence is.

 

This so called consensus building thread is just that - A consensus building thread. It was posted in accordance to Groundspeaks procedures. I guess this just goes to show that the procedures are pretty dumb....

Almost every time a cache is brought up in the forums for discussion the cache owner is slammed and it does no good for getting the cache approved. Fortunatly every now and then one does make a case that leads to approval. Everone else is used for skeet practice.

Almost every time a cache owner brings up a cache for discussion they leave important stuff out or flat-out lie about the status of previous private discussions. Hence they get 'skeet shotted' at.

[+Quiggle]

So I come back to, I'm willing to do an offset.  But before I move do the work to move the caches I would like to get an approvers buy-in that an offset is ok.

Yes.

 

In my review territory I have had issues where the cache placement is not allowed by the guidelines. This could be any number of issues. I'll use the example of a virtual cache. I had one in a neat spot (but not with the "WOW!" factor to make it a virt) but wouldn't hold a regular cache, and obviously not a virt. It was a small cemetery (2-3 headstones) fenced off and protected in a small tree area in a neighborhood. Couldn't do a virtual, and no spot to do a regular cache. Hider didn't want a micro.

 

When I got the submission I looked at the map and found a small community park nearby and suggested they use some info off of the headstones (again, fenced off, but would easily be read from outside) and offset the actual cache into the park, which was maybe .5-.75 miles away.

 

Problem solved. No virtual (which couldn't be listed). No micro (which the hider didn't want). Of course not all good stories have a good ending; I think in the end the hider just wanted an easy-to-maintain virt rather than a real cache as I never heard back from them.

 

Oh well, I tried.

 

Go scout out a new location, maybe even one for a regular sized cache and submit a new listing, don't even worry about the old ones, just archive them. Can't guarantee it will get published (depends on other factors, and not being familiar with your area I can't make promises) but it would be better than trying to force a square peg into a round hole (what you're trying now).

 

That being said the trust issue goes a long way. Get your page worked out completely before submitting it.

 

Hope that helps.

 

[+Lux]

Almost every time a cache owner brings up a cache for discussion they leave important stuff out or flat-out lie about the status of previous private discussions. Hence they get 'skeet shotted' at.

Which did I do?

[+New England n00b]

I would also like to note for the record that the owner's last cache that I reviewed prior to this series of train track caches was altered after publication in a manner that made it not listable under the guidelines.  Once that happens for a reviewer, his trust level for that geocacher drops considerably.

Nice... The cache page in question was an event cache that has a two week limitation in publish timing. The event was to discuss [a commercial promotion].

 

Once there was a location and coordinates I submitted it. Yes it was done hastily but in no way was it done to deceive.

 

Interestingly, the cache was never pulled nor was I ever contacted that the cache broke any rules after it was determined I apparently did. I've only been bludgeoned with that fact weeks after I made repeated contacts regarding these caches.

I made it clear to you that you added a substantial amount of material to your cache page after publication that was quite commercial in nature. Groundspeak subsequently confirmed that I was correct in my analysis. Had I been presented with the commercial content at the time I reviewed the event cache, I would have held up publication. I did not find out about the change until after it was listed, and people were already making plans to attend the event. Essentially, you received a free pass on that one, as I chose not to de-list the event cache.

 

We discussed this by e-mail quite some time ago, so please don't say you were never contacted.

 

My prior offer still stands: provide proof of permission from the railroad, or move each cache at least 150 feet from the railroad tracks, and they can easily be listed.

Which did I do?

[+Lux]

And that had what to do with train caches?

[Jeremy]

And that had what to do with train caches?

It technically didn't. You happen to be the issue in this case, and that minor issue about trust. Now you're just being a smart aleck which makes people less inclined to work with you. But a best attempt is made so reviewers don't sink to a level of being a smart aleck. I respect it since I have less patience for your antics.

[+New England n00b]

precedence - not being entirely truthful in the forums about a previous encounter makes you less believable when arguing in those same forums for the validity of current caches.

 

I am addressing your presented forum presence here. The reviewers have already addressed how the actual actions taken on that event cache affect their perceptions & reviewing of your caches.

 

EDIT: Whoops, didn't see you there Jeremy. Sorry.

Edited December 23, 2005 by New England n00b

[+sept1c_tank]

[+Lux]

And that had what to do with train caches?

It technically didn't. You happen to be the issue in this case, and that minor issue about trust. Now you're just being a smart aleck which makes people less inclined to work with you. But a best attempt is made so reviewers don't sink to a level of being a smart aleck. I respect it since I have less patience for your antics.

I inadvertently had a transgression. How can I deny that.

 

I'm seeking a amicable solution to the problem. I have for now going on the 5th week. Keystone, this forum and you need not trust me. I simply need to know if I can offset cache the hides at issue.

 

Call this antics, I'm seeking guidance.

[+Quiggle]

I'm seeking a amicable solution to the problem. I have for now going on the 5th week. Keystone, this forum and you need not trust me. I simply need to know if I can offset cache the hides at issue.

 

Call this antics, I'm seeking guidance.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...dpost&p=1918942

[+Ambrosia]

[+Lux]

I'm seeking a amicable solution to the problem.  I have for now going on the 5th week.  Keystone, this forum and you need not trust me.  I simply need to know if I can offset cache the hides at issue.

 

Call this antics, I'm seeking guidance.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...dpost&p=1918942

I'm sorry Quiggle. I saw your post but didn't realize that you were speaking for the reviewer community, simply for your area. I'll offset the caches and this shall all be a thing of the past.

 

Closing thread.

 

Moderators, feel free to have the final say.