Jump to content

Cache Not Approved, Your Help Needed


AZBuckeye04

Recommended Posts

I think that perhaps the guidelines could have been worded better, it seems the approver is having as much difficulty understanding what it means, as well as the others. At the very least, the approvers should have all met in their online lounge and discussed what it all means over a few virtual beers. A lack of consistency in interpreting the guidelines is not something new around here though. :grin:

A careful read of the prior posts would tell you this:

 

1. The reviewer said he checked with the rest of the group already. We advised him to tell the OP about his appeal rights.

 

2. The consistency of the group's action is illustrated in my first post to this thread, where I mentioned how an identical cache in my review territory was handled in the same way. If someone can point to a "coords are for the front of the library" cache that's been published since November, and there may very well be one, then that would be evidence of inconsistency.

Link to comment

The coordinates for the front door of the library have no meaning to this type of cache, other than to say "there is something inside the library; go find it." I can look at an online map and figure out that it's a library at the corner of Main and Maple. That tells me nothing about where the cache is.

I may be mistaken and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but I thought the name of the cache was the final's dewey decimal number, or it is somewhere in the cache description. Those coordinates should be sufficient to get someone to the final. It's no different than a multitude of other head scratchers out there. For all we know, the coordinates of the front door may be within the usual error of GPS anyway.

Link to comment
I personally don't see a problem with how it's being submitted. However with that being said, it's obvious that the rule is going to stand.

 

El Diablo

I think what some are missing is these are GUIDE lines not rules. I dont see any problem with the way he wants to hide the cache. I think that the reasonable man theory should come in to play. Most reasonable people would probably agree that 1. you would likely use your GPSr to get to the location and the clue to find the cache hell with the margine of error he' still probably within 40 or 50 ft of the cache. Its stuff like this that pushes people to other sites

Link to comment
I personally don't see a problem with how it's being submitted. However with that being said, it's obvious that the rule is going to stand.

 

El Diablo

I think what some are missing is these are GUIDE lines not rules. I dont see any problem with the way he wants to hide the cache. I think that the reasonable man theory should come in to play. Most reasonable people would probably agree that 1. you would likely use your GPSr to get to the location and the clue to find the cache hell with the margine of error he' still probably within 40 or 50 ft of the cache. Its stuff like this that pushes people to other sites

O.K. Let me re-phrase then. It's obvious that the Guidelines are going to stand. The Appovers are given guidelines to go by and they uphold those guidelines to best of thieir abilities.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

2. The consistency of the group's action is illustrated in my first post to this thread, where I mentioned how an identical cache in my review territory was handled in the same way. If someone can point to a "coords are for the front of the library" cache that's been published since November, and there may very well be one, then that would be evidence of inconsistency.

"Guidelines last updated November 2, 2005"

 

This cache was placed after the guidelines were updated.

 

These coordinates are close by and will take you to a building. The cache is hidden in the building.
Link to comment
"Guidelines last updated November 2, 2005"

 

This cache was placed after the guidelines were updated.

 

These coordinates are close by and will take you to a building. The cache is hidden in the building.

According to the cache page, the posted coords take you to a plaque, then you solve a simple puzzle which gives you a second set of coords. That seems to put emphasis on using a GPS. Without a GPS, most people would need to make multiple trips.

Link to comment
Library caches are certainly not a new idea. Think of something else and move on.

Hey (expletives out the wazooo) why don't you actually read a little before posting. I have not once claimed this as my idea. In fact, I even corrected someone for telling me I had a good idea and I told them that it wasn't mine. We're not discussing the idea of placing a cache in a library (obviously it's been done, but thanks for clearing that up) we're discussing the matter of why or why not it should work. Go be a troll on some other message board and let the adults finish discussing.

 

To everyone else, thanks again and again for your comments (whether they be in my favor or against), maybe we can get something a little more concrete here.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
To everyone else, thanks again and again for your comments (whether they be in my favor or against), maybe we can get something a little more concrete here.

 

AZBliss02

So far the answer is concrete. Find a way to use GPS to get the cache listed. Cachew Nut was kind enough to provide an example of a way for you to get it to work within the posted guidelines for listing a cache.

 

You might also want to take a look at the Forum Guidelines which state:

 

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Feel free to send me a PM if you have any questions.

 

Thank you.

Edited by Quiggle
Link to comment

Okay, well I've finally had a chance to catch up on all the activity going on with this thread. Again I must thank everyone that supplied some kind of thought or suggestion. Losing my temper a post or so ago is a likely result when someone supplies nothing of true value to the discussion and I shouldn't have followed it up with more of the same. And also, a special thanks to those who have sided with me (as futile as it may be). And not solely because you agreed with me, but because when this thread first started I didn't seem to have anyone that agreed with me so I was starting to feel a little crazy! :lol:

 

Anyway, I can't remember all the good points that were made although I do recall someone mentioning that maybe if I was nearby I would be more up for changing the cache. While I can't say this is entirely false, I will tell you that it really doesn't have much weight in my decision to continue things. I have already spoken with the cachers who will maintain this cache and they have begun finding a nice place for a micro container. Only problem is, if I have to change it, I'd rather spend a few days looking everything over and come up with something a little more puzzling.

 

In my opinion (and I guess this is something else to see what everyone else thinks), what's the real difference in giving the coords to the library (keeping in mind that the cacher won't be told it's a library) and a code compared to giving coords to a crappy altoids container that has a paper with the same details on it?

 

Why add an extra step that really doesn't enhance the quality of the cache, but is required because some people are interpretting the "guidelines" in a specific way?

 

I guess the final question to ask (and it's probably asked by everyone in this position), is there any chance of the checks and balances of the system actually playing themselves out on this one, or is it a lost cause and another defeat for the powerless?

 

I'm not trying to say that I should get this approved (well, yeah I kinda am :grin: ), but shouldn't the weak atleast "sometimes" have one fall their way?

 

Again folks thank you so much for the quality discussion. I'm still making up my mind, but I think I'll be keeping this topic open for a while anyway, just to see if anything comes from it.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment

Good luck let us know how it works out and guides can be changed but only if you voice your opinion. Reviewers have a tough and sometimes thankless job, and Im not sure how their process works but I hope in cases like this they ask their fellow reviewers to give an objective opinion. Not just side with a fellow volunteer and help the good caches get posted and if the guide lines need to be modified then thats for the better. just my .02 now everyone sing kumbiya and hold hands

Link to comment
The intent (and I am the author of the sentence in question) is that GPS use must be *available* as an option for some portion of the cache hunt. 

Actually, in re-reading this statement, I'm changing my mind to side with the hider. The GPS IS available for some portion of the hunt: it does get you to the door of the library (and you don't know you're going to a library from the cache page, which is a key factor). From there you use the dewey numbers to score the find. How is this different from an offset cache where you use the GPS to get to point A, then a bearing and distance to get to point B? Or a cave cache, where the GPS gets you to a map which directs you to the cache?

The two situations are distinguishable. In the offset cache, one uses (or can use) their GPS to arrive at a given set of coordinates, whether that's a statue, the front door of a library, or a random spot in an open field. You then march 50 paces from a point that has meaning.

 

The coordinates for the front door of the library have no meaning to this type of cache, other than to say "there is something inside the library; go find it." I can look at an online map and figure out that it's a library at the corner of Main and Maple. That tells me nothing about where the cache is.

 

If the instructions were to go to the sidewalk in front of the library, and walk 57 steps on a bearing of 75°, taking me inside the library and to the "geography" shelf in the reference area, well, that would involve GPS use. There's a connection.

??? :grin::lol:;):lol: What??? The door is not good but a lamp post in the yard is?? This is just getting to nit picky to even bother to follow. I guess the simple solution is that if I can find it, it should be archived.

Edited by edscott
Link to comment
In my opinion (and I guess this is something else to see what everyone else thinks), what's the real difference in giving the coords to the library (keeping in mind that the cacher won't be told it's a library) and a code compared to giving coords to a crappy altoids container that has a paper with the same details on it?

 

Personally, I think your cache is just an offset cache and fits the guidelines as I've read them. But I'm not your reviewer, so I think if you want this cache to be listed you need to work with your reviewer. Your reviewer is not unlike a judge in that he interperates the guidelines the way judges interpret the law. Different judges may make very different rulings based on the same law. Heck, some people spend 20 years in prison for a crime that might have gotten them probation with another judge. Your reviewer and many others here have offered viable options and I don't see how any would detract from your cache. If you really want it listed just make the minor changes that you have been asked to make and you will see many happy geocachers finding your cache. And be glad you don't have 20 years in prison riding on the decision :grin: .

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Personally, I think your cache is just an offset cache and fits the guidelines as I've read them.

An offset cache is one where you go to a specific point, and instructions are given on how to proceed to the cache relative to that given point. Here, the coordinates for the front door of the library bear no relationship at all to the location of the container. It is the same thing as saying "here are the coordinates for the sign at the park entrance. There is a cache in the park somewhere. Here are some non-GPS clues on where to find it."

 

This is not an offset cache.

Link to comment
Personally, I think your cache is just an offset cache and fits the guidelines as I've read them.

An offset cache is one where you go to a specific point, and instructions are given on how to proceed to the cache relative to that given point. Here, the coordinates for the front door of the library bear no relationship at all to the location of the container. It is the same thing as saying "here are the coordinates for the sign at the park entrance. There is a cache in the park somewhere. Here are some non-GPS clues on where to find it."

 

This is not an offset cache.

I did a cache like this last weekend. Talk about miserable. :grin:

Link to comment
Personally, I think your cache is just an offset cache and fits the guidelines as I've read them.

An offset cache is one where you go to a specific point, and instructions are given on how to proceed to the cache relative to that given point. Here, the coordinates for the front door of the library bear no relationship at all to the location of the container. It is the same thing as saying "here are the coordinates for the sign at the park entrance. There is a cache in the park somewhere. Here are some non-GPS clues on where to find it."

 

This is not an offset cache.

I did a cache like this last weekend. Talk about miserable. :grin:

And it was a proliferation of cache submissions like that, where the reviewers weren't seeing much need for GPS use, which led to the Guidelines change. Such changes are not made lightly, which is why the Guidelines are updated only once or twice per year.

Link to comment

I think the problem was that people were using geocaching.com to list what essentially were letterboxes (perhaps only differing in that they used a logbook instead of a stamp). Sure the coordinates were a starting point from which to follow the clues to the cache, but if that is all the coordinates were these are considered no different than a letterbox that begins at a particular corner or outside a particular building (like a library). TPTB did not want to eliminate letterbox type clues completely but felt there must be some part of the hunt that emphasizes GPS use. Of course the problem is now that the volunteer approvers must now make a judgement as to whether posted coordinates are just the start of a letterbox or if there is some GPS navigation involved in getting to those coordinates. Can anybody say "Wow"?

Link to comment

An offset cache is one where you go to a specific point, and instructions are given on how to proceed to the cache relative to that given point. Here, the coordinates for the front door of the library bear no relationship at all to the location of the container. It is the same thing as saying "here are the coordinates for the sign at the park entrance. There is a cache in the park somewhere. Here are some non-GPS clues on where to find it."

 

This is not an offset cache.

OK, I'm starting to see both side now and have a question that possibly Keystone can answer.

 

What if the OP were to take you to some part of the library (outside) via GPS coords. They then Had you use a sign or date to come up with a formula. That "formula" came up with a number within the Dewy Decimal system (where the log is located).

 

Would this satisfy the requirements? I have done two similar however they were posted considerably before Nov-05, so not sure if they would still qualify. One reason for my curiosity is I am moving to a new area and was considering something similar to this after the move.

Link to comment
...In my opinion (and I guess this is something else to see what everyone else thinks), what's the real difference in giving the coords to the library (keeping in mind that the cacher won't be told it's a library) and a code compared to giving coords to a crappy altoids container that has a paper with the same details on it?...

Crappy micro's apparently remain one of the more often suggested solutions to a problem created by this sites guidelines. The key point being a library cache is a hide a cut above normal in most areas.

 

The problem isn't with your cache. The problem is a guideline written in loosey goosey terms subject to a heck of a lot of intrepretation. At this point it's clear that the mods and admins and approvers have you outnumberd. They should pretty much stay out of these types of forum appeals so the geocaching comunity can answer without their interference. We already know what the approver thinks or the cache would not be appealed in the forums.

Link to comment
Personally, I think your cache is just an offset cache and fits the guidelines as I've read them.

An offset cache is one where you go to a specific point, and instructions are given on how to proceed to the cache relative to that given point. Here, the coordinates for the front door of the library bear no relationship at all to the location of the container. It is the same thing as saying "here are the coordinates for the sign at the park entrance. There is a cache in the park somewhere. Here are some non-GPS clues on where to find it."

 

This is not an offset cache.

You are exactly backwards on that.

 

First the dewy decimal system is easily recognized in the right context. The library provides the context. The same concept could apply to a park if the clue is right. Take a WW II memorial. Calling the cache "All gave some, some gave all" is a clue that would tell you the cache is hidden at the memorial. IT's specific to the locaiton found by the GPS.

 

In all honesty the rule about GPS use should just be dumped because it's clear that approvers have a hard time with the nuaces of a GPS and how to use it and the creative methods that someone o(those pesky cache owners who make this game happen) can think up.

 

This is like watching the eBay fiasco in the Geocoin threads. No discernable rhyme or reason.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Is there really no one that agrees with me. Have I really become that crazy cacher that everyone decides to flame out of the forums? [they don't have the signal frog on fire so just imagine that smiley here]

 

AZBliss02

Well, yes... I agree with you. I think your cache is fine the way it is. I have found one library cache. My gps took me to the front door and then I figured out where the fake book was. I enjoyed the "hunt" very much since it was raining that day.

I also enjoy a creative twist now and then, although mostly I like to look for ammo boxes under a fallen tree in the woods. The fact that someone could have found the library cache without a gps caused me no trauma whatsoever.

But then, I am a simple man from the land of the palm trees.

Link to comment
The intent (and I am the author of the sentence in question) is that GPS use must be *available* as an option for some portion of the cache hunt. Otherwise, it's letterboxing or something else. Geocaches rely on GPS use.

I agree with other posters in this thread concerning the fact that GPS-use is available in the proposed cache. While perhaps not that many people will use a GPS-r to navigate to a library in a city, the same is true for many other objects which play a role in caches.

 

Think for example of the numerous traditional caches placed at objects which are sufficiently such that the position of the object is sufficient for finding the cache.

 

It appears to me that a micro cache hidden for example to the right of the entrance door of the library (suppose it is in a city where there are no security issues involved) would be straightforwardly approved though the situation would be quite the same as in the case of the cache under discussion. Most cachers would not use their GPS to find the building and since caches in such public places often have hints in the description, typically the GPS will not play a major role for the search even for large buildings. (Moreover, there are very good maps available for some cities where it would even be possible to tell rather accurately at which part/side building the cache is located just from the map.) The only difference between the two caches - the proposed mystery one - and the micro cache outside the library would be that the first cache is much nicer from my point of view and not just a lame micro cache.

 

Another example which has been mentioned in this thread, but on which you did not comment on. What about cave caches which are hidden inside caves which are

reachable via marked hiking trails and where coordinates of the cache give you just the coordinates of the entrance of the cave and the way how to proceed further is described in the cache description. Such cave caches are extremely popular and frequent in some parts of Europe. Like in the library example people would typically use a street map to access the library, people typically will use a hiking map to access the caves. (BTW: In both cases, in narrow cities and in the terrain where caves are often to be found, the usefulness of a GPS-r might be rather restricted anyway as often the reception is very bad and one is much better off with using maps to speed up the approach instead of waiting very long for a satellite fix.)

 

A final third aspect: From what I have been told by a reviewer of gc.com, it seems possible to add a stamp to the discussed cache and it would then qualify as a letterbox hybrid cache as unlike what parts of the guidelines seem to make us believe letterbox hybrid caches are not necessarily traditional caches (meaning that mystery and multi caches are allowed as well). Do you agree? In that case, there might exist still another alternative for the OP.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Cezanne already pointed out the example of a cave cache. I think this is why there's some confusion as to what's allowed under the "GPSr emphasis" guideline and what isn't.

 

I agree with the OP in asking, why is this cache within the guidelines (where directions to the cache are explicitly given) and his cache isn't (where you at least have to solve a "puzzle" to get the final location):

 

The waypoint is the entrance to the cave.

You will need to follow the cave directions below to find the cache within the cave.

Cave Directions: When facing the cave entrance you will see two cave entrances.

Enter the opening on the right. About 30 feet in you will squeeze through a tight passage that then opens up into a small room.

As you enter the small room head to your right about 25 feet.

From where you stand at the edge of the room look towards the front-right opening exiting the room.

You should see a pile of rocks stacked as path marker.

Enter the low passage and head towards the right hand wall.

The cache is on the forward wall of the cave about 20 feet into the passage.

 

(now substitute library for cave as you read the above passage)

Link to comment
giving coords to a crappy altoids container that has a paper with the same details on it?

 

Crappy micro's apparently remain one of the more often suggested solutions to a problem created by this sites guidelines

 

Where does it say this stage has to be "crappy"? Forgetting all rules and regulations, and looking this as purely a cache critique, a well-placed first stage, be it micro or virtual, would make this a better overall cache. It would bring visitors to the library to find your ingenios book hide, and it would satisfy those that like to use their GPSr in a more integral way.

 

While I understand the idea of wanting to fight "the man", and may even see the argument you have (ultimately I agree with the guideline as it is), don't allow that to prevent you from tweaking your cache a bit to make it even more interesting.

Link to comment

Just make it a simple ?? Mystery Cache ?? and the coordinates at the door will meet the guidelines the posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles away from the true cache location. and the guidelines were changed updated November 2, 2005. And this Cache was approved after the above date and there are only coordinates for the start. No coordinates were even required for all the little stops that one must make as they look for the cache.

 

It also fits within the guidelines of an offset cache With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site

 

So I think this cache should be approved.

Link to comment

The key point being a library cache is a hide a cut above normal in most areas.

I agree totally. Caches like these should be encouraged. I think we have all seen our share of innovative and unique caches being disqualified because they didn't fit the guidelines of what some individual reviewer thinks a geocache should be, or for other reasons. It seems like the guidelines are trying to preserve the original spirit of geocaching by defining it as a container with a logbook reachable by GPS, but then in contrast there is talk of adding parking coordinates and even routing to get to the cache. I wonder how long it will be before a trail guide or Sherpa will be required.

 

The problem isn't with your cache. The problem is a guideline written in loosey goosey terms subject to a heck of a lot of intrepretation.

As usual RK, you have hit the nail right on the head. This was obvious to me right away and apparently to some other posters. Too bad these observations can't be looked at objectively, and are countered with denial that any mistakes could have been made, in either the writing or interpretation of the guidelines. Some of them sound like they were written by lawyers leaving loopholes large enough for a truck to drive through. What's the point if it's just a bunch of empty words?

 

At this point it's clear that the mods and admins and approvers have you outnumberd. They should pretty much stay out of these types of forum appeals so the geocaching comunity can answer without their interference. We already know what the approver thinks or the cache would not be appealed in the forums.

This is true as well. When I see an approver having to chime in on an appeal by a geocacher, this gives the impression that even the approver is unsure of the ruling, and feels the need to defend his or her position. In such cases, there are obviously still some doubts. I don't know that this thread would be a good example of that however, since the OP specifically opened the thread addressed to both Cachers and Reviewers.

 

In all honesty the rule about GPS use should just be dumped because it's clear that approvers have a hard time with the nuaces of a GPS and how to use it and the creative methods that someone o(those pesky cache owners who make this game happen) can think up.

The word geocaching by itself leaves no clue that a GPS is required. I realize the name was created to describe the game, but requiring a GPS to play is rather limiting. Who really knows how the game will evolve in the future. Maybe all signals will originate from ground stations at the poles and date lines, or by triangulation of lasers on other planets for that matter. It would be better to focus on coordinates on the planet (reachable by GPS, maps, triangulation, ESP, etc.) rather than on the GPS which may become obsolete some day. If it really was about keeping the game pure, we would all be hiding beans in buckets.

Link to comment

Okay, so it's a new day so I just wanted to recap where things seem to be with this thread. In keeping with the approval process, I'll break this down to try and simplify it.

 

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.

The reviewer and I exchanged multiple messages in regards to this. The proof of this is in my opening post that contains our messages.

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.

I did suggest this to the reviewer and as he/she told me (and Keystone) that was done.

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.

And here we are. :anibad:

If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived.

Well, I've attempted to tally things up as they currently stand. I tried to read each post to determine whether the person agreed or disagreed with my hide. Basically I only counted them if they were obvious (by saying "yes I agree" or "I don't agree", etc.). Those that only gave recommendations on how to improve the cache (yet never stated whether they felt the current hide was good or not) along with those that made comments one way or the other yet never seemed to actually say yes or no were put into an unknown column.

 

So after doing this the numbers I came up with were:

15 : It should be approved as is

7* : It shouldn't be approved under its current condition

13 : Unknown

* - I included Keystone in this although I'm not sure his would count since he's a reviewer. And no, I did not count myself among those that approve of the placement.

 

If anyone thinks they may have fallen under the "unknown" category and they'd like to fully express their feelings (for either side) then please feel free to do so. But given this I'm curious if this qualifies as a majority (I would think it works for simple majority and 2/3 majority). If it does qualify and if there has been adequate discussion I would be curious if it should be passed on for further consideration. If so, I would hope that as the cache owner I would have permission to be involved with that process.

 

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.

Obviously I have no intention of doing this as the reviewer was doing exactly what he/she is suppose to do and I have no doubt that while I disagree with the interpretation, I feel the reviewer has followed the approval steps appropriately.

 

Again, as always, thank you to everyone for their input and the respectable, polite, debate that's been going on.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment

reviewer response:

January 15 by REVIEWER

 

.........

 

Because a cache in a library doesn't require the use of the GPS to find anything, the best solution is to use a historical sign or micro cache outside that you use to give the location inside.

 

REVIEWER

Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

There is another aspect in the argument of the reviewer that I cannot follow. It does not seem logical to me.

 

Suppose there is a sign in front of the library and this sign is used to obtain a sort of code for the book. The coordinates still would lead to the entrance of the library, and the GPS-usage would still be limited to navigating to the library if someone wishes to use this method. This remains essentially also true for other starting points as most locations in urban areas are easier to access with the help of maps.

 

Why does the approver think that the cache in the original form cannot be approved while the inclusion of an additional stage which still would send the cachers into the library where no one will use his GPS-r would lead to an acceptable cache?

 

I feel that the interpretation of the guidelines as the GPS-usage is extremely arbitrary.

I have encountered many caches (in various countries, in particular in Europe) which have been approved after November 2, 2005 and which would not exist if the reviewers agreed on the same interpretation.

 

I am in favour of leaving more freedom to the cachers. Those who prefer to do only caches where a GPS-r is extremely vital, are free to ignore those caches where a GPS-r is not in the centre of the activity (but still can be applied at least partially).

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I think this cache should be approved. I've read each post and while I feel I can see both sides of the debate, I most strongly agree with the OP.

 

I've never found a library cache, but I do like libraries so I'm not sure why people think they are bad. I'd rather go to the library than a lamppost or guardrail both of which I've found.

Link to comment

I think the easiest thing to do would be to make it an offset cache, but I do feel that there is really nothing wrong with it the way it is. Put me in the "approve it" column.

 

I think people are trying to say that the front door of the library is not a specific enough spot to meet the standards of "needing a GPS", but I don't see the difference between finding a 3' wide door and a 2' wide sign or 10' tall statue like has been suggested in either case it is obvious what the destination is from a distance.

 

There is one near me that the coordinates take you to the entrance of a runoff tunnel for a dam. The entrance to that tunnel is at least 8' wide and the GPS is not used after that. It is an extremely popular cache.

 

I see no difference between that cache (navigate using GPS to the entrance, enter and find the cache) and the one being proposed here (navigate using GPS to the entrance, enter and find the cache) other than one being a tunnel and the other being a library.

 

Sometimes you need to look at the intent of the "rule" and not just the letter- but

I don't feel this violates either standard.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

I would actually end up in the "change it a little" camp. I've been following the story since yesterday, and IMHO, although as submitted is at least somewhat GPS related, I'd personally feel kinda lame doing the cache as you've presented it. Basically, I view this the same way I view the one virtual cache I've done...it was just too easy. If it were a puzzle or mystery in my mind, and even if it were just slightly harder in that you have to find a micro (which I still haven't decided are lame) with the number for the book on it, it still gives it more of a challenge. I totally support the idea, and am going to have to find a cache like this sometime, but I'd rather have the puzzle to work out as well.

 

Just my thoughts

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment
I would actually end up in the "change it a little" camp. I've been following the story since yesterday, and IMHO, although as submitted is at least somewhat GPS related, I'd personally feel kinda lame doing the cache as you've presented it. Basically, I view this the same way I view the one virtual cache I've done...it was just too easy. If it were a puzzle or mystery in my mind, and even if it were just slightly harder in that you have to find a micro (which I still haven't decided are lame) with the number for the book on it, it still gives it more of a challenge. I totally support the idea, and am going to have to find a cache like this sometime, but I'd rather have the puzzle to work out as well.

 

Just my thoughts

 

Celticwulf

I'm not so sure that it's not difficult. I mean, when was the last time you found something at the library using the Dewey Decimal System? :anibad:

I do agree that there are a number of things that I could have done to make it more difficult, but I still think it poses some level of thinking while at the same time being enjoyable for kids and anyone else.

 

Certainly though, when compared to pulling into a parking lot, reaching out of the car and grabbing an altoids container that's hidden under a lamppost, this one has to be a little more difficult.

 

Please note that I do not think all (or even most) micros are lame. I enjoy a good micro, unfortunately that is not what I want the focus of this cache to be on. The focus should be on finding a log book in a library. I wish I could explain how it feels to find one of these caches. We did one here in Phoenix. At the time I think we were probably in the 500 range or so for finds and I'll admit that some of the original luster of finding hidden containers had faded. This was such a different adventure, combined with trying to keep quiet while surrounded by others who you know think you're just looking for a book to read, it was very exciting. Anyway, that cache was nearly identical to the one I'm attempting to hide (it was approved a while back though so I haven't mentioned it).

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
Too bad these observations can't be looked at objectively, and are countered with denial that any mistakes could have been made, in either the writing or interpretation of the guidelines.  Some of them sound like they were written by lawyers leaving loopholes large enough for a truck to drive through.

 

Funny you should say that.... :anibad:

Link to comment
I'm not so sure that it's not difficult. I mean, when was the last time you found something at the library using the Dewey Decimal System? 

 

It's been a few years, but I used to work at a library putting the books back on the shelves while I was in high school, so I'd probably know the number right off the bat :anibad:

 

Certainly though, when compared to pulling into a parking lot, reaching out of the car and grabbing an altoids container that's hidden under a lamppost, this one has to be a little more difficult.

 

Still haven't found one of those...must be lucky up here that all the hider's in this area like the woods ;)

 

I'm not saying that your idea, as given, is bad...I'm just seeing the way the reviewers have seen it and I tend to agree with them...that's all...nothing against your idea at all ;)

 

Latre

Celticwulf

Link to comment

I removed 4 caches from one park because they were being found by people (including a muggle leaving obscene notes) without a GPS.

Use of a GPS is an important part of this hobby, but if one can find it easily without one, there is no point in having the cache.

Link to comment
I removed 4 caches from one park because they were being found by people (including a muggle leaving obscene notes) without a GPS.

Use of a GPS is an important part of this hobby, but if one can find it easily without one, there is no point in having the cache.

Well I guess I know where there are 800+ caches that need to be archived. :anibad:

Link to comment

Some caches have so many clues that one might find them without a GPS, but here in the wilds of county parks in Iowa, a GPS may be needed just to locate the park! I and other cachers have found such parks, lacking sufficient signage even to locate the park, let alone the cache!

Link to comment
Some caches have so many clues that one might find them without a GPS, but here in the wilds of county parks in Iowa, a GPS may be needed just to locate the park! I and other cachers have found such parks, lacking sufficient signage even to locate the park, let alone the cache!

If you are refering to my post you just don't understand what I do. Give me the coordinates to your sock drawer and I'll put a nickle in it... I'll find any county park in any state including Iowa...

Link to comment

Ok, maybe I am missing your point, but I did find one park in Des Moines county with a sign so nearly invisible that, had not a cacher marked it with his GPS, I would not have found the park!

 

Lukenbill Woods GCNVDY

Edited by K0BKL
Link to comment
Ok, maybe I am missing your point, but I did find one park in Louisa county with a sign so nearly invisible that,  had not a cacher marked it with his GPS, I would not have found the park!

Ok I looked up your most difficult cache.. per the ratings you gave it and here is how I would find it. It is archived so I am not giving away anything that will help anyone. Leave Ft Madison going NW on 103, just past 156th st or J42, look for a park with a lake on the left.. enter park and drive in as far as possible or to the dam breast whichever comes first. Go to the southernmost point on the dam breast and go down the bank to the bottom. Climb up the opposite side of the gully in the easternmost reentrant. (this will be just about due magnetic south) as soon as the hill breaks over to a nearly flat top ,make a sharp right and walk nearly to the edge of the larger gully. In winter I would expect the edge of the dam breast to be visible so that a compass bearing can be taken to find the exact spot. If the woods is evergreen or teh dam breast is not visible for some other reason, then a small grid search may be necessary. I don't have access to my aerial photos on this computer, but at home I can probably see more detail to zero me into about a 3 foot box. For example if there is a cedar tree or other evergreen near the cache it will be visible. Any large fallen tree will show up as will the shadows of many objects if the sun was low when the photo was taken.... just too many details to keep me from finding it.

Link to comment
Ok, maybe I am missing your point, but I did find one park in Louisa county with a sign so nearly invisible that,  had not a cacher marked it with his GPS, I would not have found the park!

Ok I looked up your most difficult cache.. per the ratings you gave it and here is how I would find it. It is archived so I am not giving away anything that will help anyone. Leave Ft Madison going NW on 103, just past 156th st or J42, look for a park with a lake on the left.. enter park and drive in as far as possible or to the dam breast whichever comes first. Go to the southernmost point on the dam breast and go down the bank to the bottom. Climb up the opposite side of the gully in the easternmost reentrant. (this will be just about due magnetic south) as soon as the hill breaks over to a nearly flat top ,make a sharp right and walk nearly to the edge of the larger gully. In winter I would expect the edge of the dam breast to be visible so that a compass bearing can be taken to find the exact spot. If the woods is evergreen or teh dam breast is not visible for some other reason, then a small grid search may be necessary. I don't have access to my aerial photos on this computer, but at home I can probably see more detail to zero me into about a 3 foot box. For example if there is a cedar tree or other evergreen near the cache it will be visible. Any large fallen tree will show up as will the shadows of many objects if the sun was low when the photo was taken.... just too many details to keep me from finding it.

In summary, as his sig at the bottom of his posts state, Edscott don't need no stinking GPS ;)

 

In reality, he'd probably have had better luck with my 100th find this weekend, since signal was lost completely...but I couldn't do it, the GPS to me is kinda fun :anibad:

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

I corrected my post above, it was Luckenbill Woods in Des Moines County, north of Burlington. The site is sandwiched between private property so tight, you need a map of the park to stay on public property. The sign was overgrown, and only a small driveway off a gravel road leads into the park. Really hard to find the park, even if you have some idea where it is located!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...dd-5159ea43175f

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...
×
×
  • Create New...