Jump to content

Cache Not Approved, Your Help Needed


AZBuckeye04

Recommended Posts

Ed Scott and many others pride themselves on finding caches without a GPSr. Using a detailed enough map they can navigate with a compass to get just as close to the cache as with a GPSr. I've done a few urban caches like this and often it is more accurate than using a GPSr. The guideline is not meant to prevent cachers who want to from finding a cache without a GPSr. The guidelines do require that "... the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS", but I would guess that if you don't mention otherwise, the approvers will assume this is the case. If you're descrete about it, you can probably hide a cache without a GPSr as well. The guideline being discussed is

GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

The issue is not whether AZBliss02's cache would be fun to do, or whether is is better than a lame micro. The issue is whether or not the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as a integral part of the cache hunt has been demonstrated. It seems that, in this case, it has not been demonstrated. If the library was like K0BKL's park that was hard to find without a GPSr because it lacked signage and was hard to spot the driveway, a case could be made that knowing the GPS coordinates is a integral part of the hunt.

Note that the guideline says nothing about using a GPSr to find a cache. Only that accurate GPS coordinates be a part of the hunt. My only objection to the guideline is that determining the need to use accurate GPS coordinates is subjective. Also, what about caches that are placed where accurate coordinate can't be obtained? How accurate must the coordinates be?

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.

First of all I really hope those 4 caches were owned by you. I know I certainly wouldn't be a happy camper if you did that with one of my caches. Secondly, our first exposure to geocaching was without a GPS unit. We found all 10 caches that day (I believe all were located in parks). The simple fact is that the coordinates are really the important thing. That's what lets you use your GPS unit and it's what lets edscott use his impressive mapping and navigation skills. And in some cases it even lets an average guy like me zoom in as far as possible using google maps or mapquest to determine what corner of the park the cache is in. While you may have nice dense areas there in Iowa, we live in the desert (not too much tree coverage).

 

Now, as far as people finding caches go, I believe that is also an important part of geocaching. I mean sure with geocaching gaining a lot of ground and become ever more popular it may not seem as likely, but occasionaly a person isn't even aware of this sport until one day they stumble upon a container. Of course we can't control everyone and there does become the case of a cache pirate. If you read through the forums you will probably meet numerous cachers that may have never found out about geocaching if it wasn't for a hidden container (or maybe even stumbling upon a book while researching GPS and Treasure Hunting at the library) :anibad: Unfortunately there are a few less opportunities for an accidental cacher to be born in Iowa now.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
Ed Scott and many others pride themselves on finding caches without a GPSr. Using a detailed enough map they can navigate with a compass to get just as close to the cache as with a GPSr. I've done a few urban caches like this and often it is more accurate than using a GPSr. The guideline is not meant to prevent cachers who want to from finding a cache without a GPSr. The guidelines do require that "... the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS", but I would guess that if you don't mention otherwise, the approvers will assume this is the case. If you're descrete about it, you can probably hide a cache without a GPSr as well. The guideline being discussed is
GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

The issue is not whether AZBliss02's cache would be fun to do, or whether is is better than a lame micro. The issue is whether or not the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as a integral part of the cache hunt has been demonstrated. It seems that, in this case, it has not been demonstrated. If the library was like K0BKL's park that was hard to find without a GPSr because it lacked signage and was hard to spot the driveway, a case could be made that knowing the GPS coordinates is a integral part of the hunt.

Note that the guideline says nothing about using a GPSr to find a cache. Only that accurate GPS coordinates be a part of the hunt. My only objection to the guideline is that determining the need to use accurate GPS coordinates is subjective. Also, what about caches that are placed where accurate coordinate can't be obtained? How accurate must the coordinates be?

That seems to sum things up nicely for me.

Put me in the "needs work before it should be listed under the current guidelines" column.

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.

 

That's perfectly fine as it is up to you to decide to which target audience your caches are directed.

 

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.

 

I do not agree at all. Some of the most superb caches I have found and some of my own caches are not at all difficult to find without a GPS. Nice hideouts up a mountain or hideouts in beautiful narrow gorges or caves often have the property that the GPS-r is not the essential device for finding the cache. I enjoy caches due to the hikes and the unique places, the caches lead me to - I am not interested into searching an hour for a needle in a haystack - caches that are hard to find without a GPS are often of that type.

 

If you prefer caches that are hard to find without a GPS, you are free to ignore those that are easy to find without a GPS. There is, however, no reason at all to restrict the freedom of choice for all geocachers.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
That seems to sum things up nicely for me.

Put me in the "needs work before it should be listed under the current guidelines" column.

 

Me as well. This reminds me of one of the debated issues about virtuals. One requirement was that there be no adequate location for a physical cache in the vicinity.

 

You've shown no compelling reason that your cache would be lessened by enacting the changes the reviwer suggested. (some, including myself, might say the changes would improve the quality of the cache.) Just like the distance "guideline". It's not a hard fast rule, but you have to show the uniqueness of your situation and why this particular cache warrants pushing the guideline.

In my mind, since it has not been proven making the changes would negatively impact the cache, the guidelines should stand as is. Prove how your cache will only "work" the way you have it, and I might understand being more flexible with the guidelines.

Link to comment
The issue is not whether AZBliss02's cache would be fun to do, or whether is is better than a lame micro. The issue is whether or not the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as a integral part of the cache hunt has been demonstrated. It seems that, in this case, it has not been demonstrated. If the library was like K0BKL's park that was hard to find without a GPSr because it lacked signage and was hard to spot the driveway, a case could be made that knowing the GPS coordinates is a integral part of the hunt.

Note that the guideline says nothing about using a GPSr to find a cache. Only that accurate GPS coordinates be a part of the hunt. My only objection to the guideline is that determining the need to use accurate GPS coordinates is subjective. Also, what about caches that are placed where accurate coordinate can't be obtained? How accurate must the coordinates be?

I have to reiterate another part of my argument only to try and bring light to something that not everyone has picked up on.

 

Keep in mind that while I'm sure locating the library would be very easy for someone to do, that would only apply in this situation if they knew they needed to go to the library.

 

Close your eyes and imagine if you will ladies and gentlemen...

 

You've just pulled up the cache page for a new cache near your area. It states:

 

Cache Name: Crazy Cache Name #3: 198.285

 

Description:

 

Often when explaining Geocaching to someone the phrase "High-Tech Treasure Hunting" is used. It is in the spirit of treasure hunting that this cache has been placed.

The listed coordinates will NOT put you directly at the cache!

Your GPSr can only get you so far on this one, then it's all on you to figure it out. We placed this after experiencing a similar cache in Phoenix, AZ that we really enjoyed.

 

This cache is accessible at only the following times (and inaccessible on most holidays):

Monday - Thursday 9:00am - 8:00pm

Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm

Saturday (Summer Hours Only) 9:00am - 2:00pm

 

Please do not bother with trade items as they will not fit (however there is a dollar bill for the FTF). Be sure to bring your own writing instrument to sign the log.

 

The title of this cache is a clue, not a cheat, you WILL need it.

 

This is a historical piece of [edited] County. Please be very respectful and if you have the time, explore the history surrounding this location.

 

Happy Caching!

/End of Description

 

So that's all you got, a set of coordinates and this odd code (198.285). So how many of you instantly jump in your cachemobile and race to the library? Now, if you're a local and you decide to pull up google maps you'll probably realize that "Yes Virginia, there is a Library there" (even though google maps does not say "library" on their map.) However, it is at this point that you have begun to enlist the help of other means aside from your GPS unit. Still even after determining that the cache is probably at a library wouldn't you still probably punch those coords in your GPS unit and follow it to where it leads?

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
The issue is not whether AZBliss02's cache would be fun to do, or whether is is better than a lame micro. The issue is whether or not the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as a integral part of the cache hunt has been demonstrated. It seems that, in this case, it has not been demonstrated.

I do not agree. I am pretty much sure that the coordinates of the library are given with sufficient precision - so you can use them to navigate to the library. That's certainly not the most reasonable way to do it as a map will be more helpful, but it is possible to use a GPS-r. Actually, I have already navigated via my GPS to well-known locations in Vienna when I was too lazy to take out my city map.

 

Moreover, I still do not understand why it would be fine with the approver to modify the cache such that the coordinates still lead to the entrance of the library (actually to a sign there) and use the sign to obtain the Dewey code. This type of cache does not differ from the original concept with respect of the GPS-usage.

 

What about a traditional caches at a famous statue (reasonable small)? Again a GPS is not needed to find the statue and it is also not necessary to dispose of special orienteering skills as edscott.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

This is a historical piece of [edited] County. Please be very respectful and if you have the time, explore the history surrounding this location.

 

Happy Caching!

 

Force them to explore the history of the county. I once had a Cache in Mobile,Al that caused you to go to different places in the city and learn it's history in order to find the final cache. It was very well received and people learned that there was a lot about their city that they were unaware of.

 

If you give a lot of people coords to a cache they will seek out that cache with tunnel vision and pay no attention to the area around them. This would be a great opportunity to widen their field of view, and make the Approvers happy.

 

Just a thought.

 

El Diablo

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.... ;)

Perhaps you are easily amused.

 

I don't know what you find funny, or don't understand. I don't write the guidelines and I have no problems admitting a mistake when I make one. I also know that a written document must speak the truth. In other words, the words must mean something.

 

I've never had a problem telling it the way it is. Others may have problems with my words, but I don't.

 

:anibad:

Link to comment

After due consideration, and careful thought (?), I have decided that the cache proposed by OP does, indeed, fit the requirement of the guidelines for the need (?) of a GPS. There are coordinates listed. Put them into the GPS to find the 1st stage. Requirements filled. The interpretation being used is that all stages must be findable using a GPS. That is not clear in the guidelines, but is consistant with recent approvals. The proposed solution "Go seventy two paces at 279º" does not seem to require the use of a GPS any more than the problem of being able to find the starting point using Mapquest or Google Earth. I have a compass, and am not afraid to use it! The only viable solution that I can see, with this interpretation, is to climb on top of the library roof to get a valid GPS reading for the location of the book in question. That would require playing a number game with the hours of service at the library for the Dewey Decimal number of the book, but that is minor. With proper use of a compass and a GPS, you should be able to determine the exact coordinates of the book in question. You could probably even fake it using Topozone or Google Earth! Oops. :o

If each stage does require GPS usage, than I would never approve any cache saying "Go seventy two paces at 279º".

Link to comment

 

Funny you should say that....  :o

Perhaps you are easily amused.

 

I don't know what you find funny, or don't understand.

You're correct, you didn't understand. My comment wasn't intended in the way you apparently took it. I just found your comment about the lawyers amusing; it reminded me of something I read in another thread. ;)

Link to comment
The interpretation being used is that all stages must be findable using a GPS. That is not clear in the guidelines, but is consistant with recent approvals. The proposed solution "Go seventy two paces at 279º" does not seem to require the use of a GPS

What you're describing is an offset cache, and its perfectly acceptable according to the guidelines. Locating a starting point with coordinates, then providing a bearing and distance would be a way to validate this cache, per Keystone. I believe your interpretation that ALL stages must require the use of a GPS is incorrect, from what I've read. The sticking point with the admins is that this particular cache is NOT an offset, in other words, the locating the second "stage" doesn't directly rely on the first stage, other than the first stage gets you to the immediate area. In other words, the posted coords could take you to the library door, the library parking lot, or the intersection of the street closest to the library door, and you'd still be able to locate stage 2, whereas in a true offset, you need to find some point of information at the first stage - either a sign, marker, etc then use the information gathered there to locate the coords for the second stage. That's why hiding a micro with the dewey decimal codes at the first stage would be acceptable, even though the GPSr wasn't needed for stage 2. I see the admin's point, because stage 2 can be found even if the coords for stage 1 are moved 50, 100, even 150 feet away. You still end up at or near the library, you can still locate the entrance, and you can still find the cache. Whether a GPS is needed or not is debatable, but the fact that you need to find a general area, rather than a specific object at a specific location, is not.

 

I think I'm changing my mind.... again.... :o

Link to comment

This scares me because one of my favorite types of caches are night caches. Like the library cache, the co-ordinates merely lead you to a starting point. With the library cache, it's supposed to ring a bell in your head that the title is in dewey decimel. Then you put your gpsr away, go in, and find the cache (logbook). At a night cache, you shine your flashlight around until you pick up a reflector trail. Then you put your gpsr away and follow the trail the rest of the way. You could actually pick up a night cache trail without the use of a gpsr if you just know the general location to be shining your flashlight.

Link to comment
This scares me because one of my favorite types of caches are night caches.

 

At a night cache, you shine your flashlight around until you pick up a reflector trail. Then you put your gpsr away and follow the trail the rest of the way. You could actually pick up a night cache trail without the use of a gpsr if you just know the general location to be shining your flashlight.

I believe (and the admins can correct me if I'm wrong) that a cache as you describe would be perfectly acceptable if the posted coords pointed you to the specific tree where the first set of reflectors for the night cache was located. You'd still need to locate that specific object, and use what you found there (the reflectors) to proceed on to the cache. Typically reflectors can only be viewed from a small angle, and if you were 100 feet away from the starting point you'd probably never find them, unlike a library where you can be pretty much anywhere on the property and still locate the door to the library building easily.

 

Did I mention that we're really walking a fine gray line here?

Link to comment
I believe (and the admins can correct me if I'm wrong) that a cache as you describe would be perfectly acceptable if the posted coords pointed you to the specific tree where the first set of reflectors for the night cache was located. 

Maybe that's a change based on the new guideline. I've never done one that takes you specifically to the first reflector. The one I did Sunday night took you to a location on a trail and you had to find (took about 20 minutes) the first reflector about 50 feet into the woods. The one I did before that took you to a hill and you had to locate a reflector about 300 feet away that began the trail. But if the coordinates have to be the location of the first reflector, that would be useful to know before setting one up. This line is a little bit too fine.

Link to comment
This scares me because one of my favorite types of caches are night caches. 

 

At a night cache, you shine your flashlight around until you pick up a reflector trail.  Then you put your gpsr away and follow the trail the rest of the way.  You could actually pick up a night cache trail without the use of a gpsr if you just know the general location to be shining your flashlight.

I believe (and the admins can correct me if I'm wrong) that a cache as you describe would be perfectly acceptable if the posted coords pointed you to the specific tree where the first set of reflectors for the night cache was located. You'd still need to locate that specific object, and use what you found there (the reflectors) to proceed on to the cache. Typically reflectors can only be viewed from a small angle, and if you were 100 feet away from the starting point you'd probably never find them, unlike a library where you can be pretty much anywhere on the property and still locate the door to the library building easily.

 

Did I mention that we're really walking a fine gray line here?

There is nothing in the description that says you need to enter the library. As far as anyone knows you could be looking for a hide a key under a bench on the property. Or the numbers could be referring to a date or some other number on a plaque located on the property.

 

The more I think about this I can't see why it wouldn't, or shouldn't be approved as submitted.

 

I also agree with the above statement that if this one isn't allowed then niether should night caches be allowed that lead you to a tree and you put away your GPSr after you find that certain tree. This cache is leading you to a certain door followed by a clue as what to do after you get there. Much like a night cache that leads you to a tree and then puts reflectors up as the clue as what to do next.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

My night cache lists a set of parking coordinates and from there by shining a light in the proper direction the first reflector can be seen. Each subsequent reflector is out of sight beyond a trail junction so you need to pick the correct trail and then find a reflector to tell you that it is correct. No reflector?? then you made the wrong choice. I guess it is sort of a Maze. I have only good comments on the cache, but now wonder if it is "legal" fun.

 

fix typos....

Edited by edscott
Link to comment
This scares me because one of my favorite types of caches are night caches. 

 

At a night cache, you shine your flashlight around until you pick up a reflector trail.  Then you put your gpsr away and follow the trail the rest of the way.  You could actually pick up a night cache trail without the use of a gpsr if you just know the general location to be shining your flashlight.

I believe (and the admins can correct me if I'm wrong) that a cache as you describe would be perfectly acceptable if the posted coords pointed you to the specific tree where the first set of reflectors for the night cache was located. You'd still need to locate that specific object, and use what you found there (the reflectors) to proceed on to the cache. Typically reflectors can only be viewed from a small angle, and if you were 100 feet away from the starting point you'd probably never find them, unlike a library where you can be pretty much anywhere on the property and still locate the door to the library building easily.

 

Did I mention that we're really walking a fine gray line here?

There is nothing in the description that says you need to enter the library. As far as anyone knows you could be looking for a hide a key under a bench on the property. Or the numbers could be referring to a date or some other number on a plaque located on the property.

 

The more I think about this I can't see why it wouldn't, or shouldn't be approved as submitted.

 

I also agree with the above statement that if this one isn't allowed then niether should night caches be allowed that lead you to a tree and you put away your GPSr after you find that certain tree. This cache is leading you to a certain door followed by a clue as what to do after you get there. Much like a night cache that leads you to a tree and then puts reflectors up as the clue as what to do next.

 

El Diablo

If the hours to the library are listed (which they are), that means you need to go in. If you had to look for a hidey key and then go into the library based on what the hidey key says, then it would prabably be listed as a multi.

Link to comment

I think a guideline that could potentially ban night caches using reflectors, cave caches, tunnel caches, or other similar types of caches where a general location, rather than a specific one is used as the initial stage warrants discussion. That appears to be what the decision of the admins is, at least as I interpret it.

 

Since some of the above types of caches are among my favorites, I am a bit concerned. In this one specific application it might appear to be reasonable, and understandable, but when applied to other simlar situations... the implications are staggering.

 

Who exactly is this guideline supposed to benefit? I'm still trying to figure that out. It's not the hider, or the potential finder, or the property owner.... who's left? Groundspeak? Is it tinfoil hat time again?

Link to comment
I think a guideline that could potentially ban night caches using reflectors, cave caches, tunnel caches, or other similar types of caches where a general location, rather than a specific one is used as the initial stage warrants discussion. That appears to be what the decision of the admins is, at least as I interpret it.

 

Since some of the above types of caches are among my favorites, I am a bit concerned. In this one specific application it might appear to be reasonable, and understandable, but when applied to other simlar situations... the implications are staggering.

 

Who exactly is this guideline supposed to benefit? I'm still trying to figure that out. It's not the hider, or the potential finder, or the property owner.... who's left? Groundspeak? Is it tinfoil hat time again?

Either the site is moving towards only listing Plain Jane geocaches, or if they are going to allow interesting and innovative caches. Whatever it's going to be needs to be spelled out clearly in the guidelines. If the guidelines aren't going to be clear, you might as well change the name from Groundspeak to Doublespeak.

Link to comment
Could mean there is no trespassing after hours.

;)

 

Oh please.

 

 

Can the OP just change his cache so we can bury this dead horse. :o

Lil Devil - I'm sorry you feel this is a dead horse, but it sounds like a majority of the people on here would like to know how this thing ends. In all truthfulness I really don't see my cache having any further impact on things. It has obviously been the starter for this conversation, but regardless of what the reviewers decide and I ultimately decide to do with this cache, the question still needs to be difinitively answered for future hides. If you feel this is a dead horse, by all means ignore it so that it no longer bothers you and the rest of us can continue.

 

Maybe Groundspeak can setup something so you can choose to ignore forum threads similar to ignoring a cache listing. :P

 

Everyone please keep your comments/suggestions/opinions coming in. Although we haven't heard from Keystone or any other reviewers for a number of posts now, I would assume/hope they are discussing this issue and continuing to monitor this thread. I would hate to see night caches, library caches and other fun-filled caches become limited or extinct due to this, but it's obvious that a clarification is needed.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment

AZBliss02, good luck with your cache. I hope to see it approved. It sounds like a lot of fun and I will go look for it if I'm in the neighborhood. It's unfortunate that you had to be put through the wringer and devulge all of the details in the forums. Hopefully it only spoiled the fun for a small number of cachers. I'll be watching along with the others.

Link to comment

After reading the full thread, I believe this is an excellent test of the appeals process. Put me in the "approve this cache" column. As the OP notes, the GPS emphasis still seems to exist to meet the revised guideline and a majority of cachers in this thread support the cache's approval.

 

I hope the approvers/TPTB take this opportunity to show that a respectful, well-supported appeal can actually be successful.

Link to comment

I'm also of the opinion that it could/should be published as it stands. The reviewer's comments that a library can be easily found is beside the point completely - as the OP pointed out many times, seekers won't know they are headed to a library UNLESS they've used the co-ords in a mapping program.

 

I've used a map on my laptop quite often when I'm outside my usual haunts. Many times I driven right up to the cache site without any farther reference to the GPSr. If I find a cache that as I approach the area can see where it has to be hidden, do I report it so it can be archived as not needing a GPSr?

 

There's a cache nearby, hidden 12/29/05, that directs you to a plaque (and then you move x feet y direction). Looking on a map I can easily see that it's in front of a Post Office, just about centered on the building. Did I really need the GPSr to find it? NO! Is that much different than the cache under discussion? Not really (at least in the GPSr use aspect).

 

The dead horse comment is also unwarrented, the appeals process was put in place by Groundspeak and is being used properly here. (The question WHY they have an appeal process that AFAIK has never worked in favor of the hider is another question/thread in itself.)

Link to comment

I've been to a cache that directly told you to go in. Here is what it says.

 

We previously had this cache hidden in the woods near the xxxxx Library but after it was plundered we received permission to place it in a safer spot. It is now located inside the library.

 

Hours: Mon. 9-5

Tues.-Thurs. 9-8

Fri.-Sat. 9-5

Closed Sun.

 

We felt this was an appropriate place since they have free access to the internet where one can log their finds. We have used public library internet access ourselves while on our travels and found it to be handy when away from our home computers.

 

This one is far more descriptive than what he is saying.

 

2nd I personally can’t believe that as is can’t be approved as is but add 50ft to west then it does.

 

To me this states that if you want your cache approved just write what the reviewers want to see.

 

I’m not attacking the reviewers or keystone -- just pointing out that lately I’ve seen more cache problems it seems because of wording. This might just because I noticing this more than others.

 

His cache listing uses coordinates to get you to that location. What ever tools people use beyond that is uncontrollable. By saying someone can use a map, tells me that anyone who uses a GPS unit that has mapping capability is not hunting by coordinates but by the map. Like I said it’s all just wording and how people are interpreting it.

 

There is no difference to coordinates to front of library and coordinates to a memorial plague. They both take you to places that can be found on a map.

 

Edit for better clarification

Edited by pcfrog
Link to comment
There is no difference to coordinates to front of library and coordinates to a memorial plague.

 

I see a big difference. The cords to the plaque are sending you to a specific place, not a general one like a building. I see the night cache question the same way- the cords lead you to a specific location to find a specific thing. (the first reflector) If you wanted to use the "if this, then that" logic, then I suppose night caches need to start at the actual first reflector, but even this would not kill night caches as we know it. Again, I don't think night caches are a problem currently under the guidelines, and I don't think they compare logically to the library cache question.

 

Perhaps the wording of the guideline needs to be cleared up a bit, but I believe the spirit of it is that the GPS must lead you to a "specific" point. A lot of posts are saying, "that's a cool cache. We need more ingenious caches like that." The way it's being presented is that it's either approved as is or not at all. The changes that the reviewer requested would NOT make the cache any less cool or less ingenious.

 

This is how this listing service chooses to frame their game. They want more intrinsic GPSr use, and they want you to find specific "things." (hence the addition of Waymarking) Other listing services do not have these limitations, and for that reason they may be worth a look. The key to overturning this reviewer decision (my opinion only) is to prove that the changes would negatively impact the cache, which has not been proven. It would still be fun, it would still be creative, and it would fit their guidelines more fully than the current configuration.

Link to comment

I've just read the whole thread and I vote for the cache to be approved as it stands. I think it falls within the guidelines, for reasons which have already been expressed by other posters.

 

I do think we should be encouraging creative ideas to make geocaching more interesting. OK, so library caches are not a new idea, but they're still relatively uncommon. I can't see who benefits from restricting such a cache.

Link to comment

Logically I think virtually every cacher will load the coords in their GPS and use it to get them to the location. I really like this cache idea and the fact that when you pull up to the Library (using your GPS) you'll say: "Oh I get, that's the Dewey Decimal System".

 

Creativity should be encouraged. Instead, this seems like cookie cutter caches and the cookie cutter keeps getting a little smaller.

 

It seems to me the GUIDELINES here are being followed sufficiently where this cache should be approved as is. Put me in the agree with AZBliss02 column.

Link to comment

The OP's library cache has the "Hugh Jazz" former librarian stamp of approval. "Dewey" use our GPS to find the library? Yes. We go in, unshelve the book, sign the log, quietly. Shhh!

 

As long as it's placed with the full knowledge, permission and cooperation of the head librarian, I'd say let's put this one into circulation and get on with the hiding and finding.

 

Librarians actually want people to come in to visit the library. Who knows, while in there you might just check out a real book, and maybe read it, and when finished you'll return it, on time and in good condition for the next patron.

 

Every library cache I have found has been a blast to find, and for each I used my GPS to navigate to the building.

 

-HJ

Link to comment
There is no difference to coordinates to front of library and coordinates to a memorial plague.

 

I see a big difference. The cords to the plaque are sending you to a specific place, not a general one like a building.

It really seems like when you give someone coords, your intent is for them to go to a specific point. It's not like I'm just giving them N 33* x W 111* and "look for the library." (BTW, no those coords are no where near this cache). I'm giving exact coodinates. Besides, to me a library isn't a general building. If a cacher wants to just go to some general building, I guarantee they won't be finding my cache. They will need to find the specific building and only then will they have a chance at making this find.

 

And the argument, "well once they get to the parking lot they're gonna have it figured out" really doesn't seem to matter either. I've spotted traditional style caches from hundreds of feet away. If they've used their GPS unit to navigate that far, I'd say their GPSr has played a role in helping them find the cache, a rather important role. I mean wouldn't those first 5 or 10miles (maybe more) of GPS use be a lot more than the final hundred or so feet that leads them to the building?

 

Ya know if they want they could always use their GPS unit as a cell phone while retrieving the cache, if that'll help incorporate its use more. <_<

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
The cords to the plaque are sending you to a specific place, not a general one like a building. I see the night cache question the same way- the cords lead you to a specific location to find a specific thing.

I do not quite understand the logic behind your argument and I feel that making this sort of distinction many types of caches I like would need to be eliminated without anyone profiting from this restrictions. How do you define specific location and general location?

 

Consider the following two examples:

 

I know many cave caches in caves the entry area of which is larger than many library buildings. For me a cave is a specific location and so is a library building. I would not make a distinction based on the size of the cave or the difficulty to find it without coordinates.

 

And what about a traditional cache where a box is placed within 3 meters distance from the summit cross of a mountain? The coordinates will be the coordinates of the summit given the accuray level of today's GPS-technology.

(This example is not constructed - I know such caches. Quite often one does not even need to look up the coordinates to realize that they are almost at the summit cross because in many cases the description already mentions that fact - one of the reasons being to speed up the search when there are other people around.)

 

Reaching the summit cross of a mountain is from the navigational point of view (let's forget for the moment about the terrain and the physical aspect because the coordinates do not help in this regard) typically easier than finding a certain building in most cities I know of because the summit can often seen from far apart which is not the case typically for library buildings.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I do think we should be encouraging creative ideas to make geocaching more interesting.

 

Creativity should be encouraged.

 

How does the reviewers requested changes discourage creative ideas? The OP (and no one else) has yet to explain how making these minor changes would ruin this cache. Creativity will still be very much intact.

Edited by Googling Hrpty Hrrs
Link to comment
How does the reviewers requested changes discourage creative ideas? The OP (and no one else) has yet to explain how making these minor changes would ruin this cache. Creativity will still be very much intact.

True, the OP could make changes like those which have been suggested (and they were all very reasonable suggestions).

 

I think my worry is that people may not bother to think up funky new ideas for cache hunts, if there's chance they may be perceived as infringing this guideline.

Link to comment

how did this go from a denied cache to banning night caches???? This has gone way past the point of "out there"

This is quite simply a case of a denied cache that the approver has decided (through discussion with others) that does not meet the guidelines. Not a communist plot.

Fun bandwagon ride for some though I'm sure. And some great fishing by others.

An easy fix to meet the reviewers interpretation of the guidelines and badda boom you have a cache. TADDAAAA

Link to comment
None of these statements quite captures what is meant by the guidelines change.  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.  Of course, we all know that some people enjoy the challenge of finding caches without a GPS, using only tools such as maps, aerial photos and a compass.  The guideline is written so as not to discourage that.

 

To the OP, you have received many helpful suggestions on how to incorporate GPS usage into your cache.  Any of them will work.  But giving the coordinates to the front door of a library, museum, etc., will not.

 

This does not seem to be borne out by reading the logs of an extremely similar cache, GC6B6C. If you read the logs, it becomes evident that the vast majority of finders used their GPS to find the library. Nor did the vast majority of them have any clue that the waypoint led to the front door of a library. This means that for most finders, the use of a GPS was an intergral part of the search. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any reason to believe differently for this proposed cache.

Link to comment
I do think we should be encouraging creative ideas to make geocaching more interesting.

 

Creativity should be encouraged.

 

How does the reviewers requested changes discourage creative ideas? The OP (and no one else) has yet to explain how making these minor changes would ruin this cache. Creativity will still be very much intact.

The reviewer is inhibiting creativity by telling the hider how to be creative. Read about creativity in the USSR during the first 90 years of the last century.

Link to comment

 

How does the reviewers requested changes discourage creative ideas? The OP (and no one else) has yet to explain how making these minor changes would ruin this cache. Creativity will still be very much intact.

The point that you appear to miss is what has been pointed out by several posters in this thread. We need clear guidelines that can be understood by anyone who puts a reasonable effort into understanding them and which are not that much subject to subjective interpretations like it seems to be the case at present.

 

If, for example, a cave cache or a summit cache of the type I mentioned above will not any longer be acceptable on gc.com without suggested changes, then this certainly will encourage many cachers to offer their caches elsewhere. Personally, I would not be willing to discuss any small aspect of my caches with a reviewer and then make modifications the sense of which are not apparent to me. I feel that it is the hider's decision whether, for example he/she wants to include a micro into a cache - I would not if it is not strictly necessary to reach my goal as it increases the maintenance effort and adds to the cache an additional element which is not in the centre of the cache and also increases the average search length without adding anything which seems important to me as this cache is regarded.

 

BTW: I have done a library cache in Vienna and it counts for me among the best urban caches I have ever done - I would not have liked a variant with a micro placed somewhere outside. Of course, that cache like the one we discuss about could well exist in another form as well - that's why it is impossible for whomever, not only for the OP, to argue that the changes requested by the reviewer would ruin the cache.

The cache would, however, have a different character and I cannot see that the current guidelines in the way I understand them exclude caches like the proposed one (and I am not the only one who interprets the guidelines in this way). So why does it makes sense to force the OP to change his concept?

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I do think we should be encouraging creative ideas to make geocaching more interesting.

 

Creativity should be encouraged.

 

How does the reviewers requested changes discourage creative ideas? The OP (and no one else) has yet to explain how making these minor changes would ruin this cache. Creativity will still be very much intact.

That's valid point but how does hiding a film can outside the library make it better? My point is that it's fine the way it is and either way the finders are going to use a GPS or they're not depending on how well they know the area.

 

Think about it. You use essentially the same coords, hide a micro there and all of a sudden a cacher that lives around the corner is going to need his GPS to find it? The flip side to that coin is the cacher that lives 10 + miles away and doesn't know about the library is going to need a GPS in either case.

 

The bigger picture is that while the creativity of this particular cache may or may not be impacted, the creativity of future caches might by these constraints.

Link to comment
I do think we should be encouraging creative ideas to make geocaching more interesting.

 

Creativity should be encouraged.

 

How does the reviewers requested changes discourage creative ideas? The OP (and no one else) has yet to explain how making these minor changes would ruin this cache. Creativity will still be very much intact.

This is not a question of creativity. Numerous people on here have stated ideas for making this cache "better". The reviewers aren't trying to give me advice on how to make my cache better (atleast not as their main focus), but instead are saying that as my cache currently stands it does not meet the guidelines of GPS usage. I don't think there's a Creativity Guideline out there. We're discussing whether or not this cache, as it currently stands, fits the guidelines for approval.

 

If you'd like, we can start another thread later for my so-called lack of creativity.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
I do think we should be encouraging creative ideas to make geocaching more interesting.

 

Creativity should be encouraged.

 

How does the reviewers requested changes discourage creative ideas? The OP (and no one else) has yet to explain how making these minor changes would ruin this cache. Creativity will still be very much intact.

Groundspeak lists caches. Cache owners hide caches. Hiding a cache is askin to an art. Owners invest a lot of time in finding a location making a log, creating or modifying the container to fit their vision and they become invested in that vision.

 

When a reviewer or anyone else tells them to modify their vision, it may be meant in a good way, but it's still messing with a persons vision on thier cache, the thing they have sweated over and gotten the way they want.

 

Not all cache owners are DaVinci when it comes to their skill and art, but they are all as invested as any artist in their work and to ask them to change should not be taken lightly.

 

Does this cache harm the game? No. It has permission. Can you use a GPS? yes. It takes you to the library. Does requiring a modification make it a better cache? No, it only tweaks how the GPS is used. Does the modification muck with the owners vision? Yes or why the heck would they have posted the thread!

 

The cache should be approved as fitting the current guidelines because you can use a GPS as part of the cache finding process. The hair being split is essentially pointless on the part of the reivewer staff.

 

However since that hair was split and the reivewers have mostly said "do it!" as the cache owner you might as well, buckle up and either modify your cache or list it somehwere else that recognizes that a GPS is a tool, not a cache. This is caching, not GPS Usage 101. It was not the thrill of a GPS that got me involved in this game.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I still haven't seen an answer to my question from last night - what is the purpose of this guideline? WHY was it written? Obviously there's a reason, but no one who's posted yet seems to know what that reason is.

 

The only plausible explanation I've come up with is that Groundspeak needs something in the rulebook to differentiate geocaching from letterboxing in order to protect themselves for some legal reason, such as intellectual property rights, patent rights, whatever. Here's WHY I think this.

 

Quoting Keystone:

"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."

 

Is that what we're doing here, admins? Arguing for days over a CYA rule for Groundspeak's benefit and/or legal protection? If so, then the questions that have been raised about cave caches, night caches, etc are all perfectly valid, and I think some clarification is needed. None of us would argue your right to protect what you've got here, but does such protection HAVE to require that these types caches are denied on that basis alone?

 

Or, am I way off base in my thinking? Maybe I'm dead wrong. If so, then would SOMEONE please provide some other logical reason as to why this guideline was added to the books?

Link to comment
I still haven't seen an answer to my question from last night - what is the purpose of this guideline?  WHY was it written?  Obviously there's a reason, but no one who's posted yet seems to know what that reason is.  ...

I think most cachers would agree that geocaching is a hobby whereby individuals use coordinates to find a hidden object. Conversely, if coordinates are not needed, then it isn't geocaching. Therefore, geocaches should not be approved if coordinates are not required to find the object.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I still haven't seen an answer to my question from last night - what is the purpose of this guideline?  WHY was it written?  Obviously there's a reason, but no one who's posted yet seems to know what that reason is.  ...

I think most cachers would agree that geocaching is a hobby whereby individuals use coordinates to find a hidden object. Conversely, if coordinates are not needed, then it isn't geocaching. Therefore, geocaches should not be approved if coordinates are not required to find the object.

I certainly won't disagree with you here. I think there are valid arguments for both sides of that argument. However, I think in some way it is also a separate (while closely related) argument.

If coordinates are all you are given for finding an object, then how can you not be attempting to encourage the use of a GPS unit?

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
I still haven't seen an answer to my question from last night - what is the purpose of this guideline?  WHY was it written?  Obviously there's a reason, but no one who's posted yet seems to know what that reason is.  ...

I think most cachers would agree that geocaching is a hobby whereby individuals use coordinates to find a hidden object. Conversely, if coordinates are not needed, then it isn't geocaching. Therefore, geocaches should not be approved if coordinates are not required to find the object.

The "puritans" object to caches inside of buildings (including libraries). If the cache is inside a building and my GPSr doesn't work in a building how could this be a geocache? We have already seen that the "puritans" have a lot of influence. They have gotten new virutals banned. I'm really not sure why the guideline just doesn't state that a cache can't be hidden in a building. I suppose that is because some puritans accept caches in building so long as it is a part of a multi or puzzle cache where you still use a GPS to find something outside as part of the hunt. Interestingly, that something doesn't have to be a cache - it can be an object like a virtual cache :laughing:

Link to comment
I still haven't seen an answer to my question from last night - what is the purpose of this guideline?  WHY was it written?  Obviously there's a reason, but no one who's posted yet seems to know what that reason is.  ...

I think most cachers would agree that geocaching is a hobby whereby individuals use coordinates to find a hidden object. Conversely, if coordinates are not needed, then it isn't geocaching. Therefore, geocaches should not be approved if coordinates are not required to find the object.

If that is the case then the questions regarding the future legitimacy of night caches, cave/tunnel caches, etc are all valid. This is of special concern to me, as I WAS ramping up to do a night cache that relies on the use of reflectors. Obviously there would be a starting point, however I'm no longer sure if that's good enough to meet this guideline. What's the difference between the coords to a library door or to a spot on a trail where you should start to look for a reflector? If there is a difference, what's the basis for its determination? I definitely want to know the answer, because I'm not going to move forward with my night cache only to have it shot down based on this guideline. It will take WAY too much time and effort for that. Without further clarification, I'll simply not do that hide.

 

Now how does my NOT doing such a hide benefit anyone? Isn't that what we're all here for? :laughing:

 

 

Edit: Less sarcasm.

Edited by DocDiTTo
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...