Jump to content

Cache Not Approved, Your Help Needed


AZBuckeye04
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

I know that previous caches hardly ever have any weight when compared to a cache you're attempting to get approved. However, here are two caches that were approved either the same day or after my cache was first denied:

 

GCT276

This cache: Provides coordinates for the trail/highway intersection and for a parking lot

My cache: Provides coordinates to the building while at the same time NOT specifying the object that the coordinates are for. (if you want, I'll add coords to the parking lot)

 

This cache: From here you read a description to help you determine how to find the cache. No GPS usage is apparent.

My cache: Provides a code in the format '123.45 ABC' with nothing (other than the encrypted hint) specifying that the code is Dewey Decimal.

 

GCT10M

This cache: Provides a set of coordinates that don't appear to have any purpose (although I'll admit that they could, obviously I only know what is on the cache page) along with parking lot coords

My cache: Provides coordinates to the building while at the same time NOT specifying the object that the coordinates are for.

 

This cache: A very detailed story appears to guide you along to help you find the cache.

My cache: Provides coordinates to the building while at the same time NOT specifying the object that the coordinates are for.

 

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with these caches. Not only do I agree with their approval, I think they sound like a ton of fun!

 

Again, one of these was approved the same day I submitted my cache. The other was approved on Monday, possibly after this thread was started (certainly after all the reviewers had a chance to discuss and deny my cache in their private forum).

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
...

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.

Very nice.

 

I didn't connect the dots to several of my own caches. One in a cave. One planned that uses a UV Trail and which cost me a heck of a lot of money to put together. Another that uses a mix of clues and no coordinates for it's ultimate find (though a GPS would be helpful).

 

The GPS is a tool. The cache is the goal. The cache and hunt make it fun. Not how you do it. Even more I detest rule. It's unintented consequences reach too far and it's intent was already too much.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I think most cachers would agree that geocaching is a hobby whereby individuals use coordinates to find a hidden object. 

 

I agree, but note that using coordinates does not necessarily mean using a GPS-r. I would not restrict geocaching to searching for objects that are hidden at places where it can be guaranteed that it is not possible to find the location with the help of maps, hints etc, but without a GPS-r. (The usage of a GPS-r should be possible, but not be a must!)

 

Conversely, if coordinates are not needed, then it isn't geocaching. 

 

It obviously depends on your definition of "coordinates" whether this statement will

receive broad agreement.

 

Objects like a specific cave, the summit cross of a mountain, a statue in a city are located at fixed locations and thus obviously coordinates are available and can be used to locate the objects. A very large number of objects of interest in our world can be found in different ways, not only via usage of GPS-devices which only make use of given coordinates. If you wish to exclude all caches which are hidden at places which can be approached in alternative ways than just following the pointer of a basic GPS-r, then many cachers will not share your opinion. The vast majority of the caches I have found so far, can be found by alternative methods meaning that coordinates are not required in a certain sense.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I know that previous caches hardly ever have any weight when compared to a cache you're attempting to get approved. However, here are two caches that were approved either the same day or after my cache was first denied:

 

>snip cache descriptions<

Previous caches never have any weight. I've learned this the hard way as well.

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache.
Link to comment

I can't believe people are still responding to this thread. OP, the horse you are beating is dead and won't get up.

 

The cache you want approved is just like some existing caches, even one here in San Francisco at the main library, but they don't approve caches just like that anymore. The ones that still exist are Grandfathered, but that doesn't help you any.

 

Change the cache as follows. Put a sticker (waterproof) somewhere on the library grounds that has nothing on it but the call number of the logbook. Make the coordinates of the sticker the coordinates of the cache. Make the cache a multi. Talk about how much you like the library. A good geocacher will know what to do...

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.

EXACTLY.... coordinates are needed, not a GPS..... unless of course this whole website is just a cover for GPS advertising and sales.

Link to comment

Those who argue in favor of creativity are furthering the activity. A constant diet of same old , same old will do nothing for the activity. Reading Edscotts method of location is interesting to say the least and certainly should be promoted as part of the sport. Imagine a cache where you are specifically asked to forego use of a GPS and just use maps and compass. That would be a great pursuit. I suspect that if approvals become more difficult there will be an increased number of club caches, available for club members only and limited in time periods. Should be approved as designed.

Link to comment

The cache you want approved is just like some existing caches, even one here in San Francisco at the main library, but they don't approve caches just like that anymore.

How do you actually prove your statement (which is wrong by the way)? I am aware of quite a number of caches that have been approved after November 2 in Europe (by various different reviewers) where GPS-usage even plays a smaller role than in the cache which initiated this thread.

 

Moreover, how do you define "caches just like that"? Does it include the many other types of caches mentioned above (many types of cave caches, night caches, summit caches etc)?

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I can't believe people are still responding to this thread. OP, the horse you are beating is dead and won't get up.

 

The cache you want approved is just like some existing caches, even one here in San Francisco at the main library, but they don't approve caches just like that anymore. The ones that still exist are Grandfathered, but that doesn't help you any.

 

Change the cache as follows. Put a sticker (waterproof) somewhere on the library grounds that has nothing on it but the call number of the logbook. Make the coordinates of the sticker the coordinates of the cache. Make the cache a multi. Talk about how much you like the library. A good geocacher will know what to do...

Please, if you wouldn't mind (I know we're up to 4 pages now) go back and actually read all of this thread. Not only have numerous people explained why this thread is yelling out "I'm not dead yet", but it has also been stated numerous times that I am aware of ways that I could do the cache differently. If my cache did not follow the guidelines then I would be doing something different, however myself and the majority of those posting in here do not feel that way.

 

AZBliss02

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

 

Just to help clarify for some people, this is where we are at now.

 

There have been explanations on both sides. It appears (to me anyway) that the reasoning behind each view has been flushed out as much as it will. So it seems, we are in the stage of voting yay or nay on this one.

 

So, this is not over until everyone has voted, and/or the admins make one final re-evaluation of this cache's approval.

 

In case it wasn't clear before, I vote yay. I believe the way this cache is set up, without modification, meets the intent and letter of the guidlines for use of a GPSr. Though, if AZBliss02 wants to modify it, for whatever reason, and resubmit it with the changes, that should be ok too.

 

- bones

 

Edited becuase my skinny fingers sometimes think they are fat.

Edited by bones10
Link to comment
There have been explanations on both sides. It appears (to me anyway) that the reasoning behind each view has been flushed out as much as it will. So it seems, we are in the stage of voting yay or nay on this one.

 

So, this is not over until everyone has voted, and/or the admins make one final re-evaluation of this cache's approval.

I would have to agree with you bones. The other day I posted a tally of those that obviously stated whether they agreed or disagreed that the cache is approvable "as is". I have gone back through from that point and now have the following:

 

27 of you have expressed that this cache is approvable "as is". (I did not include myself)

 

12 have stated that they agree with the reviewer and the cache should NOT be approved until the cache is changed. (Note that this does include a reviewers vote)

 

10 have supplied information or asked further questions but haven't expressed whether they are for or against.

 

I'm not asking for a final decision from the reviewers & administrators right now. But it would be nice to know, has this reached the next level of the appeal process as stated in the guidelines?

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

 

I thought maybe since Keystone hasn't responded (nor has any other reviewer) since my first tally that maybe this was happening and if it is great, but it would be nice to know for sure. I was also wondering if maybe Keystone went on vacation, but a quick glance at his account shows he's been on today.

 

So to reemphasize my question:

Dear ANY reviewer or administrator: Has this moved on to the next step in the appeal process and is it currently being discussed?

 

Thanks,

AZBliss02

 

P.S. Again, I can't express thanks enough to everyone that has posted something meaningful in this thread. Whether you agreed or disagreed everyone has been very respectful and I can honestly say that while I never expected the discussion to carry this long, I would have never expected it to have continued in such good fashion either.

Link to comment
I think all the reviewers are ignoring this thread on purpose :laughing:

 

I have seen many many caches brought up in the forums, and I have *never* seen the reviewers change their mind, unless the cache was changed as requested. I doubt it will happen this time either.

Maybe this would be the reason that no reviewers of mods have been in here lately?

 

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.

 

Just a thought. They were in here nicely answering questions that people posted, but have not been since the quote that I posted.

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment
I think all the reviewers are ignoring this thread on purpose :laughing:

 

I have seen many many caches brought up in the forums, and I have *never* seen the reviewers change their mind, unless the cache was changed as requested. I doubt it will happen this time either.

Maybe this would be the reason that no reviewers of mods have been in here lately?

 

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.

 

Just a thought. They were in here nicely answering questions that people posted, but have not been since the quote that I posted.

That is a good point Ambrosia. Clearly I did not make those comments and I am fully aware that in order for this to be fully discussed the reviewers have to be able to weigh in with their arguments.

 

Please Mods/Reviewers, I hope you're atleast lurking around even if you aren't posting. I did not say you should leave and if this is why there have been no remarks made by any of you, please disregard it and return.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
I can't believe people are still responding to this thread. OP, the horse you are beating is dead and won't get up.

Perhaps reading more of the posts in this "dead horse" thread would be a good idea before you pass judgement on the whole thing. While the initial discussion was about one cache, it's certainly grown much later than that. (Forgive me, OP, if this is NOT where you intended your thread to go)

 

The implications of this discussion reach much further than one single solitary cache. What I think we'd all like to see is someone on the admin side provide a little clarification to this guideline, or at least some further insight as to whay it's here to begin with.

Link to comment
I think all the reviewers are ignoring this thread on purpose :laughing:

 

I have seen many many caches brought up in the forums, and I have *never* seen the reviewers change their mind, unless the cache was changed as requested. I doubt it will happen this time either.

Maybe the reviewers won't change their minds, but that doesn't mean it is a mistake (or beating a dead horse) to follow the appeals process to its full extent. For the appeals process to achieve validity in the eyes of many forum posters, some appeals should eventually find success. Otherwise, the process appears to serve little purpose. No one person/group (reviewers, mods, admins, cachers, forumites, etc.) can always be right even if they're working hard and have good intentions.

 

I hope the TPTB are following this thread in accordance with the appeals process. After allowing for substantial discussion, a majority favors the cache's approval, believing it is in accordance with current guidelines. Thus, the OP's question is certainly relevant in asking if it has moved to the next level.

Link to comment

I have to say this at the risk of going to the penalty box, if you don't see me posting here in the near future, it means I have been silenced again. No matter, as always I will call it the way I see it.

 

I was surprised to learn that the guidelines are being written by volunteer reviewers. While I have no problem with having a cache submittal reviewed by a volunteer based on the guidelines, I would have hoped that the guidelines would be set at a corporate level.

 

When I hear that a meeting is called in the reviewer lounge to discuss the guidelines as written, I have little faith that the intent of the guideline was understood by the other reviewers. If the intent needs to be discussed in the reviewer lounge, I am troubled because it would seem that the decision could go in any direction, based on what the writer says he meant at that particular time.

 

Locally, our reviewer has done an excellent job approving caches. However, when he has an idea on how the website should be run, or what data should be displayed, his voice is heard by the same ear that any other geocacher's voice would be heard. Great examples of this in the Geocaching website discussion forum. Luckily our differing personal opinions about these issues have not influenced the approval process. For that I am grateful, and humbled by his taking the high road.

 

I don't want my game being defined by the vision of any single person, be it a reviewer or anyone else. The exception here is Jeremy, of course, who has earned my respect over the years. That kind of respect comes from his steadfastness and fairness and his heart being in the right place. Even when we disagree, his steadfastness is to be respected. You don't earn my respect by , using RK's words, writing loosey goosey guidelines. Back to the drawing board with you, I say.

 

In this example that we are discussing, a GPS can be used as per the guidelines. The fact that someone thinks the Dewey Decimal number needs to be entered in a GPS is out of anyone's control. Geocaches will have DNF's and if you try to enter a Dewey Decimal number into a GPS, I think you are worthy of a DNF.

 

I'm not sure when any one person was granted power to determine how the game should be played, but maybe this was an oversight. Jeremy told me to never stop kicking the tires. Hopefully he will show up with his tire repair kit, because this one has sprung a leak.

Link to comment
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.

RK is right that hiders have a lot invested in their hides. Every single thread that has ever appeared where a hider appeals the decision where their cache was denied because it didn't meet the guidelines is the same. "Why was this cache approved and mine wasn't? Why aren't the guidelines specific so I would know before hiding my cache it wouldn't be approved." They also quote the sentence from the guidelines

 

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

as if Groundspeak were a democracy. I doubt that are very many cases where the approver's decision has been overturned. This is especially true when the approver has given specific suggestions on how to change the cache to meet the guidelines.

 

I think this thread has gone on for 5 pages, not because of the this particular cache, but because the guideline itself raises serious questions. Most agree that something needs to distinguish geocaching from other activities like letterboxing. That is the intent of the guideline. It does not require using a GPSr to find a cache. It only requires that the use of accurate coordinates be an integral part of a geocache hunt. It does not forbid library caches, cave caches, night caches, or caches that use letterboxing type clues for part of the hunt, although many existing caches of these types might not be approved under the new guidelines without modification.

 

I have tried to raise the following question: What constitute use of accurate coordinates?

 

The OP and his supporters make the claim that you can use the coordinates to drive to the library. I personally feel this does not constitute using the coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt. But it does raise the question of what does. Perhaps we need to start a new thread to discuss the guideline without the emotional ties to a particular cache. How can I hide a cache in a building, or in a tunnel, or a canyon where GPS reception is spotty, or use reflective tacks for a night cache, and be approved within the guideline?

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I have to say this at the risk of going to the penalty box, if you don't see me posting here in the near future, it means I have been silenced again. No matter, as always I will call it the way I see it.

 

I was surprised to learn that the guidelines are being written by volunteer reviewers. While I have no problem with having a cache submittal reviewed by a volunteer based on the guidelines, I would have hoped that the guidelines would be set at a corporate level.

 

When I hear that a meeting is called in the reviewer lounge to discuss the guidelines as written, I have little faith that the intent of the guideline was understood by the other reviewers. If the intent needs to be discussed in the reviewer lounge, I am troubled because it would seem that the decision could go in any direction, based on what the writer says he meant at that particular time.

 

Locally, our reviewer has done an excellent job approving caches. However, when he has an idea on how the website should be run, or what data should be displayed, his voice is heard by the same ear that any other geocacher's voice would be heard. Great examples of this in the Geocaching website discussion forum. Luckily our differing personal opinions about these issues have not influenced the approval process. For that I am grateful, and humbled by his taking the high road.

 

I don't want my game being defined by the vision of any single person, be it a reviewer or anyone else. The exception here is Jeremy, of course, who has earned my respect over the years. That kind of respect comes from his steadfastness and fairness and his heart being in the right place. Even when we disagree, his steadfastness is to be respected. You don't earn my respect by , using RK's words, writing loosey goosey guidelines. Back to the drawing board with you, I say.

 

In this example that we are discussing, a GPS can be used as per the guidelines. The fact that someone thinks the Dewey Decimal number needs to be entered in a GPS is out of anyone's control. Geocaches will have DNF's and if you try to enter a Dewey Decimal number into a GPS, I think you are worthy of a DNF.

 

I'm not sure when any one person was granted power to determine how the game should be played, but maybe this was an oversight. Jeremy told me to never stop kicking the tires. Hopefully he will show up with his tire repair kit, because this one has sprung a leak.

Just because a reviewer helped write some guidlines does not mean that they have power to determine how the game is played. I'm not sure where you are getting that. :laughing:

 

Jeremy cannot do everything. Obviously, he is going to draw from his pool of helpers. If they write something, it then would have to go before Jeremy for him to approve it. So of course Jeremy put his stamp of approval on this new tweak in the guidlines. And so if you respect Jeremy's judgement, then you should respect his choice in having a reviewer help write this and in him agreeing with it and putting it out to the general public.

Link to comment
The cache you want approved is just like some existing caches, even one here in San Francisco at the main library, but they don't approve caches just like that anymore. The ones that still exist are Grandfathered, but that doesn't help you any.

The one in Louisiana was approved December 29, 2005, less than 1 month ago.

Link to comment
I think this thread has gone on for 5 pages, not because of the this particular cache, but because the guideline itself raises serious questions.

 

<snip>

 

Perhaps we need to start a new thread to discuss the guideline without the emotional ties to a particular cache. How can I hide a cache in a building, or in a tunnel, or a canyon where GPS reception is spotty, or use reflective tacks for a night cache, and be approved within the guideline?

Agreed. This thread was started as an appeal to a decision, and evolved into a discussion of the guidelines. I'm certainly as much to blame for that as anyone. A new thread to discuss (and hopefully clarify) this guideline is in order. This thread should get back to doing its job as an appeal.

 

Unfortunately, I'm on the fence until I get some clarification on the guideline, its intent, and how we determine whether this specific type of cache is allowed. I won't vote for or against the appeal until I have more information.

 

So.... who wants to start a new thread?

Link to comment
The OP and his supporters make the claim that you can use the coordinates to drive to the library. I personally feel this does not constitute using the coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt. But it does raise the question of what does.

If you look at similar caches to the proposed, like the one I pointed out earlier, people use the co-ordinates not to find a library, but to find the spot where the cache is. That's when they figure out it's a library and where the cache is. That seems just about how a GPS is used on any cache hunt. It takes you to the location, then you figure out where the cache is.

Link to comment

In reading todays activity in this thread, I noticed several people clouding the issue. The guideline in question does not forbid night caches, caches in a building, or cave caches. It only requires that coordinates be part of the hunt. In the approver's opinion, the given coords were not required in this case, so he asked the cache owner for a revision.

 

The only thing at issue, in my opinion, is whether the cache as written made sufficient use of coords. In my oinion, it had, but that's just one person's opinion. The idea that we should all vote and the cache will be approved based on that is somewhat silly. This is not a democracy.

Link to comment
The idea that we should all vote and the cache will be approved based on that is somewhat silly. This is not a democracy.

Then the appeal process has no value and should be removed from the guidelines. Judging from what I've seen here, most people have no faith in the appeal process anyway. If it is truly useless or carries no weight, it should be removed.

 

But that's the subject for yet another thread. :laughing:

Link to comment
Judging from here, we have people who think this vote will automatically overturn the decision. This, of course, is not true, nor is it what is advertised as being true.

 

Besides, the suggested change not only is a minor thing, but could make this cache much better, in my opinion.

Quote from page 2 of this thread and the guidelines concerning the approval/appeals process: "If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived."

 

The majority does not automatically overturn a decision, but this guideline clearly indicates that the majority is supposed to be a factor. Although each cacher has his/her own tastes, in this case I feel the cache would be weakened by the extra micro or related tweaking.

Link to comment

Now I am no pro at this kind of thing, but I have had a few GREAT ideas that weren't allowed when others were. My suggestion would be rather than fit the system, just modify it as they ask. A suggestion that would work with your very well planned out log would be to do the following;

GPS to a location that gives the cords for the library. They then use the cords to the get to the library. Take the library name completely out of it. That should help it pass the guide lines. When they go into the library and follow your system to get to the book, that either ends it at the log book or the book would containt the cords to another location for the final cache. What a sweet multi-cache!

Link to comment

/On Soapbox If I may, I would like to pose a couple of questions. How many people came to geocaching before the 'guideline' in question was imposed? When people use a compass and a map to find a cache, does anyone believe that at some point it doesn't cross their minds that it would be easier with a GPS?

With these two questions in mind, I would like to point out that the 'guideline' seems to serve little purpose and, particularly in a case where coordinates are still given instead of a place name or actual directions. Yes, the original idea behind the sport was to locate a box with a GPS. But was that actually a necessity even then?

I have 'lurked', watching this thread for some time now. I have seen both long time users and new users state that they believe the cache should be left as is. I have not seen a compelling argument that it needs to be changed, only arguments that state that the reviewers will not change their minds so it should be changed.

I keep reading that 'there are really no rules, just guidelines', yet it would seem that, at least in this case, an attempt is being made to create an actual rule. Fine, if that is the case, then create a set of rules for this version of the sport and be done with it, but why mask the issue by calling them guidelines?

I will have to vote with the cache owner on this one. If a compelling reason, a reason that can really be said to have importance over the stark simplicity that this cache represents for the sport can be made, I will review my decision in that light.

 

Having said all of that, I also wish to state that as one of the many disabled Americans that try to enjoy the sport, this kind of cache is most welcome (have you got any idea how we drool when we see some of those extreme caches knowing that there is absolutely no physical way we will ever be able to try them?)/Off Soapbox

 

Docdigit

 

edited for content

Edited by docdigit
Link to comment
The idea that we should all vote and the cache will be approved based on that is somewhat silly.  This is not a democracy.

Then the appeal process has no value and should be removed from the guidelines. Judging from what I've seen here, most people have no faith in the appeal process anyway. If it is truly useless or carries no weight, it should be removed.

 

But that's the subject for yet another thread. :)

The appeals process only works if the reviewer made a bad decision. If the reviewer is truly upholding the guildlines, I don't think that any amount of voting is going to change that. If anything, by making it so public, there is less of a chance of getting it changed because it sets such a public precedence. It could create a nightmare of new threads and such for the forums.

 

And the appeals process does work. I have seen some caches get approved after being featured in the forums. But I'm just thinking that this one aint gonna happen. The reviewers all seem to agree that this cache does not uphold these new guidlines.

 

It was hard for me when they got more strict with virtuals. It was hard for me when they made the .1 distance guidline. But after a while, I got used to it and learned how to work around it. And these guidlines ultimately made sense, even if they were hard on me personally. I never expected to come in here and try to get some of the caches that I wanted to get approved voted on by my peers. I knew that I wasn't meeting these new guidlines, so I didn't bother.

Link to comment

The fact that AZBliss02 can change his cache to be approved is not being questioned. In this appeals process, the question is if people think his cache as it is now should be approved.

 

Discussion of how this decision affects approvals on other/future caches, I believe is relevant as well becuase the decision on this cache will set a sort of precedent in reviewers' minds.

 

I think it is relevant for people to explain their views on caches where the coordinates get you to the starting place for the hunt which continues without the aid of a GPS unit.

 

As has been mentioned, the decision to unarchive AZBliss02's cache may occur based on our opinions. Or it may not, but this is the appeals process we have.

 

- bones

Link to comment

Yes, it is wonderful to have this appeals process. And I'm glad that we can all discuss this in the forums.

 

I think that the reviewers have decided that this cache does not fit the guidelines. I don't think that they will approve it, no matter how much we vote on it. I think that the only thing that this thread could possibly do is maybe get the guidline re-looked at.

Link to comment
If anything, by making it so public, there is less of a chance of getting it changed because it sets such a public precedence. It could create a nightmare of new threads and such for the forums.

Maybe, but I didn't create the appeals process, I'm just trying to follow it to the 'T' to give it the best chance.

 

Also, I have not once said, "I have the majority vote, this cache should be approved." I'm only trying to bring light to the fact that the majority is agreeing which meets a part of the appeal process so that maybe it can move onto the next phase.

 

I know that the reviewers originally discussed this amongst themselves and decided to not approve it. That's part of the process. However, it is now suppose to go back to them and they are suppose to enlist the advice of the administrators to come up with a final judgement.

 

I'm not looking for some miracle approval or anything. I'm just giving my cache (in its current condition) every fighting chance that TPTB have decided it deserves by creating the appeal process.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
Yes, it is wonderful to have this appeals process. And I'm glad that we can all discuss this in the forums.

 

I think that the reviewers have decided that this cache does not fit the guidelines. I don't think that they will approve it, no matter how much we vote on it. I think that the only thing that this thread could possibly do is maybe get the guidline re-looked at.

I think the appeal process is mostly to get feedback by TPTB. They know what the reviewers think since they have access to their forums and communicate. It's what the larger community thinks that this appeal process brings out.

 

If things are not like they envisioned them then they can effect a change and approve the cache. If they are, then the cache doesn't get approved.

 

That's my opinion. I'm not TPTB.

Link to comment

Thanks to the OP for bringing up an interesting topic. Makes for fun conversation.

 

In pro football, when there is a questionable referee call that is under the review, there must be irrefutable evidence on instant replay to overturn the ref's call. If it's close, the ref's call on the field stands.

 

I believe a reviewer's opinion should only be overturned when there is irrefutable evidence that their judgment is wrong. Otherwise, publishing listings will get so bogged down in red tape in will become a nightmare. I believe that TPTB have a responsibility to trust their hand-picked reviewers' ability to ensure compliance with the guidelines. Like the Tuna once said, "If they expect you to cook the dinner, they ought to let you buy the groceries." If I'm going to expect a volunteer to sift through tons of potential cache listing, I'm gonna support their decisions except in the most extreme of situations.

 

To those who demand more stringent guidelines, I disagree. I think that works against us. I also don't have a problem with some reviewers differing in their interpretations of the guideline. We have 9 Supreme Court Justices that have debated a single document for a couple hundred years. No matter the wording, there will be debate. Keep 'em loose. (BTW- since others brought it in to the debate, has there been a rash of un-approved night caches, cave caches, etc due to this same type of guideline interpretation? Is this actually a current problem?

 

The OP wants to know if this should be aproved as is. I say no, and the reason is there is not enough compelling evidence to overturn the reviewers original opinion- that the cache need minor adjustments to be published.

 

t was hard for me when they got more strict with virtuals. It was hard for me when they made the .1 distance guidline. But after a while, I got used to it and learned how to work around it. And these guidlines ultimately made sense, even if they were hard on me personally. I never expected to come in here and try to get some of the caches that I wanted to get approved voted on by my peers. I knew that I wasn't meeting these new guidlines, so I didn't bother.

 

The fact of the matter is this isn't a democracy. They don't have to explain why this guideline is in place. Some listing sites ask you to rate caches on a scale before you've evn found the. Weird to me, but it's THEIR vision for THEIR listing site. I'll make whatever changes to a cache that my reviewer requires, because he was chosen by the TPTB to make decisions. If I don't like it, I can list it somewhere else. I probably would make the changes, just because I just haven't been so attached to a cache that it would bug me to make a change. (and that I've never been asked to make a change in the first place)

 

Obviously, this discussion is part of the appeal process, and is being carried out correctly. (BTW, regardless of whether people think the appeal is useless because it never results in unarchiving a cache, its good that it's allowed, cause they could just say "tough luck." I think it serves a purpose, even if it doesn't change "that" cache)

Link to comment

My vote may not count because we haven't found very many caches but here goes with a couple of thoughts and a vote.

 

It appears to me that the coordinates are integral to this cache. If you did not have them, you would not be able to go to google/mapquest/etc to figure out that this is in fact, a library. (The cache description did not give a building name or mention that it is a library.)

 

I did not note what the hider intended as a terrain listing but based on the information provided, I'm assuming it is intended to be a "true" terrain 1 cache. (fully wheelchair accessible). Hiding a micro outside in a place that will not be muggled is very likely to require placement in a location that is not easily wheelchair accessible and thus bump the terrain listing. (If this library is anything like mine, "muggles' here include young teens/tweens waiting outside for their parents to pick them up so finding a convenient muggle-free area might be particularly difficult.)

 

In addition, adding an outside micro or other type of outside step would change this from a cache that could be done in any type of weather conditions.

 

In my opinion, both of these change the nature/character of the cache. I understand that many think this change would be for the better because it makes the cache more difficult but having a particular difficulty level is NOT a requirement for placing a cache.

 

I agree with those who do not see a difference between this cache and one specifying the entrance of a cave or other location that does not have gps reception.

 

My vote is that this cache should be approved under the current guidelines.

 

~J of TeamRJMK~ ... now returing to lurker mode...

Link to comment
Thanks to the OP for bringing up an interesting topic. Makes for fun conversation.

 

In pro football, when there is a questionable referee call that is under the review, there must be irrefutable evidence on instant replay to overturn the ref's call. If it's close, the ref's call on the field stands.

 

I believe a reviewer's opinion should only be overturned when there is irrefutable evidence that their judgment is wrong.

... And the cache hider loses a timeout. :)

Link to comment
...In pro football, when there is a questionable referee call that is under the review, there must be irrefutable evidence on instant replay to overturn the ref's call. If it's close, the ref's call on the field stands. ...

Some things are easy.

 

There is a log, or there isn't a log. Instant replay. "No log, the reivewers call stands,."

 

Some things aren't as easy.

 

The Cache encourages the use of a GPS

vs.

It's worth your while to use a GPS on this cache.

 

How would that look on instant replay? "Lets take a look at that in slow motion Stan what do you see..." "Frank I see a GPS and it's in his hand but was it encouraged or is it just an accessory?...it's hard to say..." "Stan I have to agree with you here, he's got a GPS, it's in his hand but I just can't tell which way to swing it. Clearly the reviewer wanted a GPS and there it is, just like the owner said it would be...How can they both be right?" "I don't know Frank, it's a tough call, it could go either way, fortunatly this really isn't the NFL, let's poll the audience..."

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
I believe a reviewer's opinion should only be overturned when there is irrefutable evidence that their judgment is wrong. Otherwise, publishing listings will get so bogged down in red tape in will become a nightmare. I believe that TPTB have a responsibility to trust their hand-picked reviewers' ability to ensure compliance with the guidelines. Like the Tuna once said, "If they expect you to cook the dinner, they ought to let you buy the groceries." If I'm going to expect a volunteer to sift through tons of potential cache listing, I'm gonna support their decisions except in the most extreme of situations.

 

To those who demand more stringent guidelines, I disagree. I think that works against us. I also don't have a problem with some reviewers differing in their interpretations of the guideline. We have 9 Supreme Court Justices that have debated a single document for a couple hundred years. No matter the wording, there will be debate. Keep 'em loose. (BTW- since others brought it in to the debate, has there been a rash of un-approved night caches, cave caches, etc due to this same type of guideline interpretation? Is this actually a current problem?

Very well said! You should be a reviewer :)

Link to comment

I followed this thread for the first two pages or so. I stopped reading when the discussion stopped being productive. Many great suggestions were made by both the original reviewer and the general geocaching community on how to make this cache listable.

 

I had a cache that was virtually the same in my review territory. I suggested the same thing that's been suggested here, a micro near the library with instructions that lead cachers to the final cache. In my case the cacher made the change the cache was listed and has been very successful.

 

If the OP had simply made the change asked of him in the first place this cache would already be published and the local cachers would be enjoying the hide. The time has come for us to all agree to disagree on this subject. The original reviewer has indicated what is necessary for this cache to be listed. If the OP chooses not to comply he is free to list this cache with another listing service.

Link to comment

Perhaps you should have read the whole thread before replying, then.

 

If you had, you would have found that fully 2/3 of the people that have replied feel that the cache meets the guidelines without any changes whatsoever.

 

You would also have found that in many people's opinion the guideline that is in question could easily be interpreted in such a way that other caches- night caches, cave caches, etc would no longer be allowable. No, there is not a rash of them being disallowed at this point, but under the interpretation of this guideline that is being enforced in this case all of those others would not be allowable.

 

Yes, the OP could have just knuckled under and made the changes, but he chose to bring the issue into the light so that in the future the guideline in question could have a more definite interpretation. I applaud him for doing so.

 

For those that keep saying that coordinates are not needed for this cache:

 

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!

 

There you have the whole cache description except the coordinates.

 

Even knowing from this thread that the cache is in a library and that the numbers in the cache name are dewey numbers, could you find this cache without the coordinates?

 

I know I couldn't. How many thousands of libraries are there in the US?

 

The description doesn't even tell you that it IS a library. So, how many places in any given town have hours that they are open?

 

Without the GPS coordinates the cache is impossible to do, so it would seem logical that they are an intregal part of the cache- just like the guideline requests.

 

Yes, some very few people might attempt to do it without an actual GPS (just like every other cache) but (just like every other cache) the vast majority is going to pull out their GPS when they go for it.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...