Jump to content

Cache Not Approved, Your Help Needed


AZBuckeye04
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

What if you kept the cache the way it is, except when you got to the part inside the library, it contained coordinates to the actual cache in a nearby park rather than the logbook and trade items? This would satisfy the GPS requirements in the guidelines, still maintain the desire of having to find the stage inside the library, and keep from having to put a hide-a-key under a bench outside.

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 will have to respectfully disagree. I have seen quite a few threads where the OP was clearly just ticked off that their cache wasn't listed, even though it CLEARLY fell outside of the guidelines.

 

Typically, the hider comes in with a chip on his/her shoulder and only presents the facts that support their claims. After all of the facts come to light, the forum community overwhelmingly sides with the reviewer, and after a tantrum from the hider, the thread gets locked.

 

It hasn't happened in this thread. Posts have been very civil. The OP presented his case in a very even-handed manner. The bulk of the forum community agrees with the OP. This thread is the model for how the review process SHOULD work.

 

I hope the reviewer takes this opportunity to re-think the decision, but even if

(s)he doesn't, at least we got to talk about it. I think this thread has been great!

Link to comment

The OP wrote

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.

 

Well, that's not completely true. We are still discussing it, though the consensus is against publishing it as currently written.

 

One concern I have that has not been addressed here is that you live 1600 miles from the cache location (cache is in Ohio, owner in Arizona). Is that a factor in your inflexibility when it comes to making the minor changes many have recommended? Your cache page notes that local geocaching friends will maintain the cache once they find it, but as a cache reviewer I'm still concerned.

 

A second concern not addressed on your cache page or the "notes to reviewer" is the permission issue. Maybe I missed it, but did the librarian approve your fake book being on the shelves?

 

Thanks!

 

edited to correct second concern - I did find a note indicating that the librarian approved the location. sorry.

 

erik - geocaching.com adminion

Edited by erik88l-r
Link to comment
The OP wrote
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.

 

Well, that's not completely true. We are still discussing it, though the consensus is against publishing it as currently written.

 

One concern I have that has not been addressed here is that you live 1600 miles from the cache location (cache is in Ohio, owner in Arizona). Is that a factor in your inflexibility when it comes to making the minor changes many have recommended? Your cache page notes that local geocaching friends will maintain the cache once they find it, but as a cache reviewer I'm still concerned.

 

A second concern not addressed on your cache page or the "notes to reviewer" is the permission issue. Maybe I missed it, but did the librarian approve your fake book being on the shelves?

 

Thanks!

 

edited to correct second concern - I did find a note indicating that the librarian approved the location. sorry.

 

erik - geocaching.com adminion

Just wondering if any of the admins feel this could be list as is. I don't need names but is it 1 out of 6, 3 out of 7 or whatever?

Link to comment
It hasn't happened in this thread. Posts have been very civil. The OP presented his case in a very even-handed manner. The bulk of the forum community agrees with the OP. This thread is the model for how the review process SHOULD work.

 

I'm not disaggreeing with this. In fact, I stated as much in my previous post. This is how the appeal should work, and it's a worthy attempt.

 

I'm just saying there's not enough substance here to overturn the reviewer's "call on the field" in this particular case. Quiggle just provided another great way to get this cache passed quickly. There is no "inherent barrier" that the OP can give to prevent his cache from being published. I think when the reviewer suggests a minor change to get a cache approved, the hider must prove why this change would negatively affect the cache. Otherwise, we're given no reason to overturn the original decision.

 

Nothing wrong with the process, though.

Link to comment
One concern I have that has not been addressed here is that you live 1600 miles from the cache location (cache is in Ohio, owner in Arizona).  Is that a factor in your inflexibility when it comes to making the minor changes many have recommended?  Your cache page notes that local geocaching friends will maintain the cache once they find it, but as a cache reviewer I'm still concerned. 

 

Is this concern actually playing into the decision? If the concerns were raised and addressed adequately, then that should no longer be part of the discussion. If the distance issue is still a concern, then perhaps the OP needs to find out how to address that problem seperately in a manner that will re-assure the reviewer(s).

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
One concern I have that has not been addressed here is that you live 1600 miles from the cache location (cache is in Ohio, owner in Arizona).  Is that a factor in your inflexibility when it comes to making the minor changes many have recommended?  Your cache page notes that local geocaching friends will maintain the cache once they find it, but as a cache reviewer I'm still concerned.

I can fully understand your concern. In fact this question did come up earlier in the forums, but it was mixed in with a number of other things and my response may not have been clear. The short answer for that is essentially NO, it has no factor in my course of action. My manner in describing the following is not done to belittle ANYONE, simply to bring attention to a few things that have been repeatedly mentioned in this forum.

 

I KNOW THE CACHE COULD BE CHANGED

 

There have been numerous, numerous, numerous suggestions on ways to better my cache. If you'd like, let's just start bringing up every cache listed and provide ways to improve it. Thank you to everyone that has given a suggestion on improving the cache, but that's not the purpose of this thread. I will admit that there have been some suggestions that I have liked and may even consider doing regardless of the outcome.

 

HOWEVER, please FORGET about what could be done to better this cache. I know it's an easy change and I could just easily make it (regardless of distance as I am in contact with those who will maintain it), that is not the problem. The problem is, I feel (along with others) that the cache as described meets the guidelines for approval. I would think that with a guideline such as this (with a grey area) that we wouldn't be splitting hairs and it would be as simple as, "Well, you provide accurate coordinates that if not provided would make this find impossible, and even though they only get the cacher half way to finding the cache, atleast GPS usage is available for that portion of the search, so go for it."

 

Think about it like this, if I was to take the coordinates (that I plan for people to use their GPSr with) out of the equation, my full cache description would be like this:

 

There is something hidden somewhere on this earth. Use this code to help you find it. Good luck.

 

I'm thinking I won't see to many logs on that cache.

 

And yes, I agree this has gone beyond my cache as it appears this guideline could have an affect on other future caches. I'm okay with this cache serving as an example and others (such as caves, night caches, etc.) also being examples as to why their is concern over this guideline.

 

I can see why a guideline such as this is necessary. But it was just incorporated in the most recent guidelines change. Things go through a trial and error process and hardly anyone is capable of perfection the first time around. I'm a programmer and I know that no matter how well I think I've programmed something, the first couple times a user gets their hands on it, they're gonna find a way to break it. And that's why projects don't meet deadlines. :blink:

 

AZBliss02

 

P.S. I know I just typed a crapload of stuff again (I have a habit of letting my thoughts run wild). So to summarize: No, the distance between myself and the cache is NOT an issue.

Link to comment
...

 

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?

Docapi has provided a nice way to test if the guideline is met. Can you find the cache if the coordinates are not listed? It actually has me changing my mind and agreeing that the cache should be approved without change.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Trying to clarify my view a little better. because I don't think it's understood.

 

I KNOW THE CACHE COULD BE CHANGED

 

The fact that it CAN be changed in a minor way IS germane to the issue. They should not be seperated. I looked at the original OP and actually can't find the specific question, but I believe it is "should this cache be aproved as is?" I'm saying no, and the reason has everything to do with the lack of flexibility. It can't be aproved as is, because a reviewer has to okay it, and your reviewer has said no. The only reason to overturn a reviewer's decision is if they have screwed up the interpretation of the guideline completely. Otherwise it's an INTERPRETATION- he has his, and you have yours. We all have ours. The fact that there are so many workable alternatives has a great bearing on why your current configuration shouldn't be passed. If there were no other ways to do your cache, I would say the reviewer was not being flexible enough, and your cache should probably be aproved as is. It seems he is being quite flexible in working with you, therefore his original judgment should be supported.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion, and again I feel this has been a good appeal and use of the system. :blink:

Edited by Googling Hrpty Hrrs
Link to comment
If there were no other ways to do your cache, I would say the reviewer was not being flexible enough, and your cache should probably be aproved as is. It seems he is being quite flexible in working with you, therefore his original judgment should be supported.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion, and again I feel this has been a good appeal and use of the system. :)

The problem with that approach is that any cache CAN be modified whether the changes are needed or not.

 

The crux of the matter is whether this cache HAS to be changed to meet the current guidelines. I feel that it doesn't need any changes. Of course, that's just my opinion, and as I said earlier, I'm nobody. :blink:

Link to comment

This is one of the things that bothers me about this thread- many of the people that are saying that the cache should not be approved give as their only reason for saying so "because the approver said so".

 

Come on, sheeple!

 

If you feel that it shouldn't be approved, that is fine. Say so, and list your reasoning for your opinion. Don't just say "because the approver said so"- you are all intelligent people capable of forming your own opinions so do so. Read the thread, read the cache description, read the guidelines in question, and make YOUR OWN determination on whether or not YOU feel the cache is acceptable.

 

Give the other people and the reveiwers and TPTB enough respect to know that you are not going to be ostracised for having an opinion- whatever that opinion may be.

 

What is the point of an appeal if the answer is:

 

It can't be aproved as is, because a reviewer has to okay it, and your reviewer has said no.

 

We already know the origional approvers opinion- that is why the thread exists. He or she is also perfectly welcome to post on here with their reasoning.

 

For people to just post repeating "because the approver said so" adds nothing to the discussion.

 

It reminds me of when I was a kid and argued with my parents because they wouldn't let me do or have something. If they came back with "because I said so" I knew they didn't have a valid reasoning for their desision.

Link to comment
Trying to clarify my view a little better. because I don't think it's understood.

 

I KNOW THE CACHE COULD BE CHANGED

 

The fact that it CAN be changed in a minor way IS germane to the issue. They should not be seperated. I looked at the original OP and actually can't find the specific question, but I believe it is "should this cache be aproved as is?" I'm saying no, and the reason has everything to do with the lack of flexibility. It can't be aproved as is, because a reviewer has to okay it, and your reviewer has said no. The only reason to overturn a reviewer's decision is if they have screwed up the interpretation of the guideline completely. Otherwise it's an INTERPRETATION- he has his, and you have yours. We all have ours. The fact that there are so many workable alternatives has a great bearing on why your current configuration shouldn't be passed. If there were no other ways to do your cache, I would say the reviewer was not being flexible enough, and your cache should probably be aproved as is. It seems he is being quite flexible in working with you, therefore his original judgment should be supported.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion, and again I feel this has been a good appeal and use of the system. :)

Goog- Whether we agree or not, your comments in this matter have been very vital in providing adequate discussion and I have much respect for the way you have presented your point of view, so thank you.

 

Now to continue our playful banter... :blink:

 

The fact that it CAN be changed in a minor way IS germane to the issue.

Every cache can be changed.

 

It can't be aproved as is, because a reviewer has to okay it, and your reviewer has said no.

Of course it can still be approved. Just because a reviewer said no the first time, doesn't mean (after all this discussion) that he/she or the reviewers as a whole couldn't change their mind about things. That's part of this appeal that you feel is good use of the system.

 

The only reason to overturn a reviewer's decision is if they have screwed up the interpretation of the guideline completely.

I read it again (just incase I missed something) but it doesn't say anywhere in the listing requirements that this is the only reason to overtun a reviewer's decision. It doesn't even cite this as an example. It does state, if "...you still feel your cache has been misjudged..." which is exactly how I feel. I think there has been a lot of emphasis on the "Library" aspect of this cache and that it would be easy to find. A number of people on here weren't taking into account that the cacher pulling up this cache page would not be told in any way that they will be visiting a library. Maybe the reviewer felt the same way, mabye not. But the first day this was posted most sided with the reviewers initial decision, yet after further details of the cache became more clear the responses shifted somewhat. Maybe the reviewer and I were having a breakdown in communication (with neither of us fully understanding the other). I would hope at this point with so much discussion on the issue, that any misunderstandings (if there were any) about the cache have been cleared.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
If there were no other ways to do your cache, I would say the reviewer was not being flexible enough, and your cache should probably be aproved as is. It seems he is being quite flexible in working with you, therefore his original judgment should be supported.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion, and again I feel this has been a good appeal and use of the system.  :lol:

The problem with that approach is that any cache CAN be modified whether the changes are needed or not.

 

The crux of the matter is whether this cache HAS to be changed to meet the current guidelines. I feel that it doesn't need any changes. Of course, that's just my opinion, and as I said earlier, I'm nobody. :ph34r:

This is sort of like a bad non reviewable call in a football game. Everyone knows a mistake was made, but the call will not be reversed. The officials all huddle around and then say they agree with the call because they don't want one of their own to look bad.

Link to comment
Give the other people and the reveiwers and TPTB enough respect to know that you are not going to be ostracised for having an opinion- whatever that opinion may be.

 

You're not saying I've been disrespectful, are you?

 

Don't just say "because the approver said so"- you are all intelligent people capable of forming your own opinions so do so. Read the thread, read the cache description, read the guidelines in question, and make YOUR OWN determination on whether or not YOU feel the cache is acceptable.

 

We're supposed to empathize with the hiders point of view, but not take the reviewers point of view into consideration? While I don't consider myself a "sheeple" I do think "because the approver said so" is a valid reason to not publish this cache.

 

When it's 6 in one, 1/2 dozen in another, I think we should go with the reviewer, just because they've been given the responsibility. If AZBliss02 was the reviewer and he decided to pass it, I wouldn't argue with him because the line is so fine. But he ain't, and I see no real reason to overturn the current reviwer's decision. No would want to volunteer to be a reviwer if there decisions were to be overturned on issues that obviously could go either way. We've seen enough opinions in this thread to all agree that this is ALL INTERPRETIVE. I'm sticking to my guns- there must be overwhelming evidnce to overturn a call on the field.

 

Whether you agree with my OPINION or not, it is well-thought out, and I ain't no sheep for having it.

 

Again, good appeal, interesting topic, mucho respect, etc etc etc

Link to comment
What if you kept the cache the way it is, except when you got to the part inside the library, it contained coordinates to the actual cache in a nearby park rather than the logbook and trade items?  This would satisfy the GPS requirements in the guidelines, still maintain the desire of having to find the stage inside the library, and keep from having to put a hide-a-key under a bench outside.

Hi Quiggle. It wouldn't really be kept the way it is if you were now required to place another stage in the park. That would be like adding another stage to a multi cache. Since the logbook will be in the library anyway, if the final in the park, or coordinates to the final in the park were to "disappear" soon after the placement, you would still have the same cache being proposed. So there are ways around this anyway, but the point is that the cache should be approved the way it is, not finding ways to change it into something that it's not.

 

You see, the GPS requirements are already met without adding another stage. The friend being available to maintain the cache satify the distance requirement. Permission has been granted by the Librarian. The cache already follows the guidelines.

 

Did you ever hear the term, "too many cooks spoil the soup"? That's what seems to be going on here. It would be like bringing a paintbrush to the Louvre and adding a few strokes to the Mona Lisa. People, go change your own caches, leave this one alone.

 

At this point there really aren't any requirements of the guidelines that haven't been met. Apparently it has now become a matter of saving face since the mistake has been exposed. There's no shame in admitting a mistake. It takes a big man to do it, though.

Link to comment
This is sort of like a bad non reviewable call in a football game. Everyone knows a mistake was made, but the call will not be reversed. The officials all huddle around and then say they agree with the call because they don't want one of their own to look bad.

This is actually something that does concern me. I see no reason why the reviewers or a single reviewer should look bad if they were to approve this cache. The reviewer did his/her job in reviewing the cache. I simply feel the cache was misjudged initially and that a closer look may be beneficial.

 

Personally, I would only think that the reviewers look bad if they weren't reviewing this appeal with the administrators. It doesn't matter what their final decision is near as much as it matters that they're following the approval guidelines. Besides, it's not like anyone is going to know who the reviewer is (unless they would decide to make it known, but I don't see what purpose that would serve).

Link to comment

This is sort of like a bad non reviewable call in a football game. Everyone knows a mistake was made, but the call will not be reversed. The officials all huddle around and then say they agree with the call because they don't want one of their own to look bad.

Oops, I missed seeing this, but yeah, everyone knows.

Link to comment
We're supposed to empathize with the hiders point of view, but not take the reviewers point of view into consideration?

 

Neither. You should read the thread, read the cache description, read the guideline, and then form YOUR OWN opinion based on YOUR OWN feelings and interpretation. To say "Because so and so said so" is not giving your own opinion- it is just repeating somebody else.

 

We already know what "so and so" said. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether "so and so" is right. While the reveiwers are a great bunch of people and they work really hard for us, they are human- and sometimes humans make mistakes. The reason for this thread is to discuss whather or not this is one of those times. "because so and so said so" doesn't add to the discussion at all.

 

PS. I apologise if it seemed like I was trying to single you out in my last post. That was not my intent. Your post was just the most recent one to use the "so and so said so" "argument".

Link to comment
When it's 6 in one, 1/2 dozen in another, I think we should go with the reviewer, just because they've been given the responsibility.

And even more so when the reviewer has given suggestions to the hider as to how the cache could be changed to meet the guidlines -

 

BUT this thread has gone on for so long because it raises an issue that goes beyond this one cache.

 

So far no one has argued against the new guideline - only how should that guideline be interpreted. This guideline will always involve some judgement call as to how integral the use of accurate coordinates are to finding a cache. While in matters of judgement we should defer to the volunteer approvers (as football players and coaches defer to the officials), this thread has the advantage of letting the volunteers know how some members of the community interpret integral use of accurate coordinates.

 

Docapi has suggested a test: "Could you find the cache without the coordinates?" I think this is a good one for the reviewers to use. They could still turn down caches that give so much information in their description or hints that coordinates are not needed at all. In the interest of full discloser - I have found several caches based on the description or hint alone. One was a puzzle cache where I used the hints to find the cache without solving the puzzle to get coordinates, and another was a traditional cache where a typo on the cache page gave coordinates half a mile from the actual cache - but using the description and the hint I was able to figure out where the cache was hidden. I doubt the guideline would've have been applied to either of these caches.

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

 

Let me rephrase my previous statement.

 

I actively followed this thread for the first two pages or so. I stopped reading for a few days when the discussion stopped being productive.

 

I did read the entire thread before posting. I stand by my comments.

 

I respect that many fellow cachers feel that this cache should be listed. That doesn't change the fact that I agree with the original reviewer and feel that the cache doesn't meet guidelines as submitted.

Edited by Team Misguided
Link to comment

I also agree with the original reviewer. The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ. Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

It was a good call. BAAAHH, if you prefer.

Link to comment
The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ.  Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

Are you serious? :ph34r: Can you please backup this statement with a detailed explanation. I'm very curious about it.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
I also agree with the original reviewer. The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ. Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

It was a good call. BAAAHH, if you prefer.

I thought I read this thread fairly well, but I must be missing something here. How could I hide or even find this caches without a GPS unit. Did the OP post the street address to the cache?

 

I read the cache description and I don't even know what town it's in much less that it's a library or what street it's on.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
I also agree with the original reviewer.  The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ.  Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

It was a good call.  BAAAHH, if you prefer.

Again... if this is the criterion, every cache I have ever found, and every cache that currently exists, should be archived. I need coordinates to find where a cache is located then if I owned a GPS, could leave it at home and navigate to the cache. You are hanging your hat on "GPS" when it needs to be on "Coordinates".

Link to comment
The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ. Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

How? This only works if you already know it's a library cache. The only way you would know this was a library cache is if you read this thread, or you did one before, or you're just really really smart. A lot of people, including me, that have found these caches before must be really really dumb because they couldn't figure out beforehand that it was a library cache. A few couldn't even figure it out when in front of the library.

Link to comment
I also agree with the original reviewer.  The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ.  Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

It was a good call.  BAAAHH, if you prefer.

Again... if this is the criterion, every cache I have ever found, and every cache that currently exists, should be archived. I need coordinates to find where a cache is located then if I owned a GPS, could leave it at home and navigate to the cache. You are hanging your hat on "GPS" when it needs to be on "Coordinates".

Please reread my post and my previous post. I was clear about 'coordinates' and 'GPSr'. If you prefer, change my verbiage to something like GPSr or through the use of other map-reading technique using coordinates.

 

Splitting hairs doesn't make one's case stronger, it just makes one sound desperate.

Link to comment
The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ.  Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

How? This only works if you already know it's a library cache. The only way you would know this was a library cache is if you read this thread, or you did one before, or you're just really really smart. A lot of people, including me, that have found these caches before must be really really dumb because they couldn't figure out beforehand that it was a library cache. A few couldn't even figure it out when in front of the library.

Did I not read that the dewey decimal number would be the name of the cache? I think most cachers would figure that out. Apparently, the reviewer thought so also.

Link to comment
A few couldn't even figure it out when in front of the library.

We had a very similar story when we first discovered this type of cache. We were out on a long day of caching and a library cache just happened to be on the list. So we didn't really put everything together. We knew the coords were going to put us in the general area but that it would be up to us to find it from there. Well as it turns out there was actually another cache hidden (I'd say within' a hundred feet) outside near the coords! So while we still weren't sure how the name factored into the cache we were sure we had found it. Well, it wasn't until months later that I came across a picture of the object that we found the cache on and it was linked to the actual cache page! Obviously this was prior to the .1 mi guideline. We had a great laugh at the situation and returned to find the real library cache.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
I also agree with the original reviewer.  The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ.  Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

It was a good call.  BAAAHH, if you prefer.

Again... if this is the criterion, every cache I have ever found, and every cache that currently exists, should be archived. I need coordinates to find where a cache is located then if I owned a GPS, could leave it at home and navigate to the cache. You are hanging your hat on "GPS" when it needs to be on "Coordinates".

I still believe the cache should be listed but I don't agree with this argument.

 

The issue isn't whether COORDS are needed, it's whether a GPS is needed. Just because you have coords doesn't necessarily mean you need a GPS. People who know the area will click the map and see it's the library and are likely to find the cache without a GPS but that's maybe 1 out 10. The rest will certainly need a GPS.

 

The argument: "Can this cache be found without the coords?" isn't valid. The reviewer is asking "Can this cache be found without a GPS?" Of course it can. All caches can be which why I don't agree with that argument either. I think the best argument is "WILL people use a GPS?" Absolutely they will which why this cache should be approved as is.

 

I didn't need a GPS to find This Cache but that doesn't mean 99% of the other cachers didn't use one. That cache reads more like a letterbox than a geocache.

Link to comment
The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ.  Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

How? This only works if you already know it's a library cache. The only way you would know this was a library cache is if you read this thread, or you did one before, or you're just really really smart. A lot of people, including me, that have found these caches before must be really really dumb because they couldn't figure out beforehand that it was a library cache. A few couldn't even figure it out when in front of the library.

Did I not read that the dewey decimal number would be the name of the cache? I think most cachers would figure that out. Apparently, the reviewer thought so also.

I believe you've just got too much extra information in your head due to what you've read on this thread. It's not like the cacher is going to be told all this information. I'm not gonna say "Use this Dewey Decimal code when you get to the listed coordinates". It's just a set of numbers, nothing else said about it. Now, if they've done a cache like this prior, they "may" have an idea of what is going on. But just to assume... Well, we all know what happens when you "assume" don't we? :ph34r:

 

I should also mention. After checking all the maps that a user can click on from the cache page, only ONE of them will actually tell the cacher that a library is located near the coords (after they zoom in all the way). It was MapPoint. Not google, or Mapquest which is what is used when someone clicks on the map. So unless they're really digging (or if they're from the area and don't think that it could be one of the other nearby areas/buildings) the majority of cachers won't know.

 

AZBliss02

 

edited for spelling mistake. FYI - near is not spelled nera.

Edited by AZBliss02
Link to comment

Docapi has suggested a test: "Could you find the cache without the coordinates?" I think this is a good one for the reviewers to use.

I agree! I was curious though... Does this mean we will be getting accurate coords from now on? :lol: Or should we archive all caches that have coords that don't even get you close? (you know...like from Magellans) :ph34r:

Link to comment
The only way that coords are needed for this cache is that they make the cache show up on your nearest cache page or in your PQ.  Once the cache is on your radar, you can leave the GPSr at home and go log the find.

 

How? This only works if you already know it's a library cache. The only way you would know this was a library cache is if you read this thread, or you did one before, or you're just really really smart. A lot of people, including me, that have found these caches before must be really really dumb because they couldn't figure out beforehand that it was a library cache. A few couldn't even figure it out when in front of the library.

Did I not read that the dewey decimal number would be the name of the cache? I think most cachers would figure that out. Apparently, the reviewer thought so also.

I believe you've just got too much extra information in your head due to what you've read on this thread. It's not like the cacher is going to be told all this information. I'm not gonna say "Use this Dewey Decimal code when you get to the listed coordinates". It's just a set of numbers, nothing else said about it. Now, if they've done a cache like this prior, they "may" have an idea of what is going on. But just to assume... Well, we all know what happens when you "assume" don't we? :ph34r:

 

I should also mention. After checking all the maps that a user can click on from the cache page, only ONE of them will actually tell the cacher that a library is located near the coords (after they zoom in all the way). It was MapPoint. Not google, or Mapquest which is what is used when someone clicks on the map. So unless they're really digging (or if they're from the area and don't think that it could be one of the other nearby areas/buildings) the majority of cachers won't know.

 

AZBliss02

 

edited for spelling mistake. FYI - near is not spelled nera.

I don't know about your area, but where I live, the majority of cachers that do the caches around here are local. :lol:

Link to comment
If any local cacher clicks on a map link, they will know its at the library.  With that information, it is very likely that they would be able to find it.  That is sufficient reason why this cache doesn't pass muster, in my opinion.

How would you know? I don't think you're a local of this area. I'm not trying to say they're dumb, but there are a number of places in the area that the map shows, I don't think it would be an automatic thing for everyone. Besides, we're only talking about like 5, maybe 10 cachers that are local to the area.

 

AZBliss02

 

Edit: To comment on the previous statement. There are few locals, other cachers are passing through between the two larger cities between this town. That and people coming from their small nearby town. I can tell you, I have no clue where any of the libraries are located in any of the surrounding towns.

Edited by AZBliss02
Link to comment
How would you know? I don't think you're a local of this area. I'm not trying to say they're dumb, but there are a number of places in the area that the map shows, I don't think it would be an automatic thing for everyone. Besides, we're only talking about like 5, maybe 10 cachers that are local to the area.

 

AZBliss02

Obviously, I'm making assumptions. I assume that cachers are relatively intelligent and that they have a basic knowledge of their town. This knowledge would include the location of the public library.

Link to comment
Since it appears that this thread is not going to cause the cache to be approved without changes, can we agree to disagree?

This is the approval process. As far as I'm concerned the discussion on here doesn't need to necessarily continue. I'm trusting that at this point the reviewers/administrators are taking the next step and discussing it privately. Once I receive their response I'll let everyone know and the thread can be locked and if you'd prefer we can never discuss it again.

 

Oh, and I got caught up so much in the recent argument I nearly forgot one of the original points. We had discussed early that the guideline only says that the ability to use a GPS unit should be available. It is. However, once they decide to look at a map and get more detail on its location, they have decided to incorporate other means of navigating to the given coordinates.

 

AZBliss02

Link to comment
If any local cacher clicks on a map link, they will know its at the library.  With that information, it is very likely that they would be able to find it.  That is sufficient reason why this cache doesn't pass muster, in my opinion.

OK so you are a local cacher. From home you find the coordinates are at the library door.. +/- 20 feet or so.. or more... and of course you haven't been following this thread so you know no more than that. You will then go there without taking your GPS because you know the cache is inside the building and you have already figured out how to find it. OK... whatever...... it's a nice day and work is over and I'm going caching. OOps I don't have a GPS... me bad.. :ph34r:

Link to comment
How would you know? I don't think you're a local of this area. I'm not trying to say they're dumb, but there are a number of places in the area that the map shows, I don't think it would be an automatic thing for everyone. Besides, we're only talking about like 5, maybe 10 cachers that are local to the area.

 

AZBliss02

Obviously, I'm making assumptions. I assume that cachers are relatively intelligent and that they have a basic knowledge of their town. This knowledge would include the location of the public library.

A quick check on another library cache had 118 finds. Tallying up the logs that mention when the finder 'figured it out:' 36 logs indicate the finder figured it out when at the site (some after searching outside a bit, some when driving up), 6 logs the finder figured it out before going to the site, and five logs never figured it out.

Link to comment
Did I not read that the dewey decimal number would be the name of the cache? I think most cachers would figure that out. Apparently, the reviewer thought so also.

 

Now that we are on the fifth page discussing this cache, all of the details have come out, down to the fact that the logbook is on a bookshelf in the library. It's easy to say now, that most cachers would figure it out. Perhaps some would, but if you look back on the second page of this thread, the question was raised as to how to get those numbers into the GPS. No smilies or anything to indicate a joke, so I believe at that point, he didn't get it. You would hope that most geocachers do figure it out, after they use their GPS to get to the location and find out they are in front of a library. I'm convinced that some won't get it without asking for help, based on logs I have read on other similarly hidden caches.

 

If any local cacher clicks on a map link, they will know its at the library. With that information, it is very likely that they would be able to find it. That is sufficient reason why this cache doesn't pass muster, in my opinion.

 

If a cache like this was hidden at the library near my home, it's doubtful anyone would know there was a library at the coordinates besides myself. Even if it was the main branch downtown, it's doubtful that any more than a handful of cachers would know it.

Link to comment

I'm just curious here, I would assume that if a cache shows up on your nearest list, up to a couple of miles away perhaps, I can understand looking it up on the maps, basically to see how close it really is. But do you also look up the streets of all of the other caches, or do you just let your GPS take you there?

 

The reason I'm asking is that if there is no real reason to suspect the cache is a library cache, why wouldn't you use your GPS to get there anyway, instead of using maps? Would you really purposely leave your GPS at home just because you knew what street the cache is on? (Cachers without GPS need not reply).

Link to comment

Docapi has suggested a test: "Could you find the cache without the coordinates?" I think this is a good one for the reviewers to use.

I agree! I was curious though... Does this mean we will be getting accurate coords from now on? :lol: Or should we archive all caches that have coords that don't even get you close? (you know...like from Magellans) :ph34r:

I still have no idea why the number 3 cacher in the world has yet to find any of my caches.

Link to comment

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

 

This is not an offset cache.

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

 

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

 

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

I've taken a break from this thread for awhile so that community members could provide input without fear of being shot at by site volunteers. Thank you to everyone who provided constructive comments. Your views *ARE* taken into account by Groundspeak and the volunteer team when interpreting and even revising the listing guidelines. Thanks especially to AZBliss02 for remaining patient and respectful.

 

I'm going back through the thread now and responding only on those issues where a reviewer's input was sought, but has not yet been provided. I'll begin with this one. It is just fine to use a sign or other source of letters or numbers, at a location defined by GPS coordinates, to provide the clues for the location of the final container using Dewey Decimal numbers. The first part of the cache includes sufficient GPS usage under the guidelines.

 

This is one of several suggested solutions that would work just fine for the cache at issue in this thread. I recognize that AZBliss02 wishes to appeal the cache *as submitted* vs. being required to modify it.

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...