Cache Placement Guidelines?

[Fledermaus]

I understand that "Cache Placement Guidelines" are not Rules & Regulations and they may be adjusted for certain "unique" cases. So, when are they litterally thrown out the window? I have several examples within my area where the guidelines appear to have been ignored. Guess what happens when I unintentionally violate the "Guidelines"?

 

Example #1. There are two caches in the same park that are less than 200 feet apart, both approved by different reviewers and at different times.

 

Example #2. There are two more caches within another park that are 4.0 seconds away in the Latitude and 3.0 seconds away in the Longitude. My GPS doesn't measure less than 0.1 miles.

 

Example #3. There is a virtual that is less than 100 feet away from a regular cache and were approved within 24 hours of each other by different reviewers.

 

Example #4. There are two more caches elsewhere, one that is GC and the other TC, and they are almost on top of each other. The TC cache was placed first and the GC cache was place last. A reviewer refused to ask the owner of the GC cache to move it.

 

Example #5. There is one area that has a lot of caches in it and there is room for another cache. However, an attempt to place another cache in that same park(in excess of 0.1 miles from any other cache) was denied.

 

I have more examples, but the foregoing are the primary ones to which I have issues. So, what should I do, go away and lick my wounds? If I have to play by the "rules", then I expect others to do so as well, especially if they are GC Representatives.

 

More ways to play the "Caching" game:

 

GPS Games

Letterboxing

Navicache

Terracaching

Edited April 7, 2006 by Fledermaus

[+BigWhiteTruck]

[+sbell111]

[+cache_test_dummies]

Are you talking about caches which have been around for some time, or are you saying these close-proximity listings have happened recently?

 

With respect to Example 4 (a GC and a TC cache placed in close proximity) - I don't see how this is an issue. Neither site has exclusive ownership of the area surrounding caches listed on their respective sites.

[+Lord Stirling]

In example 1 and 3 its most likely a reviewer error. I've done it myself and once I discovered it I felt that it would be unfair to the owner to archive a cache that was inadvertantly approved so I left it.

 

In example 4 I don't see the issue. We're concerned about geocaches on this site and can't worry about what other listing sites are doing. The same thing happened in my area, where a terracache was placed 20 feet from an existing geocache (in a 14,000 acre park where there are only 4 geocaches all told). Who are we to tell them they can't place a cache next to one of ours? Same goes the other way too.

 

Example 5 was probably done because the reviewer felt the area was saturated. Just because you're able to shoehorn a cache into a park already saturated with caches doesn't mean you should.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by licking your wounds. How exactly do these examples hurt you personally? I don't get it.

[+New England n00b]

I understand that "Cache Placement Guidelines" are not Rules & Regulations and they may be adjusted for certain "unique" cases. So, when are they litterally thrown out the window? I have several examples within my area where the guidelines appear to have been ignored. Guess what happens when I unintentionally violate the "Guidelines"?

 

Example #1. There are two caches in the same park that are less than 200 feet apart, both approved by different reviewers and at different times.

 

If they are both GC.com listings, were they pre-guideline hides?

 

Example #2. There are two more caches within another park that are 4.0 seconds away in the Latitude and 3.0 seconds away in the Longitude. My GPS doesn't measure less than 0.1 miles.

 

See #1.

 

Example #3. There is a virtual that is less than 100 feet away from a regular cache and were approved within 24 hours of each other by different reviewers.

 

I thought all the virts were moved to Waymarking, but if not... so? One has a physical cache, one does't. I don't see a reason for worry there.

 

Example #4. There are two more caches elsewhere, one that is GC and the other TC, and they are almost on top of each other. The TC cache was placed first and the GC cache was place last. A reviewer refused to ask the owner of the GC cache to move it.

 

What the unusually intelligent Dummy said. Additionally, should gc.com try to force tc.com to remove a listing if the situation were reversed? I think Jeremy has bigger concerns to worry about.

 

Example #5. There is one area that has a lot of caches in it and there is room for another cache. However, an attempt to place another cache in that same park(in excess of 0.1 miles from any other cache) was denied.

 

And what other mitigating circumstances have you not told us about this cache?

 

I have more examples, but the foregoing are the primary ones to which I have issues. So, what should I do, go away and lick my wounds? If I have to play by the "rules", then I expect others to do so as well, especially if they are GC Representatives.

 

They aren't rules. They are guidelines - not always fleixible guidelines, but guidelines nonetheless.

 

More ways to play the "Caching" game:

 

GPS Games

Letterboxing

Navicache

Terracaching

 

What was the point of that?

[+BigWhiteTruck]

I'm not sure what you mean by licking your wounds. How exactly do these examples hurt you personally? I don't get it.

 

He was just hungry. . .

 

Over tic

Edited April 7, 2006 by BigWhiteTruck

[Keystone]

I understand that "Cache Placement Guidelines" are not Rules & Regulations and they may be adjusted for certain "unique" cases. So, when are they litterally thrown out the window? I have several examples within my area where the guidelines appear to have been ignored. Guess what happens when I unintentionally violate the "Guidelines"?

 

Example #1. There are two caches in the same park that are less than 200 feet apart, both approved by different reviewers and at different times.

If one or both of them are puzzle caches or multicaches, this happens regularly in cache-dense areas. It's hard to keep track of all those extra stages. This gives me the opportunity to remind all cache owners to use the new "Additional Waypoints" feature to record the locations of multicache stages, puzzle solutions, etc. It makes the reviewers' lives ever so much easier, and helps cut down on examples like this. So, oops.

 

On the other hand, if these are two traditional caches 200 feet apart, it is a well-known fact that one of the reviewers in your state can be bought. Each box of chocolate gets you a 100 foot variance.

 

I'd need to see linkitude to comment further.

 

Example #2. There are two more caches within another park that are 4.0 seconds away in the Latitude and 3.0 seconds away in the Longitude. My GPS doesn't measure less than 0.1 miles.

Buy a better GPS.

 

Example #3. There is a virtual that is less than 100 feet away from a regular cache and were approved within 24 hours of each other by different reviewers.

Well, this must be a super old example, since virtuals haven't been listed since November 2005. If it is *really* super old, it could predate the tightened cache saturation guidelines. And if the situation arose today, where someone hid a traditional cache 100 feet from a grandfathered virtual, the cache saturation guideline doesn't apply to the grandfathered virtual. I'd need to see linkitude to comment further.

 

Example #4. There are two more caches elsewhere, one that is GC and the other TC, and they are almost on top of each other. The TC cache was placed first and the GC cache was place last. A reviewer refused to ask the owner of the GC cache to move it.

It's pretty hard for a reviewer to check a site where you're not allowed to see the cache pages without being a sponsored member. That assumes that we checked for listings on other sites, which we don't. There are plenty of examples where TC's are placed close by to GC's, or where GC's and letterboxes trip over each other. How does a reviewer check for proximity to a letterbox that doesn't have coordinates? "I'm sorry, but under our letterbox saturation guidelines, there must be at least two old oak trees, one boulder and 50 paces between boxes....."

 

Example #5. There is one area that has a lot of caches in it and there is room for another cache. However, an attempt to place another cache in that same park(in excess of 0.1 miles from any other cache) was denied.

Welcome to cache saturation. The guidelines say more than just the 528 foot standard. If the area is too full of caches, so that the new one's just being shoehorned in to fit a spot, the reviewers can say "enough."

 

I have more examples, but the foregoing are the primary ones to which I have issues. So, what should I do, go away and lick my wounds? If I have to play by the "rules", then I expect others to do so as well, especially if they are GC Representatives.

1. "Deal with it." Yep, they're guidelines and they're administered by humans.

2. Read and understand the rules which you perceive to have been violated.

3. Report problems to Geocaching.com via e-mail for investigation.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I thought all the virts were moved to Waymarking, but if not... so?

Just a point of clarification - existing virtuals were NOT moved to the Waymarking site, there are still plenty of them listed on GC.com. However, GC.com is no longer accepting any new listings for virtuals.

What the unusually intelligent Dummy said.

[+New England n00b]

I thought all the virts were moved to Waymarking, but if not... so?

Just a point of clarification - existing virtuals were NOT moved to the Waymarking site, there are still plenty of them listed on GC.com. However, GC.com is no longer accepting any new listings for virtuals.

What the unusually intelligent Dummy said.

See? I was right! On the last part, anyway.

[+geognerd]

An example of a situation where caches closer than 528ft might be OK:

 

I saw a map of two traditional caches that looked suspiciously close together. Turned out they were only about 250ft apart. When I flipped on the aerial photography, I saw why it was OK. They were on opposite sides of a creek, and the only way to get from one to the other was by walking north to a bridge, crossing the creek, and walking back south again to the other cache for a total of 0.4mi.

[+StarBrand]

Three comments:

 

1 - the current guidelines didn't always exist - older caches were grandfathered when the guidelines were adopted

 

2 - They are just guidelines and exceptions can be made

 

3 - Aren't there far more important things in life to be so upset over??

[Team Misguided]

On the other hand, if these are two traditional caches 200 feet apart, it is a well-known fact that one of the reviewers in your state can be bought. Each box of chocolate gets you a 100 foot variance.

 

You forgot to mention that it has to be good chocolate.

[+Renegade Knight]

All caches up for review are subject to review to the standard of the current guidelines.

 

All caches that were listed, already ran the gauntlet and came out as a listing and should not be second guessed.

 

This site is this site, TC.com is TC.com. Locally it would be nice if cachers were aware of other caches but that's not the job of this site, nor is it the job of TC.com to track this sites listings.

 

Your example 5 is the alternative minimum tax of caching. "Cache saturation rules" which can be imposed when your reviewre feels there are just too many caches. Mostly I've seen it used on power trails, but looks like you have seen it used in a park.

 

What you should do depends on what you want. If your cache in that saturated park is vital in it's location, list it on TC.com or NV, or GPSGames.org. If it's vital to be listed here, lick your wounds, follow the advice of your reviewer and try again.

[+The Leprechauns]

Your example 5 is the alternative minimum tax of caching.

Great description!

[+Wild Thing 73]

I understand that "Cache Placement Guidelines" are not Rules & Regulations and they may be adjusted for certain "unique" cases. So, when are they litterally thrown out the window? I have several examples within my area where the guidelines appear to have been ignored. Guess what happens when I unintentionally violate the "Guidelines"?

 

Example #1. There are two caches in the same park that are less than 200 feet apart, both approved by different reviewers and at different times.

If one or both of them are puzzle caches or multicaches, this happens regularly in cache-dense areas. It's hard to keep track of all those extra stages. This gives me the opportunity to remind all cache owners to use the new "Additional Waypoints" feature to record the locations of multicache stages, puzzle solutions, etc. It makes the reviewers' lives ever so much easier, and helps cut down on examples like this. So, oops.

 

On the other hand, if these are two traditional caches 200 feet apart, it is a well-known fact that one of the reviewers in your state can be bought. Each box of chocolate gets you a 100 foot variance.

 

I'd need to see linkitude to comment further.

 

Example #2. There are two more caches within another park that are 4.0 seconds away in the Latitude and 3.0 seconds away in the Longitude. My GPS doesn't measure less than 0.1 miles.

Buy a better GPS.

 

Example #3. There is a virtual that is less than 100 feet away from a regular cache and were approved within 24 hours of each other by different reviewers.

Well, this must be a super old example, since virtuals haven't been listed since November 2005. If it is *really* super old, it could predate the tightened cache saturation guidelines. And if the situation arose today, where someone hid a traditional cache 100 feet from a grandfathered virtual, the cache saturation guideline doesn't apply to the grandfathered virtual. I'd need to see linkitude to comment further.

 

Example #4. There are two more caches elsewhere, one that is GC and the other TC, and they are almost on top of each other. The TC cache was placed first and the GC cache was place last. A reviewer refused to ask the owner of the GC cache to move it.

It's pretty hard for a reviewer to check a site where you're not allowed to see the cache pages without being a sponsored member. That assumes that we checked for listings on other sites, which we don't. There are plenty of examples where TC's are placed close by to GC's, or where GC's and letterboxes trip over each other. How does a reviewer check for proximity to a letterbox that doesn't have coordinates? "I'm sorry, but under our letterbox saturation guidelines, there must be at least two old oak trees, one boulder and 50 paces between boxes....."

 

Example #5. There is one area that has a lot of caches in it and there is room for another cache. However, an attempt to place another cache in that same park(in excess of 0.1 miles from any other cache) was denied.

Welcome to cache saturation. The guidelines say more than just the 528 foot standard. If the area is too full of caches, so that the new one's just being shoehorned in to fit a spot, the reviewers can say "enough."

 

I have more examples, but the foregoing are the primary ones to which I have issues. So, what should I do, go away and lick my wounds? If I have to play by the "rules", then I expect others to do so as well, especially if they are GC Representatives.

1. "Deal with it." Yep, they're guidelines and they're administered by humans.

2. Read and understand the rules which you perceive to have been violated.

3. Report problems to Geocaching.com via e-mail for investigation.

I have just got to ask...I just listed a multi-cache and my reviewer ask me to use the "additional waypoints" to list the regular cache...I could not find the words "additional waypoints" is this a made up two (2) words? or are there in the upper right side of the listing page the actual words "additional waypoints"? I'm new to geocaching and in trying to learn this sport I need correct language when under pressure to follow instruction...thanks for any comments...

Edited April 7, 2006 by Wild Thing 73

[+Sagefox]

So, what should I do, go away and lick my wounds?

 

Don't go away!

 

Fledermaus. Flying Mouse. I've been to his bat caches when visiting Puget Sound. Those bat caches are good caches. Hope this works out for you or that you find another cool place to put your new caches.

[+robert]

I have just got to ask...I just listed a multi-cache and my reviewer ask me to use the "additional waypoints" to list the regular cache...I could not find the words "additional waypoints" is this a made up two (2) words? or are there in the upper right side of the listing page the actual words "additional waypoints"? I'm new to geocaching and in trying to learn this sport I need correct language when under pressure to follow instruction...thanks for any comments...

 

At the top right of your cache page, in the navigation menu (where log your find is), you'll see a link that says "waypoints". You should be logged in and looking at your own cache page.

 

[Team Misguided]

I have just got to ask...I just listed a multi-cache and my reviewer ask me to use the "additional waypoints" to list the regular cache...I could not find the words "additional waypoints" is this a made up two (2) words? or are there in the upper right side of the listing page the actual words "additional waypoints"? I'm new to geocaching and in trying to learn this sport I need correct language when under pressure to follow instruction...thanks for any comments...

 

You should read this post in the Getting Started forum. It is a good overview of the additional waypoints feature and how to add the additional waypoint to your cache page. As reviewers we cannot stress how long we have been waiting for this feature and how important it is for every cache owner to go back and add these to their existing puzzle & multi caches.

 

Just last weekend we published a cache that was well inside the proximity guideline of 528 feet. The existing cache didn't make use of the additional waypoints and so we were unaware that the final was anywhere near the new cache.

[+Wild Thing 73]

I have just got to ask...I just listed a multi-cache and my reviewer ask me to use the "additional waypoints" to list the regular cache...I could not find the words "additional waypoints" is this a made up two (2) words? or are there in the upper right side of the listing page the actual words "additional waypoints"? I'm new to geocaching and in trying to learn this sport I need correct language when under pressure to follow instruction...thanks for any comments...

 

At the top right of your cache page, in the navigation menu (where log your find is), you'll see a link that says "waypoints". You should be logged in and looking at your own cache page.

 

Thanks, that is what I did and the multi-cache was approved...I have a great reviewer!

[+robert]

Thanks, that is what I did and the multi-cache was approved...I have a great reviewer!

 

I looked to see who it was so I could say "yes you do" but you deleted their "Published" log.

[+Guitar4Him]

Is cache saturation really a bad thing? We have a 480-acre park in our area that has 31 caches. There are ammo cans, lok-n-loks, micros, multi's....a little of everything. The local caching community considers it "caching paradise". It will take a good cacher the better part of 2 days to find all the caches in the park, except maybe one of the multi's and it has been known to take whole groups an entire day to finish (if they're lucky). I occasionally get private messages from out-of-town folks who want to come to our area just to cache this park. Our local reviewer is a stickler about maintaining the 0.1 minimum rule. One cache I wanted to place was 510 feet from the nearest, separated by a stream that can't be crossed without using a bridge which would have required more than a 0.5 mile hike to get from one to the other. Still the reviewer wouldn't approve it. I moved it about 50 feet and he approved it. I guess it's just his pet peeve.

 

Some would argue that this is way too many caches, but our local folks don't think so.

[Fledermaus]

Forgive me for "beating my own drum", but I was one of the "Founders" of caching in my area, but credit must be given to W7WT, aka Dick, who came before me! For he, a fellow Amateur Radio Operator, was the one who put me onto the path of geocaching and for allowing me to "take the bull by the horns", thus kick geocaching into high gear for this county. BTW, additional credit should go to "TravisL" of Tacoma, WA. for enlightening others from out of this county and his famous "Cache Machines" ideas in and out of state.

 

1. Do you know how many geocaches were in my county when I started? Probably not! How about 5!

2. Do you know how many there are now? Probably 200 or more, I lost count a long time ago!

3. Do you know how many geocachers were in my county when I started? Probably not! Perhaps about 5!

4. Do you know how many geocachers there are now? Probably 100 or more. Thereto, I have lost count!

5. Do you know how many geocaches I have created for others or for to find? At least 100 or more!

6. Do you know how many geocaches I have archived so others could have a place to hide their own? Again, I have lost count!

 

In summation, I watch my area closely, as to where GC/LbNA/NC/TC geocaches are placed and when I see something that isn't right, I take exception to those who ignore the "Guidelines", no matter who they are. If I make a mistake in the placement of one of my own geocaches, I have to "pay the piper" by correcting whatever errors exist.

 

We are all human and we all make mistakes! If you make one, appologies are usually in order to someone!

 

For the most part, your "pointed remarks" will go unanswered. No, I am not a member of the mythical "Caching Police" nor do I think I am a "Caching Diety", just someone who has taken this hobby to heart, in lieu of a family and associated group outings. Being retired, my time is my own, to do with as I please!

 

BTW, I also enjoy the geocaching experience on several other geocaching websites, hence the little blurb place at the bottom of my initial forum message. Heaven forebid that I mention on GC that I am a proud member of TC / www.terracaching.com system.

 

/\/oo\/\

Edited April 8, 2006 by Fledermaus

[+CO Admin]

 

1. Do you know how many geocaches were in my county when I started? Probably not! How about 5!

2. Do you know how many there are now? Probably 200 or more, I lost count a long time ago!

3. Do you know how many geocachers were in my county when I started? Probably not! Perhaps about 5!

4. Do you know how many geocachers there are now? Probably 100 or more. Thereto, I have lost count!

5. Do you know how many geocaches I have created for others or for to find? At least 100 or more!

6. Do you know how many geocaches I have archived so others could have a place to hide their own? Again, I have lost count!

 

Guess what, none of that means squat and your first post proves this point. Your pedigree has nothing to do with anything except your own ego. want to impress me?? Post examples of your complaints in your first post, not hypothetical situations. Don't tell me how great you think you are. The really great ones never have to point to their own success. It goes before them and lights the way.

[+Renegade Knight]

Forgive me for "beating my own drum", but I was one of the "Founders" of caching in my area, but credit must be given to W7WT, aka Dick, who came before me! For he, a fellow Amateur Radio Operator, was the one who put me onto the path of geocaching and for allowing me to "take the bull by the horns", thus kick geocaching into high gear for this county. BTW, additional credit should go to "TravisL" of Tacoma, WA. for enlightening others from out of this county and his famous "Cache Machines" ideas in and out of state.

 

1. Do you know how many geocaches were in my county when I started? Probably not! How about 5!

2. Do you know how many there are now? Probably 200 or more, I lost count a long time ago!

3. Do you know how many geocachers were in my county when I started? Probably not! Perhaps about 5!

4. Do you know how many geocachers there are now? Probably 100 or more. Thereto, I have lost count!

5. Do you know how many geocaches I have created for others or for to find? At least 100 or more!

6. Do you know how many geocaches I have archived so others could have a place to hide their own? Again, I have lost count!

 

In summation, I watch my area closely, as to where GC/LbNA/NC/TC geocaches are placed and when I see something that isn't right, I take exception to those who ignore the "Guidelines", no matter who they are. If I make a mistake in the placement of one of my own geocaches, I have to "pay the piper" by correcting whatever errors exist.

 

We are all human and we all make mistakes! If you make one, appologies are usually in order to someone!

 

For the most part, your "pointed remarks" will go unanswered. No, I am not a member of the mythical "Caching Police" nor do I think I am a "Caching Diety", just someone who has taken this hobby to heart, in lieu of a family and associated group outings. Being retired, my time is my own, to do with as I please!

 

BTW, I also enjoy the geocaching experience on several other geocaching websites, hence the little blurb place at the bottom of my initial forum message. Heaven forebid that I mention on GC that I am a proud member of TC / www.terracaching.com system.

 

/\/oo\/\

I'd be happy to help you with that, but I can't find the question in that post.

[+Ed & Julie]

Example #1. There are two caches in the same park that are less than 200 feet apart, both approved by different reviewers and at different times.

 

Example #2. There are two more caches within another park that are 4.0 seconds away in the Latitude and 3.0 seconds away in the Longitude. My GPS doesn't measure less than 0.1 miles.

 

Example #3. There is a virtual that is less than 100 feet away from a regular cache and were approved within 24 hours of each other by different reviewers.

 

Example #4. There are two more caches elsewhere, one that is GC and the other TC, and they are almost on top of each other. The TC cache was placed first and the GC cache was place last. A reviewer refused to ask the owner of the GC cache to move it.

 

Example #5. There is one area that has a lot of caches in it and there is room for another cache. However, an attempt to place another cache in that same park(in excess of 0.1 miles from any other cache) was denied.

 

It's my understanding that the cache saturation guideline is flexible in certain situations.

 

For example, a traditional cache may be approved even if placed closer than 528 feet from a web cam cache or a virtual cache because there is no way to confuse the two when searching. But, if there are two traditional caches that close, you may find one when looking for another.

 

As stated in a prior post, some special situations exist, like when a cache is on opposite sides of a creek or freeway which may only be a few hundred feet apart, but cannot be accidentally when looking for one.

 

Without knowing the details of the caches in examples #1, #2, and #3, it's possible they fall into examples like I gave.

 

Example #4...Geocaching.com is a listing service, and responsible for their listings only. It's not their place to check every other caching game's website to see if another cache is in proximity (I know I have never checked another listing service, nor care to).

 

Example #5...how many caches is enough? Do you need to drop a cache every .10/mile just because you can?? There HAS to be somewhere else to place a cache, rather than planting caches so densely (is that a word) to create power parks/trails.

 

Ed

[+Wild Thing 73]

I have just got to ask...I just listed a multi-cache and my reviewer ask me to use the "additional waypoints" to list the regular cache...I could not find the words "additional waypoints" is this a made up two (2) words? or are there in the upper right side of the listing page the actual words "additional waypoints"? I'm new to geocaching and in trying to learn this sport I need correct language when under pressure to follow instruction...thanks for any comments...

 

You should read this post in the Getting Started forum. It is a good overview of the additional waypoints feature and how to add the additional waypoint to your cache page. As reviewers we cannot stress how long we have been waiting for this feature and how important it is for every cache owner to go back and add these to their existing puzzle & multi caches.

 

Just last weekend we published a cache that was well inside the proximity guideline of 528 feet. The existing cache didn't make use of the additional waypoints and so we were unaware that the final was anywhere near the new cache.

Thanks for the insight....I now have a much better grasp of the "waypoints" feature! In the beginning , just do the best you can do and take instructions from your reviewer to insure a better listing. Thanks again.

[+Quiggle]

For example, a traditional cache may be approved even if placed closer than 528 feet from a web cam cache or a virtual cache because there is no way to confuse the two when searching. But, if there are two traditional caches that close, you may find one when looking for another.

 

The change with webcams and virtuals occured in November 2005 when the guidelines changed. Prior to that, a virtual would block out a physical cache, so caches listed before that time should abide by the saturation guidelines.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Forgive me for "beating my own drum", but I was one of the "Founders" of caching in my area, but credit must be given to W7WT, aka Dick, who came before me! For he, a fellow Amateur Radio Operator, was the one who put me onto the path of geocaching and for allowing me to "take the bull by the horns", thus kick geocaching into high gear for this county. BTW, additional credit should go to "TravisL" of Tacoma, WA. for enlightening others from out of this county and his famous "Cache Machines" ideas in and out of state.

 

1. Do you know how many geocaches were in my county when I started? Probably not! How about 5!

2. Do you know how many there are now? Probably 200 or more, I lost count a long time ago!

3. Do you know how many geocachers were in my county when I started? Probably not! Perhaps about 5!

4. Do you know how many geocachers there are now? Probably 100 or more. Thereto, I have lost count!

5. Do you know how many geocaches I have created for others or for to find? At least 100 or more!

6. Do you know how many geocaches I have archived so others could have a place to hide their own? Again, I have lost count!

 

In summation, I watch my area closely, as to where GC/LbNA/NC/TC geocaches are placed and when I see something that isn't right, I take exception to those who ignore the "Guidelines", no matter who they are. If I make a mistake in the placement of one of my own geocaches, I have to "pay the piper" by correcting whatever errors exist.

 

We are all human and we all make mistakes! If you make one, appologies are usually in order to someone!

 

For the most part, your "pointed remarks" will go unanswered. No, I am not a member of the mythical "Caching Police" nor do I think I am a "Caching Diety", just someone who has taken this hobby to heart, in lieu of a family and associated group outings. Being retired, my time is my own, to do with as I please!

 

BTW, I also enjoy the geocaching experience on several other geocaching websites, hence the little blurb place at the bottom of my initial forum message. Heaven forebid that I mention on GC that I am a proud member of TC / www.terracaching.com system.

 

/\/oo\/\

If you've been around that long you should already know how the process works

[+OConnellz]

Ultimately, the real responsibility for cache placement will always lie on the placer. Like Keystone pointed out, it is impractical for approvers on one site to enforce the rules, or monitor placements on another. Terracaching does have its sponsored membership, and recently geocaching.com stopped displaying coordinates on the page if you are not logged in with a current account. For geocaching.com, the entire state of Montana has only one approver, who I don't believe to be active on other sites. My sponsor on terracaching.com is banned from geocaching.com. If I want to place a cache (which I do on both sites), it is entirely up to me to make sure that I am placing good caches, not oversaturating an area, and basically following most of the guidelines that should be common sense anyway.

In rare cases, when you encounter a cache placement on any site that you feel violates those guidelines, or the law for that matter, you should deal first directly with the cache placer. Keep in mind that they may not care to have you policing their placements, and certainly may not be impressed that you are playing on more than one listing site. It can be frustrating when you encounter these placements, but sometimes you have to let other kids play their own games, even when you share the playground.