When Is It Ok To Violate The Listing Guidelines When Making A New Cahce?

[+Disgolf]

OK, the title was in a way just a hook to get you to read this post, as I’m sure everyone is saying "Never!", but hear me out here. I have spent almost a month creating a milti-puzzle-cache in the local rec area. It is a 'continuation' of my first cache, in that it follows the same story line, but you do not need to to the first one in order to do this one. The way this new cache will work is that clues and coordinates are given online to the first stage, then each stage will provide further clues (not necessarily coordinates!) each stage builds off the next and the clues are very specific and cannot be changed (because some don’t have coordinates to the next stage!!!). keep that in mind for later discussion...

 

Anyway, i am now trying to post it and am getting denied by the reviewer because of "Cache Saturation".

 

the guidelines state ..

"Cache Saturation

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. This guideline applies to all stages of multi-caches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache. "

 

So here comes the question.. if .1 miles (528ft) is arbitrary and just a guideline then that means that from time to time exceptions can be made... right?

 

To quote the reviewer:

"Hi Disgolf!

 

While I appreciate your enthusiasm in hiding this cache, I am unable to post it as it stands.

 

At this time, your cache does not appear to meet the guidelines because stage 4 an stage 5 are too close to other caches. Caches should not be placed within 0.1 mile (528 feet) of existing caches, unless there is some sort of natural barrier between the two locations.

 

Guidelines for geocaches can be viewed at the following link: (visit link)

 

Your stage 4 is only 462 feet from this cache: (visit link)

 

Your stage 5 is only 324 feet from this cache: (visit link)

 

Pease re-locate this cache so it conforms with the guidelines for placement.

 

Thanks for your cooperation!

Krypton

Northern California Volunteer Cache Reviewer"

 

Now, lets take a look at the numbers for stage 4 first.. 528 - 462 = 66ft!

 

that seems like a pretty small distance to me, taking into account the true accuracy settings of most rec-grade GPS of 20 ft, that means I’m about 40 away from being OK in the guidelines. seems like given the nature of the cache (as i described above) that 40 is close enough, otherwise i would have to recreate the entire second half of my cache.(as it all depends on this stage from here on out)

 

Now lets look at stage 5... I hate to give away clues here since i spent sooo long setting this thing up, but it is pertinent to my argument and thus must be mentioned. stage 4 will give coordinates to stage 5. stage 5 is simply a fork in a trail and can be considered 'virtual' as there is nothing there to hide, they must simply answer the riddle found in stage 4 to know which fork to take. How then could this possibly be a problem for cache saturation? there will be nothing there to confuse people searching for another cache, and no one doing my cache will be looking for anything physical so will not find the other cache.

 

the whole point of this post...

 

WHY WONT YOU POST MY CACHE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON IT AND PEOPLE WILL DEFINITELY *LOVE* IT

 

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? I CANNOT CHANGE THEIR LOCATION WITHOUT SERIOUS WORK!

 

IF IT'S ARBITRARY ANYWAY, JUST LET ME POST IT!

[+StarBrand]

While arbitary - there needs to be a very good reason to violate it. Something like a natural barrier between them. A river, lake, cliff, buildings or something that makes walking between the 2 locations much further than the "crow flies" distance.

 

Should have done your homework and checked out where other caches were before putting so much work into it. Sorry.

 

I say - no list.

[+ZSandmann]

Ummm I'm going to side with the OP on this. If there was a micro or any kind of redirect I would say no list, but if they are truelly virtual stages I don't see the problem. The saturation rule is in place to prevent confusion between caches when searching, I don't see how these stages could be confused. My .02

 

Z

[+StarBrand]

Ummm I'm going to side with the OP on this. If there was a micro or any kind of redirect I would say no list, but if they are truelly virtual stages I don't see the problem. The saturation rule is in place to prevent confusion between caches when searching, I don't see how these stages could be confused. My .02

 

Z

I believe one is a physical and 1 a virt - correct me if I am wrong.....

[+ZSandmann]

Hmmm, I read into it that both of the OP's questionable stages were virts, and the two other caches in proximity were physical, that's why I don't see the issue. If I'm wrong it wouldn't be the first time

[+wiseye]

For some reason, can't imagine why, I don't think shoutting on the forums will help your case. #4 is 66' too close, not only about 40' and that should be okay. #5, why make this a stage, if there is nothing to find only a fork to take, find another way to tell them without calling it a stage. If you took the time to work these things out beforehand, you wouldn't have this problem, and it is your problem, not the reviewers. The owners of all 11 caches you have found managed to do it , I'm sure you can to.

[+Lil Devil]

Move stage 4 about 66 feet or more.

 

Eliminate the riddle at stage 5.

 

Fixed, and now publishable

[+Team Neos]

Yeah, I'm with Lil Devil. And perhaps stage four doesn't even have to move the whole 66 feet. Could you move it another 15 or 20 feet at least and eliminate stage 5? If it were the only stage that was too close, but it were a bit further, you might be able to beg and plead for an exception (Which is the tact to take, by the way).

 

Couldn't the instructions at stage four just include the information about the fork? Or could it be in the hint?

[+Prime Suspect]

What's the point of having a guideline that says 528 feet, if 462 is acceptable? If 462 is acceptable, then why shouldn't 442 also be acceptable. It's just 20 feet, after all. And if that makes 442 acceptable, why not 422?

 

You have to put a limit somewhere, and stick to it. 528 feet is as good a limit as any.

[+Disgolf]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone, some posts were certainly helpful. I do have one word for all the other blogers on this forum:

 

*RELAX*

 

wow, this is only the second cache i have placed, i haven’t been doing this for very long. Forums are for questions, though i guess some people feel perhaps some sense of superiority in diminishing others because they have been here longer. ahh i ramble... at any rate thank you lil devil for the ideas, i think i have come up with a solution very similar to your recommendation.

 

oh and as for the prime suspect, if you want an absolute cutoff perhaps the official guidelines shouldn't state that "This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline"...

[+hikergps]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone, some posts were certainly helpful. I do have one word for all the other blogers on this forum:

 

*RELAX*

 

wow, this is only the second cache i have placed, i haven’t been doing this for very long. Forums are for questions, though i guess some people feel perhaps some sense of superiority in diminishing others because they have been here longer. ahh i ramble... at any rate thank you lil devil for the ideas, i think i have come up with a solution very similar to your recommendation.

 

oh and as for the prime suspect, if you want an absolute cutoff perhaps the official guidelines shouldn't state that "This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline"...

 

A good way to never get help from the forums is to tell others to relax. You are the one who appeared uptight over your cache not getting posted, not anyone who responded to your posts. I fail to see the dimishing remarks that you refer to. FWIW, did you followup with the reviewer and ask for suggestions after your cache wasn't published, or did you come to the forums to try and call your reviewer out and make it a public issue?

Edited July 11, 2006 by hikergps

[+wimseyguy]

With apologies to Frankie Goes to Hollywood and any of their fans reading this:

 

Relax don't do it

When you want to to go to it

Relax don't do it

When you want help in the forums

Relax don't do it

When you want to the right answer

Relax don't do it

When you want us to agree with you

agree-ee ee

 

But shoot it in the right direction

Make making it your intention-ooh yeah

Live those dreams

Scheme those schemes

Got to hit me

Hit me

Hit me with those laser beams

 

Sheesh. It's got nothing to do with superiority feelings, it's got to do with asking a question and getting different answers, not many of which seem to be what you wanted to hear.

Try taking your own advice. PS-I really hope that you had a little back and forth with your reviewer before you made the issue public too.

[Keystone]

FWIW, did you followup with the reviewer and ask for suggestions after your cache wasn't published, or did you come to the forums to try and call your reviewer out and make it a public issue?

PS-I really hope that you had a little back and forth with your reviewer before you made the issue public too.

It would appear from the OP's cache page that the reviewer informed him of the need to list the additional waypoints on May 12th, that the OP added the waypoints on June 1st, that the reviewer responded the same day with an explanation of the cache saturation guideline issue, and there was then a rapid series of notes back and forth which ended abruptly on June 5th, and now we are here in the forums. The exchange can be summarised thusly: "Yes, the cache saturation guideline does apply to virtual stages of multicaches." "No, that just can't be!" The dialogue never proceeded to the point of discussing alternative ways to address the saturation issue.

 

While the guideline does apply to virtual stages, many reviewers are more likely to grant an exception for a purely virtual waypoint. I did that this week for one that was 495 feet distant. A difference here, though, is that two waypoints are involved, not just one, and only one of the two encroaching waypoints is virtual.

[+The Cheeseheads]

My question is that if you've read the guidelines and know about the 528' separation guideline, why didn't you just be sure to place your stages that far away in the first place instead of trying to test the rule?

[+Prime Suspect]

oh and as for the prime suspect, if you want an absolute cutoff perhaps the official guidelines shouldn't state that "This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline"...

Don't ask for responses, and then complain about the responses you get.

 

It's a guideline, because there are cases where exceptions can be made, if valid reasons are presented (which you didn't do). Your reasons for wanting an exception came down to...

I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON IT AND PEOPLE WILL DEFINITELY *LOVE* IT

 

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? I CANNOT CHANGE THEIR LOCATION WITHOUT SERIOUS WORK!

You seem to want it turn it into a suggestion, rather than a guideline, which would essentially make it useless.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Prime Suspect