Moderators Descretion ..... What Should Be Revealed?

[+JollyJax]

My question is ... if someone wants to set a cache over 0.3 of a mile from another cache should a moderator, not only tell the prospective cacher that they are too close to "A cache" .. but also name the cache they refer to and say their coords are within 300feet of mine ... thereby telling the cachers the answer to a cache series that they havent yet solved.

 

The cachers concerned wanted me to know about this and contacted me by phone and we have established that my end game is NOWHERE near their desired site .... it is however closer to my published start coordinates which the page clearly states bear no relation to the final hiding place. The waypoint for the final position always has been on the site for the owner / reveiwer to see.....

 

Over the last 5 months I have been setting a series of caches which ultimately resolves in to a difficult end game ... the planning was another 5 or 6 months before that.

 

WHY BOTHER ....

 

Yes I am angry ... wouldnt you be????

 

<caveat> - their coordinates are over 0.3 miles from my physical cache and they were told inaccurate information. Thats not my point here .... I dont want or see a need for a Cache to be named on these occasions, even though it is necessary to ask a cacher to relocate a little ... and also not to state the distance to the other cache .. surely "less than 528 feet" would suffice ?

 

[+Pieman]

Looks like a genuine mistake on the moderator's part. They have missed that your cache was a puzzle or multi and assumed your start point was the genuine coords of a trad. I'm sure they weren't trying to give away the final coordinates of a puzzle/ multi.

[+Firth of Forth]

Sounds like something that you should discuss with the approver(s) in private, rather than bring to the public forum, IMHO. Most likely a misunderstanding.

[Lactodorum]

Actually according to a strict interpretation of the guidelines, ALL waypoints for a cache should be at least 0.1mile/528ft from ALL waypoints of ALL other caches. That includes "dummy" starting coordinates and "virtual" intermediates. You will find that we usually apply a somewhat less strict adherance to this rule when reviewing UK caches.

 

Now that Additional Waypoints are being used we can do the checking more easily but as there are still many mnay caches out there without these it can be a difficult and tedious process. This is not helped by the fact that almost all caches over a couple of years old have no record of such intermediate/final waypoints. This makes our task virtually impossible in many cases so mistakes will inevitably occur.

 

Whatever the case, it is NEVER our intention to give away secret locations. As to naming a cache that is interfering with one being reviewed, you may well have a valid point. I guess it is usually not necessary nor desirable to do so. Just telling someone that another cache is within X feet of yours shouldn't give anything away though.

[+JollyJax]

If this was an isolated instance then I would agree with Firth of Forth .. but it isnt. I am happy to correspond with anyone on the other instances I infer but dont wish to make those public as they are past.

 

Pieman ... its the big blue Question mark at the top of the cache page that gives away that its a mystery and the 5 star rating might just suggest its not a cache and dash ....

 

I dont rant on the forums and in fact rarely post.

 

My point was and still is that giving away locations is NOT a moderators choice as Lactodorum agreed.

 

We all try hard not to make mistakes and errors do happen. That isnt my point. Luckily for me the mistake did happen in this case as my final position isnt yet compromised.

 

I am very happy to move the initial start coords if this allows others to set a cache they had planned and have told the cachers that.

[+minstrelcat]

Maybe I have misunderstood what you written but it sounds like final coordinates of the cache weren't compromised at all.

 

Lisa

[+Renegade Knight]

Maybe I have misunderstood what you written but it sounds like final coordinates of the cache weren't compromised at all.

 

Lisa

 

Ditto:

 

Unless your cache is hidden in the only tree or under the only rock for a thousand feet in any direction 300' is a lot of ground to cover. The hider needs to know they are too close to another cache since their cache can't be listed because of yours. As a hider I'd be ticked to get an answer from a reviewer like "we can't list your cache and we can't tell you why." The problem needs to be solveable and that takes a modicum of information.

[+JollyJax]

that wasnt and isnt my point ...

 

The point to get back to it is "Should a moderator need to reveal to another cacher the name and exact distance of a previously placed cache?"

 

I contend that they should not and Lactodorum seemed to agree.

 

Your veiws on this would be welcome

[+Pieman]

Pieman ... its the big blue Question mark at the top of the cache page that gives away that its a mystery and the 5 star rating might just suggest its not a cache and dash ....

I

 

Indeed, but I guess the moderator missed it as is bound to happen when they have so many caches to review. As Lactodorum infers, I am sure this isn't a deliberate policy to reveal multi/ puzzle cache locations.

[Deceangi]

that wasnt and isnt my point ...

 

The point to get back to it is "Should a moderator need to reveal to another cacher the name and exact distance of a previously placed cache?"

 

I contend that they should not and Lactodorum seemed to agree.

 

Your views on this would be welcome

 

The information given is

 

The problem is that this cache is placed just XXX feet from another existing cache: ________________, GC____.

 

which is what is available from the "Nearest Cache link" on every cache page. Would the OP rather I inform the placer to check the nearest cache link on the page to receive slightly more information than what is given?

 

No distance is given or even the cache name mentioned when stages or final locations are involved.

 

. but also name the cache they refer to and say their coords are within 300feet of mine ... thereby telling the cachers the answer to a cache series that they havent yet solved.

 

As the OP was fully aware they distance was to to the posted coordinates for the cache (the ones at the top of the cache page) so it was impossible for the cache to have been ruined for them as the information is visible from the nearest cache link on their cache page, no privileged information was used. Which the OP is fully aware of.

 

If the OP feels that I have acted wrongly please use the contact@geocaching.com adress. Groundspeak will conduct a full invistigation into the issue.

 

Deceangi

[nobby.nobbs]

even if they do say is within 300 feet of cache x. that doesn't give away "x"'s location. 300 foot circle from your co-ords. plus or minus say 9 feet for accuracy and it could be anywhere from 0 feet from your spot to 309 feet in any direction.

[+maxkim]

On another note I have recently set a nmber of caches which required many weeks of prep. Before I started I emailed Lactodorum and checked out all the locations and explained why. This worked very well and is to be reccomended for complex caches and saves all sorts of problems after the event. Max

[Lactodorum]

My point was and still is that giving away locations is NOT a moderators choice as Lactodorum agreed.

Giving away hidden locations is not something we do, EVER. Giving away published co-ordinates is something the website is designed to do. This is what happened here so the point is irrelevant.

 

We all try hard not to make mistakes and errors do happen. That isnt my point. Luckily for me the mistake did happen in this case as my final position isnt yet compromised.

When we review new caches we check the locations of all the waypoints of the new cache with the locations of waypoints of nearby existing caches. If there's a conflict we tell the owner of the new cache that the particular waypoint clashes with "Existing cache X" and if necessary we mention the distance. This is standard reviewing practice all over the world. The reviewers have developed a set of standard "Templates" or standard messages which we adapt when contacting cachers. One of these standard templates was used here. No mistake was made, just standard reviewing practice.

 

If you think that current practice is wrong, that's fine. Get in touch with contact@geocaching.com with your suggestions and if Groundspeak thinks you have a valid point it will be properly discussed and may well change the way reviewers around the world do things.

[+minstrelcat]

 

The point to get back to it is "Should a moderator need to reveal to another cacher the name and exact distance of a previously placed cache?"

 

 

But I thought you said the mods said the other cache was within 300' of your cache's published coordinates and not the coordinates of the actual cache. If so, I don't see the problem.

[+Geo-Kate]

even if they do say is within 300 feet of cache x. that doesn't give away "x"'s location. 300 foot circle from your co-ords. plus or minus say 9 feet for accuracy and it could be anywhere from 0 feet from your spot to 309 feet in any direction.

 

Not being pedantic or picking holes or anything.....

 

If the distance was given of 300', then the cache wouldn't be "anywhere from 0 feet from your spot to 309 feet in any direction", as the distance is known.

 

The cache could be thought to be in a ring about 9' wide with a diameter of 300'.

 

But that's not the point. A pointless post, really.

[nobby.nobbs]

even if they do say is within 300 feet of cache x. that doesn't give away "x"'s location. 300 foot circle from your co-ords. plus or minus say 9 feet for accuracy and it could be anywhere from 0 feet from your spot to 309 feet in any direction.

 

Not being pedantic or picking holes or anything.....

 

If the distance was given of 300', then the cache wouldn't be "anywhere from 0 feet from your spot to 309 feet in any direction", as the distance is known.

 

The cache could be thought to be in a ring about 9' wide with a diameter of 300'.

 

But that's not the point. A pointless post, really.

 

no... the information was that the cache was within 300 feet of another cache not exactly 300 feet from one.

[+Master Mariner]

Reading this thread I have to say that I cannot honestly see what all the fuss is about... Having said that, what would happen if there were two multis, say in a large country park and both cache setters gave the "top of page" position as a car park where the co-ords could be very, very close to each other? Do the "top of page" co-ords always have to be a minimum of a tenth of a mile from another?

[Lactodorum]

<snip> ..... Do the "top of page" co-ords always have to be a minimum of a tenth of a mile from another?

For multi's/puzzles - No.

 

The only restriction we normally require is that identical co-ords not be used. That is so that if you plot caches on a map it will become apparent that there is more than one cache in the vicinity. This can usually be achieved by taking a reading from a different part of the car park.