Very Disappntned So Far With Reviewers

[+jaredl]

i think, if it was denied then the reviewer should have been willing to work with you to get it approved.

 

the reviewers are only volunteers so I wouldn't expect to much from them. sure they are providing us with a service, but I'm sure sometimes they get lazy and don't care as much as they should.

[Keystone]

Hi Jaredl,

 

How would you suggest that the reviewer work with the OP to get a cache listed on land managed by the National Park Service? Arrange for the sale of the land?

 

We are happy to make suggestions on how a cache can be published. Too close to a puzzle cache? We'll say "moving north would work best." In the woods behind the school? We'll make exceptions if the school administration sends a letter saying it's OK. These decisions are made day in, day out. Most volunteers devote multiple hours each day to this job, and more on weekends. There's no room in the group for "lazy" reviewers. Busy, yes. A bit behind due to the competing demands of life, yes. But to say we don't care as much as we should? That's... funny.

[+thedeadpirate]

But to say we don't care as much as we should? That's... funny.

 

Actually my first thought is that he's just baiting to keep this going. Just my .02

 

Of course seeing as he is a new member only a couple of months into it, I guess I should reserve that opinion for later?

 

Again, I don't see it so much as an issue of the reviewer workering with the OP as much as the OP needing to work with the reviewer. Communication needs participation on both sides to be effective.

Edited July 13, 2006 by GeoBain

[+The Cheeseheads]

The coordinates for the OP's cache are N 40° 07.124 W 105° 45.654. Let's see if some folks with more map expertise can play armchair reviewer. This could be fun. Check it out in your favorite mapping software, and post your conclusion. Be sure to mention which map you checked. I checked MapQuest. Looked like NPS land to me!

Hmm... The NPS map (PDF file) shows it to be outside the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park and in the Arapaho National Recreation Area which seems to be maintained by the Forest Service. I thought NPS==bad, NFS==usually ok? (Not that there's any of either around me that I've had to find out...)

 

Edit: I see I'm a little late to the party...

Edited July 13, 2006 by The Cheeseheads

[+The Cheeseheads]

No thanks-no more Geocache-found a more fun way to do this. The "reviewer" does not know how to read maps or use GPS correctly and it is not my job to train them. I am not looking for another complicated hobby or one translated by passive-aggressive folks. I am going to leave them to it.

 

I have been using all types of maps for many years and I thought that G.P.S. would allow more people to find interesting places. But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

3

The "not know how to read maps" line is a little original, but the lack of over-the-top hyperbole and angst heavily penalizes this geocide.

[Keystone]

Cheesy, the reviewer in this case identified the cache as being in Arapaho NRA, *not* in Rocky Mountain National Park. He is obviously familiar with the area. Yet, he cited the area as being off limits. Policies in NRA's and National Forests (especially wilderness areas) vary from one place to another. I haven't researched the management of Arapaho NRA.

[+briansnat]

Cheesy, the reviewer in this case identified the cache as being in Arapaho NRA, *not* in Rocky Mountain National Park. He is obviously familiar with the area. Yet, he cited the area as being off limits. Policies in NRA's and National Forests (especially wilderness areas) vary from one place to another. I haven't researched the management of Arapaho NRA.

 

Nearly all NRAs are managed by the NPS. It appears that Arapaho NRA is one of the few that is not. From what I was able to read apparently the NPS transferred the land to the USFS in 1978. Being USFS land caches are probably OK there.

 

But this is all stuff that the OP could have eventually worked thorugh if he had opened a dialog with the reviewer rather than throwing a hissy fit.

Edited July 13, 2006 by briansnat

[+Team Teuton]

I should bring Tahosa in this thread as he is the penultimate source for Rocky Mtn caching. Lots of issues here...

 

I'm thinking you might want to look up the definition for penultimate.

[+ZSandmann]

I should bring Tahosa in this thread as he is the penultimate source for Rocky Mtn caching. Lots of issues here...

 

I'm thinking you might want to look up the definition for penultimate.

 

Most Ultimatest Oops

 

Did I mention today is opposite day

Edited July 13, 2006 by ZSandmann

[+tirediron]

No thanks-no more Geocache-found a more fun way to do this. The "reviewer" does not know how to read maps or use GPS correctly and it is not my job to train them. I am not looking for another complicated hobby or one translated by passive-aggressive folks. I am going to leave them to it.

 

I have been using all types of maps for many years and I thought that G.P.S. would allow more people to find interesting places. But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

3

The "not know how to read maps" line is a little original, but the lack of over-the-top hyperbole and angst heavily penalizes this geocide.

Cheesy, I really have to disagree with you. I can't give this one more than a 2.25 at best. While I agree that the "maps" line is one of the less common criticisms used in geocides, the poor grammar and sentence structure, along with the overall rambling nature speak to a poorly planned post.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Was the OP talking about God Bless America Cache? I'm a little confused how that cache can be published and archived all in one day?

[+Seamus]

Efficiency.

[+Allen_L]

Was the OP talking about God Bless America Cache? I'm a little confused how that cache can be published and archived all in one day?

Seems to be live now.

[+Team GeoBlast]

So far I have hidden two caches. On the first one, the reviewer decided incorrectly that it was on land supervised by the National Park Service, the reviewer could not find the e-mail thehy sent to me about this and after getting all the information backj to them, no response in week other thanthey had lot to do. Seems like they would have less to do if they used correct information, communicated clearly and kept up withthere ouwn notes.

 

Second one, the reviewer was more concerned about the fact that I have two homes rather than my commitment to follow the guideline for cache maintainence.

 

The repeat excuse is that they are voluteers.

 

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

 

I suppose if you read these forums and talk to enough folks that have been playing the game for a while, you'll hear them all say that you'll feel differently after you have found twenty or more geocaches.

 

Try to look at it this way, how would you know what a duck looks like if you have never seen one? It's the same with a good geocache hide. You've got to experience it. My suggestion is do some hunting before you hide another cache and see for yourself if there's any validity to this very common suggestion.

 

I'll just speak for my local reviewer and tell you that I can't believe he's a volunteer. He's professional, informed. and always has an approval or a question back in 24 hours. I wish I could get this kind of response from the services I have to pay for.

[MapheadMike]

Was the OP talking about God Bless America Cache? I'm a little confused how that cache can be published and archived all in one day?

This speaks pretty well to the reviewer's integrity. Some research by forum participants (that the OP should have done himself) showed the cache was legal, and it was published despite the OP's display of unsportsmanlike conduct in this forum. A reviewer with less intergrity would have held it up for some other reason (perhaps a stricter interpretation of the maintainable distance rule) to payback the OP.