Earthcaches and the .1 mile guideline

[+ThePropers]

I only bring this up because of what happened to us yesterday.

 

We had already found/retrieved the info for an earthcache and were exploring the area when we just happened to spot a container in the rocks. I pulled it out, expecting it to be a letterbox, or something else, but it was a geocache (marked as such, with the "congrats you found it, intentionally or not" note).

 

Because there were already 4 names on the logsheet from the day before (probably the same team or group), I assumed it was a new cache that wasn't in my PQ, which was was a few days old. So we signed the logsheet and went about our merry way.

 

I got back home and discovered there's no new cache listed, so now I assume it's a cache that just hasn't been approved yet, and those 4 names on the sheet are either people like us (who just happened to stumble on it) or were with the hider or found it in some other dubious way. No, there wasn't a TB in the cache...at least not when we found it, but I suppose the previous finders could have taken it. Unfortunately I didn't recognize any of the names, nor did I think to make a note of who the finders were.

 

Anyways, that brings me to my question. Does the .1 mile guideline apply to Earthcaches, or is it the same as virtuals?

 

Also, and I don't want to get nit-picky here, but the container (while not hidden that well) was about 40 feet away from the coords for the Earthcache. Are Earthcaches similar to how virtuals were, where they should only be listed if a container can't be hidden there? Again, I don't want to stir up trouble or anything, but there were about 10000000 (give or take 5) places that an ammo can could be hidden in the same area.

 

I am keeping an eye on the area for the next few days to see if a new cache is approved right next to the Earthcache, and if so, I'll log my find.

 

Just curious your thoughts. Oh, here is my log in case you want to read it.

 

EDIT: I should note that I also do not think this is the end of any multis....there's a multi about 1.6 miles away, but it's disabled and nothing in the logs/description would lead me to believe it ends here.

Edited October 16, 2006 by ThePropers

[+sbell111]

I thought the .1 mile guideline applied to all caches, including earthcaches and virts.

Edited October 16, 2006 by sbell111

[+MarjR]

Just a thought--if the cache doesn't show up in the next few days here, it might be a cache that's listed on a different caching website....with different guidelines.

[+ThePropers]

I thought the .1 mile guideline applied to all caches, including earthcaches and virts.

I could be mistaken, but I believe you can hide a traditional/multi/puzzle cache within .1 miles of a virtual.

 

Just a thought--if the cache doesn't show up in the next few days here, it might be a cache that's listed on a different caching website....with different guidelines.

 

Yes, I suppose it could be, but since it was marked "geocache" with the writeup from geocaching.com, I assumed it was through this site.

 

I will check out the other sites and see if I can find it there.

[+sbell111]

It may be a denied cache that is still hanging about.

Edited October 16, 2006 by sbell111

[+ThePropers]

It may be a denied cache that is still hanging about.

 

That's exactly why I was asking about the .1 mile rule regarding traditionals and Earthcaches, since it's 40 feet from the already-approved Earthcache.

 

It's probably just a cache that hasn't been approved yet, since the only logs were from Saturday (so it's not like it's been sitting there long). I'll give it a few days and see if a new one comes up, or perhaps someone with more power than little ol' me could look to see if there's any awaiting approval in that area.

Edited October 16, 2006 by ThePropers

[Mr.Yuck]

Just from my personal experience. I own an Earthcache, and a young man (13 yrs. old at the time), put a cache about 155 feet from my earthcache coords, which could be considered an arbitrary "viewing point" of the Earthcache, which is a waterfall. He filed an appeal to Geocaching.com through the proper channels, and did in fact get his cache approved. It took a few months though .

 

Could be a special case though, considering the arbatrariness (if that's not a word, I just made it up) of the coords for my Earthcache. You could view and take the required pic from any viewing point of the falls.

[+ThePropers]

Maybe it was someone who thought the earthcache was missing (there are 2 DNFs on it) and was "kind enough" to replace the container.

 

Some people just don't know any better

[+Kit Fox]

From my understanding the .1 mile rule was changed to allow physical caches (the bases of the sport) to be placed in areas being held by virtuals and earthcaches. I know of a few physical caches located less than .1 from older virtual caches.

 

If I recall correctly, the change occurred in 05 because enough cachers complained about virtuals hogging areas that would hold physical caches.

[Max Cacher]

There is a cache listed there, it is under review, with talks going on between the reviewer and the cache owner.

 

Grandfathered earth cache the.1 guideline does not apply

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

[+ThePropers]

There is a cache listed there, it is under review, with talks going on between the reviewer and the cache owner.

 

Grandfathered earth cache the.1 guideline does not apply

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

 

Cool....I will keep my eyes open then and log it if/when it's available.

[+palmetto]

Earthcaches, both the originals listed on GC.com and the new listed on Waymarking, are reviewed by GSA, I believe the account name is Geoaware. There's no proximity checking to geocaches.

 

When placing new caches for publication on Geocaching.com, there's no proximity check against existing virtuals, webcams, or earthcaches. There IS proximity checking against the off-set, or virtual stages of multi or puzzle caches (not the bogus coords). For instance, a historical marker where you do some arithmetic on the dates, and generate coordinates for a physical cache. That is treated like a physical stage container.

[+baloo&bd]

Earthcaches, both the originals listed on GC.com and the new listed on Waymarking, are reviewed by GSA, I believe the account name is Geoaware. There's no proximity checking to geocaches.

 

When placing new caches for publication on Geocaching.com, there's no proximity check against existing virtuals, webcams, or earthcaches. There IS proximity checking against the off-set, or virtual stages of multi or puzzle caches (not the bogus coords). For instance, a historical marker where you do some arithmetic on the dates, and generate coordinates for a physical cache. That is treated like a physical stage container.

 

Boy, glad we were able to clear that up....So, if there is no container, it is not checked for proximity unless the point where there is no container leads to another point as long as that point leads to or contains a physical cache unless it is on WM, in which case it would be allowed however there is still no proximity check, unless it is a final point on GC and does not contain a physical cache, which are not used in WM anyway, in which case the .1 rule no longer applies until such time that a physical cache is placed there.

 

We'll try to remember that.

[+sbell111]

Boy, glad we were able to clear that up....So, if there is no container, it is not checked for proximity unless the point where there is no container leads to another point as long as that point leads to or contains a physical cache unless it is on WM, in which case it would be allowed however there is still no proximity check, unless it is a final point on GC and does not contain a physical cache, which are not used in WM anyway, in which case the .1 rule no longer applies until such time that a physical cache is placed there.

 

We'll try to remember that.

[+Tharagleb]

When placing new caches for publication on Geocaching.com, there's no proximity check against existing virtuals, webcams, or earthcaches.

 

Okay, I did not know that. I always assumed the .1 mile rule held for all caches. Well I'll be... ya' learn something every day.

[+ThePropers]

There is a cache listed there, it is under review, with talks going on between the reviewer and the cache owner.

 

Grandfathered earth cache the.1 guideline does not apply

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

 

I was wondering if one of you great moderators/reviewers could give me an update on this mystery cache. I am tired of checking to see if there is a new cache there (it is too far away from home for notifications to be useful), and find #900 is approaching and want to make sure that it's actually #900 and not #901. If someone could let me know if talks are still ongoing of if it's been archived, I would appreciate it.

Edited November 3, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Quiggle]

I was wondering if one of you great moderators/reviewers could give me an update on this mystery cache. I am tired of checking to see if there is a new cache there (it is too far away from home for notifications to be useful), and find #900 is approaching and want to make sure that it's actually #900 and not #901. If someone could let me know if talks are still ongoing of if it's been archived, I would appreciate it.

I've sent an email to the reviewer working on that cache to point him to this thread/post. Not sure what the results are or will be but wanted to give him a heads-up in case he's able to provide an answer to you.

 

Quiggle

[+OReviewer]

Wow, sending your local reviewer would have probably saved you a whole lot of time and effort that's gone into this thread.

 

As you know the earthcache is in Michaux state forest which is under the DCNR and all caches in their lands require a permit. The cache in question is currently on hold pending DCNR approval and has been since Oct 15th.

 

The owner hasn't logged on since about that time and my guess is they haven't even submitted the paperwork. I'd suggest you not bother thinking about this cache as part of your find count.

 

Assume it will be archived by the 15th of this month if I don't hear from the person.

[+ThePropers]

Wow, sending your local reviewer would have probably saved you a whole lot of time and effort that's gone into this thread.

 

As you know the earthcache is in Michaux state forest which is under the DCNR and all caches in their lands require a permit. The cache in question is currently on hold pending DCNR approval and has been since Oct 15th.

 

The owner hasn't logged on since about that time and my guess is they haven't even submitted the paperwork. I'd suggest you not bother thinking about this cache as part of your find count.

 

Assume it will be archived by the 15th of this month if I don't hear from the person.

 

Thanks....I should've done that obviously, but thought since the original discussion was here it would be fine. Thanks for the heads up.

[+robert]

The owner hasn't logged on since about that time and my guess is they haven't even submitted the paperwork. I'd suggest you not bother thinking about this cache as part of your find count.

Just log the earthcache twice!

[+Group_W]

I can see the need to keep ‘final cache locations’ separated, but I have issues when this rule is extended to stages for a multi. When setting up a new multi, or a regular cache for that matter, you do not know where all the stages of other caches may be, near your location. You may not even know there is another ‘final’ near your ‘final’ since posted co-ordinates may be as far as 7 Km away (yes Km’s, I am Canadian)

Cache-tech knows where other ‘stages’ are since he can record these locations from when these other caches were set up. But I believe he would only have this information for more recent caches, as I don’t believe they inquired into stages before? My point is, that someone could go through a lot of work setting up a multi cache, and have it declined since some new ‘stages’ may be close to other ‘stages’. If GC.com is imposing this rule, then I think cachers should have access to locations of these other stages as well. These would not be named, just locations.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Group_W

[+The Leprechauns]

Group W, you absolutely have access to those other stages. GO OUT AND FIND THE NEARBY CACHES!