Is This Wrong, Unethical Or Just Plain Sneaky?

[Cloudwalker501]

I entered a cache site for approval by geocaching.com but was refused publication because it was within 500 ft. of one of my other caches. I guess I should have checked this before I submitted my cache for review. Anyway, I went to remove the micro container today and had, what I thought, was a good idea. Inside the front cover of the log book of my original cache I added the following:

 

BONUS CACHE

"Land Between The Lakes"

N 36 xx.xxx W 077 xx.xxx

 

geocaching.com refused to publish this find

because it was within 500 ft. of this cache. This

is a log only cache in a 35mm film container.

 

Location is in the title above.

 

HINT: see back cover of this book for the hint.

 

I realize that anyone that finds this cache won't get credit for it, but I figured since they were already in the area, it would be a cool surprise. What do you think? Is this a bad idea?

[+sbell111]

What are you going to do when people try to log two finds?

[+nekom]

I don't personally see anything wrong with that. You're referencing a cache that exists, but is not listed on gc.com. not all caches are, just the vast majority of them.

[+WalruZ]

If there are two worthwhile spots for caches that close to each other, perhaps you should have considered a multi. In fact, you could archive the existing cache and construct a multi there instead.

 

I find that a traditional works best if there is a single significant point to place a cache within, say, 2000 feet, and a multi is more appropriate if you want people to 'tour' a specific 'route', since with multis you can exercise more control over where people go and how they proceed.

[4wheelin_fool]

Multicaches can have parts closer than 500 feet. Sounds like a good multi.

[+Kealia]

If there are two worthwhile spots for caches that close to each other, perhaps you should have considered a multi. In fact, you could archive the existing cache and construct a multi there instead.

 

I find that a traditional works best if there is a single significant point to place a cache within, say, 2000 feet, and a multi is more appropriate if you want people to 'tour' a specific 'route', since with multis you can exercise more control over where people go and how they proceed.

 

Ditto.

[+briansnat]

I entered a cache site for approval by geocaching.com but was refused publication because it was within 500 ft. of one of my other caches. I guess I should have checked this before I submitted my cache for review. Anyway, I went to remove the micro container today and had, what I thought, was a good idea. Inside the front cover of the log book of my original cache I added the following:

 

BONUS CACHE

"Land Between The Lakes"

N 36 xx.xxx W 077 xx.xxx

 

geocaching.com refused to publish this find

because it was within 500 ft. of this cache. This

is a log only cache in a 35mm film container.

 

Location is in the title above.

 

HINT: see back cover of this book for the hint.

 

I realize that anyone that finds this cache won't get credit for it, but I figured since they were already in the area, it would be a cool surprise. What do you think? Is this a bad idea?

 

I think its fine, but I doubt many would go after the other cache unless they are able to get an extra smiley. But if you allow the extra smiley on your existing cache, your reviewer may see that as a deliberate circumvention of the guidelines and you might wind up with two archived caches.

[+Criminal]

SNIP...Anyway, I went to remove the micro container today and had, what I thought, was a good idea. SNIP

Is this a bad idea?

Why does it have to be good or bad? The idea isn’t necessarily bad, but then it isn’t necessarily good either. You should ask yourself:

 

Is this location so fantastic that the world needs another film container here?

Could I possibly move the film container another 28’ to get it outside the limit window?

WHY am I hiding a cache here?

[+gnbrotz]

Multicaches can have parts closer than 500 feet. Sounds like a good multi.

 

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 multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

Emphasis added by me. While reviewer discretion is applicable in either case, the guidelines recommend the minimum distance for multi stages as well as individual caches.

 

I see no problem with the OP's idea (as far as the concept goes), but if you aren't going to allow folks to log two 'smilies' on the listed cache, you should probably spell that out so they aren't upset after the fact. It would also be great if the second location were a worthwhile spot to visit, not just a place big enough to hide a film canister.

Edited December 12, 2006 by gnbrotz

[+New England n00b]

Multicaches can have parts closer than 500 feet. Sounds like a good multi.

 

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 multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

Emphasis added by me. While reviewer discretion is applicable in either case, the guidelines recommend the minimum distance for multi stages as well as individual caches.

 

I see no problem with the OP's idea (as far as the concept goes), but if you aren't going to allow folks to log two 'smilies' on the listed cache, you should probably spell that out so they aren't upset after the fact. It would also be great if the second location were a worthwhile spot to visit, not just a place big enough to hide a film canister.

I have a cache where they are closer, and today I logged a cache where they are MUCH closer. In my case, the waypoints are meant to guide people so they do not stray onto private property that is close by. In the one I logged today, it was to stop at certain signs to collect information to complete the cache, and to make you examine the posted flora information. Both are legitimate reasons for having closer waypoints, so long as you let the reviewer know *why* - they are guidelines, not rules after all.

 

OP, I agree - try turning it into a multicache. Those are a lot of fun, and if each stage has some interesting aspect, all the better! Good luck!

[TinyMoon & The Pumpkin King]

I thought caches could be no closer than 250 apart... ?

 

Anyhoo...

 

There is a cache near Binghamton NY where the cacher who placed it explains right in the cache profile "this isn't where I wanted it, but it's where "they" made me put it, so when you get to my cache you'll find the co'ords to where I actually wanted it". It's a puzzle cache based on the German "Enigma" Encryption Machine of World War II.

 

One of our own caches was originally denied, so we turned it into a multi, using the "original" Stage 1 as the "new" Stage 2...and it was approved and now everyone's happy.

[+Renegade Knight]

SNIP...Anyway, I went to remove the micro container today and had, what I thought, was a good idea. SNIP

Is this a bad idea?

Why does it have to be good or bad? The idea isn’t necessarily bad, but then it isn’t necessarily good either. You should ask yourself:

 

Is this location so fantastic that the world needs another film container here?

Could I possibly move the film container another 28’ to get it outside the limit window?

WHY am I hiding a cache here?

I have made that very argument to get a cache at 300' approved. The argument failed and the cache languishes on navicache. 528' away was a parking lot. 300' was a cliff overlooking the river. 15" either side and there was no hide. It was follow the rule and use a lamp post and get finds or place the worthy cache anyway, and get no finds.

 

Another cache I did was called splitting the difference. ONe was on the side of a road. The spot was ok, but the road traffic made being disrete impossible. 528' away was a cache behind the humane society building. Right in the middle was a rock face hidden by trees with a crack you could climb up to get to the top of the cliff. ONce there you were in a small depression and could not be seen from the park below, the humain society or the road. Beautifu urban cache also languishing on navicache. I didn't even try to go for an exception.

[+Jamie Z]

Is this location so fantastic that the world needs another film container here?

WHY am I hiding a cache here?

Crim,

 

You should know well by now that these two questions are clearly outside the cache hiding guidelines and don't need any consideration at all.

 

Jamie

[+Lil Devil]

I just don't understand why so many people use leaky film cans for cache containers instead of something that will stay dry inside?

 

Oh wait, that's a different topic

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Inside the front cover of the log book of my original cache I added the following:

 

geocaching.com refused to publish this find

because I couldn't follow the guidelines. This

is a log only cache in a 35mm film container.

Fixed

[+Lighteye]

For TPAM..youch.

 

For the OP, if it is really that good of a spot, make it a multi and explain why it is within the .10 rule. If the spot is really that perfect, I am sure that your reviewer will go along, as the guidelines are just that...guidelines, and not carved in stone.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

SNIP...Anyway, I went to remove the micro container today and had, what I thought, was a good idea. SNIP

Is this a bad idea?

Why does it have to be good or bad? The idea isn’t necessarily bad, but then it isn’t necessarily good either. You should ask yourself:

 

Is this location so fantastic that the world needs another film container here?

Could I possibly move the film container another 28’ to get it outside the limit window?

WHY am I hiding a cache here?

I have made that very argument to get a cache at 300' approved. The argument failed and the cache languishes on navicache. 528' away was a parking lot. 300' was a cliff overlooking the river. 15" either side and there was no hide. It was follow the rule and use a lamp post and get finds or place the worthy cache anyway, and get no finds.

 

Another cache I did was called splitting the difference. ONe was on the side of a road. The spot was ok, but the road traffic made being disrete impossible. 528' away was a cache behind the humane society building. Right in the middle was a rock face hidden by trees with a crack you could climb up to get to the top of the cliff. ONce there you were in a small depression and could not be seen from the park below, the humain society or the road. Beautifu urban cache also languishing on navicache. I didn't even try to go for an exception.

 

Good point, you could always post the other cache on Navicache and maybe note it in your first cache.

[Dinoprophet]

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 multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

Emphasis added by me. While reviewer discretion is applicable in either case, the guidelines recommend the minimum distance for multi stages as well as individual caches.

 

The guideline means that other caches cannot be within 528 feet of the stages of a multi, as opposed to just the posted starting coordinates of a multi. The stages of the same multi may be closer than 528 feet to each other.

 

I like it as either a bonus cache or a multi. I don't see the bonus in any way being underhanded.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Well, let's see...

500 feet corrected for GPS error ratings could be any distance between 465 feet to 545 feet. If it is really545 feet, hen it would be OK, so an argument could be made that it actually DOES comply with the guidelines.

 

Or perhaps you could modify your coordinates so thet the requisite 28 feet show in the calculations- then after it is approved, move the coords a little (remembering there is a limit to how far you can move them now, but I think you can move 28 feet without a problem) Or just leave the coordiantes alone since 28 feet is plenty close enough anyway and let the first few finders post better coordinates if they wish.

 

Of course, deliberately fudging coordinates is perhaps a little bit unethical and there is no reason to believe the reviewer will buy it anyway, since it has been posted in the forum and the reviewerknows what you would be up to and besides the reviewer is under NO OBLIGATION to approve ANY cache anyway.

 

In order to convert the two of them to a multi, you would first have to archive the original. Since the approver is sticking to the "letter of the law" , the multi probably could not be approved either under current guidelines with the present separation, therefore you would probably have 2 unlisted caches. At least that is a chance you take.

 

There is only really one good way to go about getting it approved if that is the ultimate goal- ask the approver what you should do so that it would get approved, then do it. Pretty simple really.

 

Otherwise, there is no harm in the "bonus" cache, but it should be understood that it is not a "bonus" online smiley.

 

Honestly, I think splitting hairs like this is ridiculous, especially since the same person owns both caches. Guidelines! Hello! GUIDELINES, not the Ten Commandments!

[+cimawr]

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 multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, except for any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache.

 

Huh! I skimmed over the hiding guidelines in the past (will read them more thoroughly if and when I decide to actually hide a cache or two), but hadn't picked up on that little bit.

 

Reason it interests me is that we've got two caches in my area that are approximately 30 feet apart; one's a traditional cache, one is the final stage of a puzzle cache - and a LOT of the finds on the puzzle cache are made by people who spot it while looking for the other one. (The puzzle cache is in a container attached to a tree, and the container's currently broken, so you can see the cache inside from a distance.)

Making it even odder, the two caches were placed only a couple of months apart, and the puzzle cache's owner knows how near the other cache is; he's got a find logged on it.

 

They do both date back to 2003; is the saturation rule newer than that?

[+Lil Devil]

They do both date back to 2003; is the saturation rule newer than that?

The reviewers only started asking for the final coords of puzzle caches in summer 2003.

[+cimawr]

 

Making it even odder, the two caches were placed only a couple of months apart, and the puzzle cache's owner knows how near the other cache is; he's got a find logged on it.

 

 

Odder yet... I read back through all the logs out of curiosity, and it seems that the puzzle cache was orginally in a different location; the puzzle has seekers looking in different corners of a very large park, and at some point it was shifted from one corner to another, which put it right next to the trad. cache. Huh.

[+OHMIKY]

I think its fine, but I doubt many would go after the other cache unless they are able to get an extra smiley. But if you allow the extra smiley on your existing cache, your reviewer may see that as a deliberate circumvention of the guidelines and you might wind up with two archived caches.

 

this assumes that folks care about smileys - not everyone does