What if ?

[MouseFart]

You had a cache denied because it was say, too close to another cache. So....... you hide another cache that gets approved. In that cache, you have only a set of coordinates that direct you to the first cache that would not be published.

 

Anything wrong with that?

[+wandererrob]

You had a cache denied because it was say, too close to another cache. So....... you hide another cache that gets approved. In that cache, you have only a set of coordinates that direct you to the first cache that would not be published.

 

Anything wrong with that?

 

Eh, kind of a shady way around it. Technically you have to list all stages of a multi, which this would be. I suspect if you had it listed as a traditional, the logs would soon belie the cache's nature and lead to archiving.

 

Just my guess.

Edited March 8, 2007 by wandererrob

[+gof1]

That would be called a multi cache.

All stages of a multi cache must conform to the guidelines.

[+Bad Duck]

yes. It would be wrongly listed as a traditional cache not as a multi cache.

[+Bad Duck]

Dang I type slow.

[Art Carnage]

You had a cache denied because it was say, too close to another cache. So....... you hide another cache that gets approved. In that cache, you have only a set of coordinates that direct you to the first cache that would not be published.

 

Anything wrong with that?

In pretty short order, somebody would email the approver, complaining that the cache was mis-categorized. At that point, as they say, "the jig is up". If you're lucky, the approver would just archive and lock the cache. And put a note in your permanent folder.

[+wiseye]

Why don't you just work with in the system instead of trying to find ways to get your disappoved cache out there. The guidlines exist for good reasons, please stick to them, I'm sure you can place good caches in good locastion.

[+briansnat]

You had a cache denied because it was say, too close to another cache. So....... you hide another cache that gets approved. In that cache, you have only a set of coordinates that direct you to the first cache that would not be published.

 

Anything wrong with that?

 

If the second cache is not listed here and it's just a bonus cache for the finder I don't believe that it needs to comply with the guidelines. I could be wrong though.

 

However, if you allow double "found it" logs on the first cache for anybody who finds the bonus, your reviewer will probably look at it as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the guidelines, archive your cache and give any future submissions from you extra scrutiny.

[+ZSandmann]

You had a cache denied because it was say, too close to another cache. So....... you hide another cache that gets approved. In that cache, you have only a set of coordinates that direct you to the first cache that would not be published.

 

Anything wrong with that?

 

If the second cache is not listed here and it's just a bonus cache for the finder I don't believe that it needs to comply with the guidelines. I could be wrong though.

 

However, if you allow double "found it" logs on the first cache for anybody who finds the bonus, your reviewer will probably look at it as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the guidelines, archive your cache and give any future submissions from you extra scrutiny.

 

But, his what if scenario says that there would be nothing in the first published cache except coordinates to the bonus. That wouldn't work as a cache must have at the minimum a log book. And you couldn't deny a smilie to someone who only found the published cache.

[+Mudfrog]

Work with your reviewer if you feel that second stage is in a great spot but too close to another cache. Give him or her the reasons why you think your cache fits in there and it may just be approved. If he/she doesn't go for it, then at least you can say you tried. Just don't try to sneak something past your reviewer.