Cache approval on geocaching.com

[+Bad_CRC]

Isn't the cache approval process a little backwards?

 

It seems that you need to actually place a cache, then get it approved (or not approved)

 

This of course is a pain if a cache is not approved for some reason (as several angry threads which have appeared here demonstrate) But also seems to encourage random cache placement.

 

Seems to me that a 2 step process would be better for everyone to encourage more forethought, and make denied caches easier on everyone.

 

Come up with a spot for a cache, get coordinates.

submit the site for approval *Before* the cache is placed.

a minimum of 24 hours later, you can submit the cache for publishing after the container is placed.

 

would require more thought by the cache placer.

would eliminate hassle caused every time a cache is not approved, no need to retrieve container, no containers left by people who don't bother to retrieve them when not approved, less logical reason to be upset if your cache isn't approved

 

then it would be a piece of cake for the reviewers to publish the pre-approved placements, or even since they are already reviewed, the placer could choose a date (within a timeframe) for the listing to go live.

[4wheelin_fool]

I dont think it is backwards, as if the hider is unwilling to retrieve their unapproved cache, then they are also unlikely to do any maintenance. I personally try to hide caches in spots that I like to visit more than once.

 

But I like the idea of a 2 step process. The reviewer could review it, and give a one week time period for the hider to publish it themselves. But it also would be more time consuming, and create problems when a a few caches are placed near each other by different cachers, but not published yet.

[+Miragee]

Many of my caches involve a long hike. If I had to do what you are suggesting, I wouldn't have placed some of the caches I have placed.

 

When I go out with the intention of placing a cache, I put the caches I have found, the caches I have placed, and the caches I haven't found in that area in my GPSr. That way I can make sure I am .1 away from any another cache.

 

In really crowded areas, where a Puzzle cache might be hidden, or where a waypont for a Multi exists, the cacher just has to go out and move the cache to another location. I think that is what happened with this cache.

 

I think the Approval process works just fine the way it is now.

[+StarBrand]

If you read and understand the guidelines (and follow them) and scout out your spot well - the current process works great. And it gets caches reviewed and published a lot faster. You do check the box that says you read and understand the guidelines - didn't you???

 

Also - I can see a circumstance where you thought an ammo box would fit there but it didn't so now you have to revise the hide spot a bit and get it re-reviewed. Much better to get the whole thing in place the first time.

 

Also - Your method requires 2 trips for every cache placement vs only 1 needed for 98% or more under current system.

[+Cardinal Red]

Caches are not "Approved". They are "Reviewed" to insure compliance with the guidelines. If they comply with the guidelines they are "Published". The number of submitted caches that result in angry cachers are a small percentage. Usually seems to be newbies with a short fuse who did not read the guidelines. If they get mad and quit, I think we are better off without them.

 

You can ask questions about a potential hide BEFORE you place it. More research before trying to place Caches is what we really need.

[+GoBolts!]

Your plan does have some merit however comma it sounds like more work to me.

 

I have only had 1 cache not be approved...so I would now have to go twice???

 

And even if I had to go retrieve one 50% of the time...that would be allot easer the having to go twice every time.

Edited April 23, 2007 by GoBolts!

[+Renegade Knight]

It is backwards in some respects. Regardless of how hard you worked on the cache and how perfect your cache may be and having perfect permission with a signed slip from each employee of the parks department giving you accolades for your cache and even with the "best in show" award from your local geocachers association...

 

You can still have your cache rejected for listing by this site because this site has it's own rules and regs for having your cache listed. Some are good for caching and some are just what this site likes.

 

The idea has merit. Perhaps as an option. Sometimes I know I'm good with this site, and sometimes I know I'm pusing some listing requirement or another.

Edited April 23, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+briansnat]

If the cache placer reads and understands the guidelines, there really is no need to go through a pre approval process.

 

In the instances where a placer is not clear on the guidelines, or thinks he might be crossing a line, he already has the option running his cache location by a reviewer.

 

If he has to go through the hassle of retreiving a cache that has been denied, it is very likely that it is his fault in the first place because he didn't read the guidelines.

[+Kit Fox]

Isn't the cache approval process a little backwards?

 

It seems that you need to actually place a cache, then get it approved (or not approved)

This of course is a pain if a cache is not approved for some reason (as several angry threads which have appeared here demonstrate) But also seems to encourage random cache placement.

 

Seems to me that a 2 step process would be better for everyone to encourage more forethought, and make denied caches easier on everyone.

 

Come up with a spot for a cache, get coordinates.

submit the site for approval *Before* the cache is placed.

a minimum of 24 hours later, you can submit the cache for publishing after the container is placed.

 

would require more thought by the cache placer.

would eliminate hassle caused every time a cache is not approved, no need to retrieve container, no containers left by people who don't bother to retrieve them when not approved, less logical reason to be upset if your cache isn't approved

 

then it would be a piece of cake for the reviewers to publish the pre-approved placements, or even since they are already reviewed, the placer could choose a date (within a timeframe) for the listing to go live.

 

You still need to visit the same spot twice, how would this save time?

 

As others have said, taking the time to read, understand, and follow the guidelines is all that is needed. I've hidden 97 caches and have never had one denied (not once). I take the time to find areas that meet my criteria (areas that i'd like to visit, scenic, or historical locations, or family friendly locations.) I make sure that there is never any issue with proximity rules, nor any violation of cache placing guidelines.

 

If cachers would (get this) take the time to follow the rules, plan ahead they should rarely have any issues placing caches. The only exception I can think of is someone wanted to place a cache in a certain location, but was unaware that there placement was too close to a difficulty puzzle cache that they could not solve.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Edited April 23, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

If the cache placer reads and understands the guidelines, there really is no need to go through a pre approval process.

 

In the instances where a placer is not clear on the guidelines, or thinks he might be crossing a line, he already has the option running his cache location by a reviewer.

 

If he has to go through the hassle of retreiving a cache that has been denied, it is very likely that it is his fault in the first place because he didn't read the guidelines.

 

My area appears to be served by 3 reviewers who have 3 personalities. Some understand the concept of what a cache is and what the hunt is about and will approve caches that meet the spirit and intent of caching. Some do their best to interpret the will of TBTB and err on the conservative side. I have no way to know in advance which reviewer 'm going to get. Further reviewers come and go, change and shift, get asked to resign, and fill in for others on vacation. The idea of requesting a specific reviewer has been shot down in flames in these forums.

 

The idea has merit for a lot of reasons. It's also requested every now and then for those reasons.

 

I have seen caches approved that broke rules that met the spirit of geocaching.

I have seen caches listings refused because the rule is "keep 528' away" and it's not "if given a choice between a parking lot or a worthy spot chose the worthy spot” At the same time we are told that 528’ is a guideline.

I have seen two caches in identical circumstances with a split decision. One was approved by one reviewer, one was rejected by another. Entirely because of how they viewed the exact phraseology of the wording of the rules.

 

Since the rules are really guidelines it’s fair to have a way built into the system that would allow you to formally run the cache idea up the flagpole to see if it’s going to wave.

 

Lastly:

 

If the reviewers truly understood the guidelines they would all agree and personality would never play a part in how they go about approvals and intrepret the guidelines. It would all be clear and never be discussed in the forums by the laymen cachers who place them either.

[+Miragee]

If cachers would (get this) take the time to follow the rules, plan ahead they should rarely have any issues placing caches. The only exception I can think of is someone wanted to place a cache in a certain location, but was unaware that there placement was too close to a difficulty puzzle cache that they could not solve.

Exactly. For the cache I linked to above, I think it was placed near a Multi-waypoint or a Puzzle cache. Around here we have several active Puzzle cachers, who often create devious, almost unsolveable puzzles. Many of us cannot figure them out. Some of us, like me, don't even try . . . :rolleyes:

 

When I wanted to place a cache on a peak where I knew two puzzle caches had been placed, I ran a couple of locations past my Reviewer first. Those locations turned out to be okay. However, I have also been along on a hike when a cache had to be moved because it was too close to a difficult, mult-stage Puzzle final.

 

These things happen. I would rather hike out to one location twice to move a cache that was too close to another than have to hike out to all the locations twice in order to place a cache.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Isn't the cache approval process a little backwards?

 

All of my caches were placed with a single visit to the cache location. That doesn't seem backwards to me at all.. Read the guidelines carefully and 9 times out of 10 you won't have a problem. If a person is intent on playing the game by their own rules, you may get yourself some extra exercise.

[Clan Riffster]

The vast majority of the angry threads regarding non-published caches started because the hider didn't correctly interpret the guidelines. Had these folks worked with their reviewer before lugging their ammo can/decon kit/film canister/etc out to their chosen location, they would've saved themselves lots of aggravation.

 

My hide process is pretty simple:

1. Read the guidelines again, in case there were any changes
   
2. Check to see if there are any regulations regarding the property I want to hide on
   
3. If not, Hide & submit
   
4. If there are any questions or concerns, I contact my reviewer first
   

It's worked so far.

[+riviouveur]

If the reviewers truly understood the guidelines they would all agree and personality would never play a part in how they go about approvals and intrepret the guidelines. It would all be clear and never be discussed in the forums by the laymen cachers who place them either.

 

If you change the start of the first sentence to:

"If the reviewers truly understood the guidelines, and had full information about the cache, and unlimited time to dedicate to each one"

then you might be getting closer to the truth.

 

The reviewers are left to interpret the guidelines more or less as they see fit. They don't go to weekly indoctrination seminars where Groundspeak lackeys chant the difference between a "Question to Answer" and a "Stage of a Multicache". The guidelines change over time, the reviewers try to keep up. They're human and don't just get a firmware upgrade. When you throw 375,000 data points at any rule-based system you're going to have cases which the original designer didn't think of.

 

Many of the guidelines have been brought in over the years to try to prevent certain cache placers from "gaming" the system. Unfortunately that occasionally means that they are applied slightly more (or less) harshly than the placer (or the placer's enemies) might like. For example, the 528 feet guideline is meant to deter power trails (or at least, "excessively dense" power trails), but it's clearly an arbitrary limit (as any European cacher who has been told that his two caches, 158 metres apart, are too close by 3 - or was it 4 - metres, will testify). What should happen when two fantastic caches are placed 500 feet apart on opposite sides of a hill, with different trails leading up? What constitutes a significant elevation change? If caches are published in apparent violation of the guidelines, how will the reviewer defend his or her actions when some bozo comes along and demands an exception for their 15 lame micros in a 600-foot circle?

 

Finally, don't forget that you can always go to appeals@geocaching.com if you don't like a reviewer's decision.

Edited April 23, 2007 by riviouveur

[+Harry Dolphin]

If the cache placer reads and understands the guidelines, there really is no need to go through a pre approval process.

 

In the instances where a placer is not clear on the guidelines, or thinks he might be crossing a line, he already has the option running his cache location by a reviewer.

 

If he has to go through the hassle of retreiving a cache that has been denied, it is very likely that it is his fault in the first place because he didn't read the guidelines.

 

I'll agree with brian. In most instances, if one understands the guidelines, there will be no problem. I have had caches delayed for reasons of my own fault, but never had one denied for not following guidelines.

I went looking for an FTF on a local cache. DNF. Me and a few others. The cache owner said that he never hides a cache until it's been approved, since he had run into guideline problems before. In this case, he hid it twelve hours after it was approved. Thanks, but I'm not looking for anymore of your caches! In another instance, I went looking for an FTF (as did other cachers). It was definitely not there. That one was probably approved faster than the cache hider expected. He found a spot on the drive home from work, and submitted it. He actually hid it the next day.

If a cache hider understands the guidelines, and works with his/her reviewer, and most importantly, has respect for his/her fellow geocachers, there should not be a problem.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

I went looking for an FTF on a local cache. DNF. Me and a few others. The cache owner said that he never hides a cache until it's been approved, since he had run into guideline problems before. In this case, he hid it twelve hours after it was approved.

<snip>

Unbelievable! Because they were inconvenienced when they ran into problems getting a cache approved, they now inconvenience all the local FTF Hounds and others who look for the cache in those first 12 hours . . .

[+Renegade Knight]

<snip>

I went looking for an FTF on a local cache. DNF. Me and a few others. The cache owner said that he never hides a cache until it's been approved, since he had run into guideline problems before. In this case, he hid it twelve hours after it was approved.

<snip>

Unbelievable! Because they were inconvenienced when they ran into problems getting a cache approved, they now inconvenience all the local FTF Hounds and others who look for the cache in those first 12 hours . . .

That's because the system is backwards at times. Just like the OP pointed out.

 

You can set up your cache page and keep it out of the review queue. However you can't set up your cache page and say "hey don't approve this yet, but is this approvable?" Not without working outside the system as it exists.

 

It's rather a moot point that people are saying "You don't need this" because people are trying to do exactly what's reqeusted with the existing sytem.

 

The real question is "are there enough people who would beneifit to make it worth it?"

Edited April 23, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

If the reviewers truly understood the guidelines they would all agree and personality would never play a part in how they go about approvals and intrepret the guidelines. It would all be clear and never be discussed in the forums by the laymen cachers who place them either.

 

If you change the start of the first sentence to:

"If the reviewers truly understood the guidelines, and had full information about the cache, and unlimited time to dedicate to each one"

then you might be getting closer to the truth.

 

The reviewers are left to interpret the guidelines more or less as they see fit. They don't go to weekly indoctrination seminars where Groundspeak lackeys chant the difference between a "Question to Answer" and a "Stage of a Multicache". The guidelines change over time, the reviewers try to keep up. They're human and don't just get a firmware upgrade. When you throw 375,000 data points at any rule-based system you're going to have cases which the original designer didn't think of.

 

Many of the guidelines have been brought in over the years to try to prevent certain cache placers from "gaming" the system. Unfortunately that occasionally means that they are applied slightly more (or less) harshly than the placer (or the placer's enemies) might like. For example, the 528 feet guideline is meant to deter power trails (or at least, "excessively dense" power trails), but it's clearly an arbitrary limit (as any European cacher who has been told that his two caches, 158 metres apart, are too close by 3 - or was it 4 - metres, will testify). What should happen when two fantastic caches are placed 500 feet apart on opposite sides of a hill, with different trails leading up? What constitutes a significant elevation change? If caches are published in apparent violation of the guidelines, how will the reviewer defend his or her actions when some bozo comes along and demands an exception for their 15 lame micros in a 600-foot circle?

 

Finally, don't forget that you can always go to appeals@geocaching.com if you don't like a reviewer's decision.

 

In spite of your modification of my post, what you took longer to say is what I said.

 

Your point about time constraints is valid. Your comment about lame caches is for another thread.

[+Renegade Knight]

...In most instances, if one understands the guidelines, there will be no problem. ...

 

Reality is that reviewers don't understand the guidelines well enough to be consistant acrosst the board. We in the forums who are more familiar than most, don't agree on which way to split the hair when it's time to make the call on a specific case.

 

There will be problems. Enough to where it's not unheard of that someone does scout, list, THEN place the cache. Right or wrong they are solving a problem they had.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Reality is that reviewers don't understand the guidelines well enough to be consistant acrosst the board. We in the forums who are more familiar than most, don't agree on which way to split the hair when it's time to make the call on a specific case.

 

There will be problems. Enough to where it's not unheard of that someone does scout, list, THEN place the cache. Right or wrong they are solving a problem they had.

 

And causing major problems for other cachers? What percentage of cache hiders is this? 2%? So the originator of this thread thinks that all cache listings should be delayed for twenty-four hours because a small minority have problems with placement? Least common denominator rules? I have run across a few caches hidden that were not approved, and were not removed. I suppose that this theory would eliminate such geotrash, to be sure. But, as someone else mentioned, these people would not maintain their cache anyway.

I can think of two scenarios why the cache hiders did not hide the cache that I mentioned, until twelve hours after it was hidden. The trail on which it was hidden travels under the Interstate. 1) They might have hidden the original too close to the Interstate. 2) Their previous cache was held up for several weeks because it was hidden too close to an existing cache. (Yes. That took the three weeks to resolve.)

In any case, it is only a very small minority that seem to have these problems, and they seem mostly to be newbies. For this sort of a minor problem, all geocache hiders should be expected to visit the site twice?

Hmm... Might cut down on the number of film canisters tossed out the car window!

[+Bad_CRC]

seems to me that the people who can't be bothered to walk to their cache site twice are exactly the kind of people who put out garbage caches in the first place, the kind of caches we need less of.

[+Miragee]

Excuse me . . .

[+Bad_CRC]

take it however you want.

 

I have people in my area that will throw out 30 micros in a day. I'll stand by the idea that the quality of caches will generally improve in direct proportion to the amount of effort required to get them approved.

 

Anyway, I really don't see anything that would stop someone from putting the cache out before submitting even with pre-approval if they really had a problem with it. The only real difference would be an option to get approval before putting the container out, and giving the placer the ability to control the time it's published.

[+Kit Fox]

seems to me that the people who can't be bothered to walk to their cache site twice are exactly the kind of people who put out garbage caches in the first place, the kind of caches we need less of.

 

Nearly every poster to this thread was united against your "brilliant idea," so you choose to insult everyone with your assanine comments about garbage caches?

 

Allow me to share a couple of your other "brilliant posts" to this forum.

 

see no problems with it.

 

I actually find it much more disturbing that lawmakers under the current administration are showing less and less interest in funding the parks in the first place.

 

someone whining about $5 to preserve a park and pay for management of it so it can be used (by them)...

 

in perspective, last I heard a couple years ago, Invading Iraq cost each taxpayer something like $5,000.00 ... which has done nothing but make us all less safe... seems odd that people pick something so insignificant in comparison to complain about.

 

not only will they be really unhappy to see you out there, it's just not safe. we had another kid killed in MN this year because some idiot hunter thought he was a deer.

 

Not worth it.

 

 

We drove an hour to one cache, and when we got there there was a hunter getting ready to go out, we of course turned around and went home.

 

stay out of the woods during hunting season.

 

BTW,

 

I've only visited these cache sites one time, are my caches garbage? Note that all three are full sized ammo cans.

 

C-46A Commando Crash Site

 

The Real "Lost World" Cache

 

Eisen-Faust

[+Bad_CRC]

yay, I have a stalker.

 

I'm suprised that's allowed here.

[+Kit Fox]

take it however you want.

 

I have people in my area that will throw out 30 micros in a day. I'll stand by the idea that the quality of caches will generally improve in direct proportion to the amount of effort required to get them approved.

 

Anyway, I really don't see anything that would stop someone from putting the cache out before submitting even with pre-approval if they really had a problem with it. The only real difference would be an option to get approval before putting the container out, and giving the placer the ability to control the time it's published.

 

Pre-Approval makes no difference, because the 30 micros that you speak of would have been approved anyway. Now if you found a way for the reviewers to scrutinize cache placements, especially micros placed on private property, sans permission, you would be "on to something."

 

Pre-approval won't stop micro spew, as long as the new numbers game is driving the hobby.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Kit Fox]

yay, I have a stalker.

 

I'm suprised that's allowed here.

 

Not a stalker, just a good memory about your other posts. Anyone can look up the posts from another user, by clicking on their profile.

[+Bad_CRC]

not sure if there's a better example of an unprovoked personal attack anywhere. about as uncalled for, and about as personal as you can manage.

[Keystone]

Spat over. I now return you to your regularly scheduled, on-topic forum thread. It will be a fine topic indeed; completely devoid of personal attacks. Thanks in advance.

[+Miragee]

seems to me that the people who can't be bothered to walk to their cache site twice are exactly the kind of people who put out garbage caches in the first place, the kind of caches we need less of.

You know what is funny about this is that if people had to visit their cache location twice, like this one of mine, which is also at the end of a long drive, the cache is not likely to be placed. Gas is more than $3.25/gallon here. That cache is a more than sixty-mile drive and a more than four-mile hike. Only three people have even found it since last August.

 

I have another series of caches along a nine-mile hike. You want me to walk that distance, take all the cache-location waypoints along a trail where there are no other caches, get prior Approval, and then hike back out there again to place the containers. I don't think so . . .

 

If I have to visit my cache sites twice, where do you think I am going to put a cache if I want to place one -- way closer to home in an area much easier to get to -- like under a lamppost skirt at my grocery store or the guard rail near a culvert in my neighborhood . . .

 

I don't know what happened to you that you think the Approval process is broken, but I have placed many caches and have never had a problem with our local Reviewer. The system has worked for me. Why hasn't it worked for you.

[+Bad_CRC]

cache if I want to place one -- way closer to home in an area much easier to get to -- like under a lamppost skirt at my grocery store or the guard rail near a culvert in my neighborhood .

 

good point. I agree.

 

I don't know what happened to you that you think the Approval process is broken, but I have placed many caches and have never had a problem with our local Reviewer. The system has worked for me. Why hasn't it worked for you.

 

Nothing bad has happened to me, don't know why you'd think or suggest so. I've simply read of others who have had problems.

 

I didn't ever say it was broken, just that the process of placing a cache, then requesting approval from the website seems backwards in many ways. Everything can be improved upon, those who think otherwise are in a sorry state.

[+Prime Suspect]

 

You can set up your cache page and keep it out of the review queue. However you can't set up your cache page and say "hey don't approve this yet, but is this approvable?" Not without working outside the system as it exists.

Actually, there's no reason you can't do this. You can set up the page, and email the reviewer with the page's URL. This is not "outside the system".

[+StarBrand]

...Everything can be improved upon, those who think otherwise are in a sorry state.

 

I guess I am a fairly sorry soul then. Don't see your idea as an improvment. Most of the complaints and "problems" you have seen in these forums stem from an insistace that some guideline should be "bent" to suit a particular placement.

 

I continue to maintain that a better solution is for the hiders to try and follow the guidelines as best as possible.

 

RK - I understand that not ALL caches are clear violations and that the gray leans both ways at times but you would have to agree that the majority of forum complaints stem from guideline violations. yes?? The reviewers are not perfect but they do try thier best.

[+Bad_CRC]

I guess I am a fairly sorry soul then. Don't see your idea as an improvment.

 

You're a sorry soul if you don't think there is a possibility of improvement, or if you feel a need to try to stop discussion of it.

 

You simply have a difference in opinion if you don't happen to agree with an idea.

 

 

I'd hope you could see a difference between the two, because it's an important one.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I guess I am a fairly sorry soul then. Don't see your idea as an improvment.

 

You're a sorry soul if you don't think there is a possibility of improvement, or if you feel a need to try to stop discussion of it.

 

That's not very nice. You created this thread and said that the review process is backwards. Nearly ALL forum posters on this topic, including myself, disagree with your assessment that the process is backwards. Nobody is trying to stop you. Everyone is just disagreeing with you. If 9 people claim "A" is correct and 1 person claims "B" is correct, then common sense and logic would indicate that B is backwards.

 

Be happy that you have the freedom to say whatever you want. But respect my freedom to disagree with you without being painted as some sorry soul who is repressing Bad_CRC..... Next topic please.

[+Bad_CRC]

Please read again, The text of the post was exactly opposite of what you read...

[+cachingfamily1]

Sounds good to me!

[+cachingfamily1]

I love the idea, but then, I'm looking at caching as exercise.

[+krisandmel]

Seems like this has evolved, or devolved, into two separate issues.

 

#1, is the review process "backwards"?

 

and

 

#2, are caches garbage if the placer isn't willing or able to visit it more than once?

 

In my opinion, for #1, the answer seems to be no.

There are 300K+ caches out there if I read the front page right, and most cachers seem pretty happy, so it must be working.

 

For #2, well, that's even more subjective.

I do see the the OP's point, in that the Guidelines do try to make sure that whoever hides a cache will be able to properly maintain it and be a good steward of the area and the cache.

That's why the whole "vacation hides" are nixed.

 

Seems like a lot of people who've posted to this thread have only been to their hide(s) the one time they hid it.

Bravo to those people who have mastered the "maintenance free" geocache.

 

Even if there is no sign of problems in the logs online, I think it's a decent idea to check on your hides every once in awhile. Or at least more than just once.

C'mon, have a little pride of ownership over your creation.

 

Keep an eye on the area, make sure the container is being restashed exactly as intended (instead of a little differently every time like a telephone game where the message, in this case the container, ends up far from where it started).

Do a little CITO, and at the very least, it's fun to read some of the things people hand-write in the paper log that they don't type online.

 

To just hide a cache and never check back does lean towards some peoples definition, or rather connotation of spew.

 

I think the OP rubbed some folks the wrong way by suggesting, or wondering, whether something about the game could be improved and got slammed for it.

 

Who knows, I'm sleepy and maybe I'm out of line, but everyone has their own POV on this and every part of the game.

 

~k

[+Miragee]

<snipL>

For #2, well, that's even more subjective.

I do see the the OP's point, in that the Guidelines do try to make sure that whoever hides a cache will be able to properly maintain it and be a good steward of the area and the cache.

That's why the whole "vacation hides" are nixed.

 

Seems like a lot of people who've posted to this thread have only been to their hide(s) the one time they hid it.

Bravo to those people who have mastered the "maintenance free" geocache.

 

Even if there is no sign of problems in the logs online, I think it's a decent idea to check on your hides every once in awhile. Or at least more than just once.

C'mon, have a little pride of ownership over your creation.

 

Keep an eye on the area, make sure the container is being restashed exactly as intended (instead of a little differently every time like a telephone game where the message, in this case the container, ends up far from where it started).

Do a little CITO, and at the very least, it's fun to read some of the things people hand-write in the paper log that they don't type online.

 

To just hide a cache and never check back does lean towards some peoples definition, or rather connotation of spew.

 

I think the OP rubbed some folks the wrong way by suggesting, or wondering, whether something about the game could be improved and got slammed for it.

 

Who knows, I'm sleepy and maybe I'm out of line, but everyone has their own POV on this and every part of the game.

 

~k

Why? if I have hidden a good container, a Lock 'n Lock, or an ammo can, two miles from the parking area, and the cache has only been found three times since it was placed last August, and it is a 70-mile round trip drive, with gas at $3.25/gallon, why should I have to check on my cache?

 

If someone reports a problem, or if someone logs a DNF, I will check on the cache as soon as possible.

 

I do have "pride in my creation," but I would rather hike to another new location like this one . . .

 

 

and place a new cache, as I did last week, than check on one of my other 90+ caches on which no problems have been reported.

[+krisandmel]

 

Why? if I have hidden a good container, a Lock 'n Lock, or an ammo can, two miles from the parking area, and the cache has only been found three times since it was placed last August, and it is a 70-mile round trip drive, with gas at $3.25/gallon, why should I have to check on my cache?

 

If someone reports a problem, or if someone logs a DNF, I will check on the cache as soon as possible.

 

I do have "pride in my creation," but I would rather hike to another new location like this one . . .

 

 

and place a new cache, as I did last week, than check on one of my other 90+ caches on which no problems have been reported.

 

I see your point.

As long as you are willing and able to do maintenance if necessary, then I don't have any problem with that at all.

 

Also with 90+ hides, that's way different than my two hides that are within 5 miles of my home.

 

Last night when I first posted to this thread I was tired and irritable and just posted what I thought at the time; now, having slept, I can see how one-time visits (with the ability to do maint. if req'd) are fine and just a different way to play the game.

 

Oh, and I didn't intend to imply that anyone here doesn't have pride in their cache-hides; that was worded poorly.

 

Happy caching!

~K

[+VKsnr]

I do not think it is backwards, for all the reasons previously stated.

 

Seems like the real problem is that people get angry when their cache is not approved.

 

First of all, why get angry? Work it out with the reviewer or appeal. Simple and anger free.

 

Second, if someone is going to get angry about a disapproval under the current system, they will get angry under your proposed system.

 

Third, it will still be possible to "get around" your proposed system and still produce lame caches, even ones that the hider is enthusiastically maintaining.

 

VKsnr

[+Renegade Knight]

 

You can set up your cache page and keep it out of the review queue. However you can't set up your cache page and say "hey don't approve this yet, but is this approvable?" Not without working outside the system as it exists.

Actually, there's no reason you can't do this. You can set up the page, and email the reviewer with the page's URL. This is not "outside the system".

 

That's a way to work with the existing system and it also solves the problem of placing the cache after the approval. It doesn't solve a few other issues created by the existing system being a bit backwards. The work around requires more reviewer time. They have to review, answer the email, then review again when the cache is ready.

 

It's not quite as clean as a checkbox. Pick one and submit.

 

[] Please Review and list (How it works most of the time now).

[] Please Review but don't list.

[] Not ready for review or listing. (for caches we are working on, the other option we have now)

 

Once submitted it changes. When you are ready to list the cache pick one and submit.

 

* Cache is approved for listing.

[] Please list now.

[] Plaase list on (insert date and time) - solves another request for a specific release time.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...And causing major problems for other cachers?...

 

I think we are looking at this differenlty.

 

If 98% of the time you have "Review and list" then there is no reason to not offer that as an option.

 

The real question in my mind isn't "is there a beneifit to this" because clearly there is or people would not be trying to do this with the existing system by various work arounds, the real question is. "If we gave people the option to request a review but not list the cache until the cache checks off that it's in place, would they abuse this and create more problems than we solved".

 

See my post above this one for how I'd see this working.

[+Moose Mob]

Let's not complicate this, OK? If you know your environment, then it will be fine (at least 98% of the time). Typically proximity issues are with temporary disabled caches or waypoints for puzzles or multi-caches.

 

Even if the coordiantes are preapproved, there can be problems. It could look like a pipe bomb. It could contain kives and such, the coordiantes given were 20 feet from actual and now it's on private property.

 

Yes, having a cache denied because of something you weren't aware of can be frustrating, but I believe the way we are doing it is easier and doesn't warrant the change.

 

I get requests all the time for placements, but it's usually for an area where the hider is unsure of the property ownership and/or geocaching policy.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Even if the coordiantes are preapproved, there can be problems. It could look like a pipe bomb. It could contain kives and such, the coordiantes given were 20 feet from actual and now it's on private property....

 

I'm not sure how that applies here. You can have any and all those issues with any cache listing. The key difference being that the cache isn't already in place to cause an issue if a problem should be spotted.

 

Caches are approved based on info provided on the listing submission and reviewer notes. Nothing changes about that.

 

However you could simplify the reqest to this.

 

[] Please review and list this cache.

[] Please review and list this cache as disabled.

[] This cache is a work in progress and not ready for review and/or listing.

 

That works within the current system. Plus you don't have the extra burden of emails. The cache owner re-enables the cache when it's placed.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

Many of my caches involve a long hike. If I had to do what you are suggesting, I wouldn't have placed some of the caches I have placed.

 

When I go out with the intention of placing a cache, I put the caches I have found, the caches I have placed, and the caches I haven't found in that area in my GPSr. That way I can make sure I am .1 away from any another cache.

 

In really crowded areas, where a Puzzle cache might be hidden, or where a waypont for a Multi exists, the cacher just has to go out and move the cache to another location. I think that is what happened with this cache.

 

I think the Approval process works just fine the way it is now.

I agree plus we understand the guidelines very well. I like to bring a cache along with me wheh I go on a new hike that doesn't have a lot of caches. I always make sure that I load all caches in the area. If there are a lot of puzzles in the area I'll find them first or confirm with other puzzle solvers that my spot is OK. Anyhow, if it isn't broke don't fix it!

[Clan Riffster]

One valid point Bad CRC made was that anything can be improved upon. I just don't personally agree with his particular suggested improvements.

[+Moose Mob]

....Even if the coordiantes are preapproved, there can be problems. It could look like a pipe bomb. It could contain kives and such, the coordiantes given were 20 feet from actual and now it's on private property....

 

I'm not sure how that applies here. You can have any and all those issues with any cache listing. The key difference being that the cache isn't already in place to cause an issue if a problem should be spotted.

 

Caches are approved based on info provided on the listing submission and reviewer notes. Nothing changes about that.

 

However you could simplify the reqest to this.

 

[] Please review and list this cache.

[] Please review and list this cache as disabled.

[] This cache is a work in progress and not ready for review and/or listing.

 

That works within the current system. Plus you don't have the extra burden of emails. The cache owner re-enables the cache when it's placed.

 

Only having one option is also pretty simple.

[] Please review and list this cache.

 

The current system assumes that the cacher has knowledge of the area and the guidelines, at least for 95% of the placements. I prefer that over a system that assume that the reviewer will do the research for the cacher. Don't misunderstand this, questions are fine, and very welcome.

 

The user can start the cache listing, and uncheck the box that says "Yes, this listing is active". Granted, the reviewer cannot see the cache listing in the queue, but they can see it. The cache owner can e-mail the reviewer the URL to the cache page if they want something checked out. This would be more an exception than a rule. Folks also must understand that reviewers don't "hold" a spot for a cacher to eventualy place their cache. This can throw off the concept of preapprovals. If you ask me if a certain spot is OK today, then 3 months later you place the cache, it could have been encrached by the midpoint of that new multi that starts across the park.