Roads can change their description!

[+TeamDotOne]

Tried to place a cache, but for some reason, all of a sudden a regular road suddenly turned into a highway so the cache couldn't be listed!!

 

The road is four lanes, outside lanes are for parking along the curbs, and there are crosswalks, lots of little antique shops and gas stations and mom & pop stores -- but according to the reviewer, it's a highway!!

 

And to top it off, " ... cachers would be exposed ..." while searching in a park in a group of pine trees!!

 

*gasp* Oh my!!

 

What is really ironic is that this same road --- err highway --- has a high bridge over a park and river, and there is a cache on the sidewalk railing of the bridge, smack in the middle of the bridge so cachers have to stand there right next to cars drivin' by and feel around the rails ... wow ... think that looks suspicious??? But go figure, that part of the road is still a road and hasn't transformed into a highway yet!!

 

And you should see the correspondence with gc.com .. going to get it put up on my blog so everyone can enjoy the banter .. lol

 

So beware - the road you place a cache by may magically someday turn into a highway!!!

[+Chuy!]

So where exactly were you trying to place the cache?

 

If you can legally park on the side of the highway in your state, cache should be OK; let your reviewer know this fact.

[+TeamDotOne]

So where exactly were you trying to place the cache?

 

If you can legally park on the side of the highway in your state, cache should be OK; let your reviewer know this fact.

 

Thing is, it's not a highway, it's just a road, it's only four total lanes, two of which are almost always taken up by someone parked alongside the curbs. This is a neighborhood park, and the street borders the park. Baseball mom and dads park along here so the kiddies can play ball.

 

Long time ago, maybe back with Model T cars, it may have been some sort of early highway, because the road is a numbered state route and most likely went through someone's farmland. There's a crosswalk on the road not far from the cache (as well as on every block corner of the street), and the cache is stuck in a tall thick pine tree in the park.

 

They just keep insisting it's a highway

Edited May 12, 2007 by TeamDotOne

[Keystone]

::: sigh ::: Round 5, or is it 6?

 

It's a numbered state route that is marked on the maps of the area as a major arterial route. Not an interstate, to be sure, but a busy main road. The bridge carries the four-lane road over the city of Cleveland's commuter rail line.

 

Cachers would be visible from the road while searching for a cache that's less than 150 feet from busy railroad tracks and a highway overpass. Because of the guidelines for "Off Limits" locations, I questioned the placement. I would have happily published the cache had the hider simply said they had obtained permission (as was the case with another cache in the area hidden that same week by someone else near an overpass and railroad tracks). Likewise, I would have happily published the cache had the hider moved it to a location where it would be reasonable for me to assume that permission would have been granted, eliminating the need to inquire about proof.

 

The hider chose instead to appeal the denial to Groundspeak, as is their right. Upon review, Groundspeak sustained the decision.

 

OK, time for round 6. Or is it 7?

Edited May 12, 2007 by Keystone

[+Confucius' Cat]

Oh, what the heck, approve the darn thing.

 

Cleveland's bomb squad hasn't had anything to blow up in a few weeks... they could use the excitement *yawn*

[+TeamDotOne]

::: sigh ::: Round 5, or is it 6?

 

It's a numbered state route that is marked on the maps of the area as a major arterial route. Not an interstate, to be sure, but a busy main road. The bridge carries the four-lane road over the city of Cleveland's commuter rail line.

 

Cachers would be visible from the road while searching for a cache that's less than 150 feet from busy railroad tracks and a highway overpass. Because of the guidelines for "Off Limits" locations, I questioned the placement. I would have happily published the cache had the hider simply said they had obtained permission (as was the case with another cache in the area hidden that same week by someone else near an overpass and railroad tracks). Likewise, I would have happily published the cache had the hider moved it to a location where it would be reasonable for me to assume that permission would have been granted, eliminating the need to inquire about proof.

 

The hider chose instead to appeal the denial to Groundspeak, as is their right. Upon review, Groundspeak sustained the decision.

 

OK, time for round 6. Or is it 7?

 

And as replied to, there is no way to obtain permission as permission is not needed for this city's parks. We attempted to do so and had no success after speaking with almost everyone in the Parks Department. So how is one to gain permission when the city parks department have absolutely no clue what geocaching is and don't even issue permits?!? Even if it was moved around in the park, there is still no way to get a permit.

 

Groundspeak was also told that permission was not obtainable, and insisted on cutting and pasting 'precidents (sic) and justifications' from guidelines because we raised the issue of another cache on the same road that is actually located ON a bridge sidewalk railing right next to cars driving by.

 

Oh, but it's quite okay to have cachers stand in the middle of a bridge feeling around a railing with traffic going by -- is that not more obvious and suspicious?

 

Cachers are not visible from the road when seeking this cache. The trees are behind a path in the park and are tall dense pine trees with branches reaching the ground. There is no way a cacher could be seen from the road unless someone wants to park and stand along the sidewalk crouched down to see feet under a tree.

 

The whole main issue that has been blown out of proportion is 1) that this is not a highway, and 2) why is it okay for a cache to be placed on the bridge railing on this same road if thats what it is thought to be, yet not okay to be hidden obscurely in a pine tree off the sidewalk in a park!? That's all we want to know -- why the double standard here?

[Keystone]

Oh, what the heck, approve the darn thing.

 

Cleveland's bomb squad hasn't had anything to blow up in a few weeks... they could use the excitement *yawn*

 

Funny you should mention that. I know the history of the Cleveland Bomb Squad's eagerness when it comes to geocaches. See Crouching Toddler, Hidden Tupperware, a cache blown to bits in Cleveland Heights even though it was in a very nice park and nowhere near a major commuter rail line or a state highway bridge. That cache is 7.45 miles away from the OP's cache. Prolly the same eager bomb squad.

 

Oh, here's a photo of the cache location we're discussing. The green arrow is the cache location. The commuter railroad runs east-west, and State Highway 10 crosses the tracks southwest-northeast:

 

 

Well, I didn't like the looks of it, so I questioned the cache. I question a lot of caches and the vast majority of them wind up getting published. This one can, too. There's a whole park full of trees, and plenty of hiding places, including the spot for the OP's other cache in this park which was published immediately because it met the listing guidelines. Is there something special about the tree right next to the overpass and the railroad line? Move it 100 feet away and we're golden. The tree at the lower left of the photo looks lovely.

 

So, go right ahead and make fun of my definition of "highway." I'd much rather have this thread than to have the 48th thread this year saying "how did this detonated cache ever get published?" The prior 47 threads are incorporated herein by this reference.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Keystone

[Keystone]

The whole main issue that has been blown out of proportion is 1) that this is not a highway, and 2) why is it okay for a cache to be placed on the bridge railing on this same road if thats what it is thought to be, yet not okay to be hidden obscurely in a pine tree off the sidewalk in a park!? That's all we want to know -- why the double standard here?

1. I stand by my definition of "highway" to include a Federal Interstate Highway, regular Federal highway, or numbered state highway.

 

2. Every cache is different because each location is different. Does the other cache on the bridge railing pass over a commuter rail track? Does it have permission? Was it hidden and published under the *current* listing guidelines regarding bridges and railroads? Unless the answers are identical to your cache, we're comparing apples to oranges. Since we don't know the identity of the other cache, we don't know what variety of apple we're dealing with. That is why the listing guidelines say the following:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

[+Totem Clan]

Based on the image of the cache site I'd say it fails to meet guidelines. If I were you I would just move it a short distance.

 

Can I ask why you want it in that exact spot? Could it be moved just a bit further from the road and the rail lines?

[+Confucius' Cat]

OFTLOG!

 

Go pick up your film can and put it somewhere else!

 

Life is too short to argue over such a meaningless thing as a box and a piece of paper.

[Clan Riffster]

TeamDotOne, first, thanx for hiding another cache!

Second, judging from the photo, if I were a reviewer, I wouldn't publish that one either. Trust me, it's no shame having to move a cache. Find a better spot, edit the coords, then hit the "Submit" button so Ohio will have another great cache to hunt for.

 

On a separate note, if a future hide gets denied, and upon appeal, it stays denied, hurling angst at the reviewers in these forums is not likely to get them to change their opinion. A thoughtfully worded post, complete with any & all notes between you and Groundspeak, followed by a humble request for the opinions of your peers, works a whole lot better.

[+JamGuys]

TeamDotOne, first, thanx for hiding another cache!

Second, judging from the photo, if I were a reviewer, I wouldn't publish that one either. Trust me, it's no shame having to move a cache. Find a better spot, edit the coords, then hit the "Submit" button so Ohio will have another great cache to hunt for.

 

On a separate note, if a future hide gets denied, and upon appeal, it stays denied, hurling angst at the reviewers in these forums is not likely to get them to change their opinion. A thoughtfully worded post, complete with any & all notes between you and Groundspeak, followed by a humble request for the opinions of your peers, works a whole lot better.

 

Yeah, sometimes the complaint says more about the complainer than anything else.

[+TeamDotOne]

The whole main issue that has been blown out of proportion is 1) that this is not a highway, and 2) why is it okay for a cache to be placed on the bridge railing on this same road if thats what it is thought to be, yet not okay to be hidden obscurely in a pine tree off the sidewalk in a park!? That's all we want to know -- why the double standard here?

1. I stand by my definition of "highway" to include a Federal Interstate Highway, regular Federal highway, or numbered state highway.

 

2. Every cache is different because each location is different. Does the other cache on the bridge railing pass over a commuter rail track? Does it have permission? Was it hidden and published under the *current* listing guidelines regarding bridges and railroads? Unless the answers are identical to your cache, we're comparing apples to oranges. Since we don't know the identity of the other cache, we don't know what variety of apple we're dealing with. That is why the listing guidelines say the following:

 

The arrow does not indicate where the cache actually is. Move it to the right into the tree in the picture and that would be the correct location.

 

The 'other cache' was just published last summer and yes, the *current* guidelines were in place at the time. Permission? Doubtful, since the city doesn't issue permits, but it was approved and the information may not necessarily have been made available to the public on the cache page. Even if the bridge does not span a railroad, since that road is considered a 'highway' why was that one approved? In the description you have supplied, you are saying it is a 'highway bridge.'

 

And since one cache's publication is not justification and doesn't set precedence for another cache, there really can't be a comparison.

[+Too Tall John]

The 'other cache' was just published last summer and yes, the *current* guidelines were in place at the time.

Well, technically, according to the Hide & Seek a Cache Page:

the guidelines for reporting a cache (last update 02/21/07)

Anything published before Feb 21, 2007 was not published under the current guidelines.

 

If I had to guess why the older cache was published and not yours, I'd say the train tracks are the reason. Your cache needs to be a certain distance from the tracks, and isn't. The other cache may be closer to the tracks, but there is a barrier (the height of the bridge, the railing, etc..) that keeps you from going onto the tracks directly from the bridge. Kinda the same reason they'll publish 2 caches only 100 feet apart when there's a barrier (cliff, lake, river, etc.) between them. Like I said, that's my non-reviewer wild guess.

 

And to echo Clan Riffster: You'll attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. Be nice, after all, it is only a game.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+Confucius' Cat]

it is only a game.

(emphasis mine)

[Entrepid]

that's screwed up. look up highway in the dictionary, then email it too the reviewer. see if he gets is then.

[+Team Dubbin]

::: sigh ::: Round 5, or is it 6?

 

It's a numbered state route that is marked on the maps of the area as a major arterial route. Not an interstate, to be sure, but a busy main road. The bridge carries the four-lane road over the city of Cleveland's commuter rail line.

 

Cachers would be visible from the road while searching for a cache that's less than 150 feet from busy railroad tracks and a highway overpass. Because of the guidelines for "Off Limits" locations, I questioned the placement. I would have happily published the cache had the hider simply said they had obtained permission (as was the case with another cache in the area hidden that same week by someone else near an overpass and railroad tracks). Likewise, I would have happily published the cache had the hider moved it to a location where it would be reasonable for me to assume that permission would have been granted, eliminating the need to inquire about proof.

 

The hider chose instead to appeal the denial to Groundspeak, as is their right. Upon review, Groundspeak sustained the decision.

 

OK, time for round 6. Or is it 7?

 

::: sigh ::: but yet you let one slide that is smack dab on the very corner of a very busy road that has no place to park but in the middle of the road...

[+Too Tall John]

::: sigh ::: but yet you let one slide that is smack dab on the very corner of a very busy road that has no place to park but in the middle of the road...

Umm... even according to the original poster, the outer "lanes" are used for parking...

that's screwed up. look up highway in the dictionary, then email it too the reviewer. see if he gets is then.

...and to both of you, let me quote Confucius' Cat quoting me:

it is only a game.

Lighten up.

Edited to add: Hmm... just read Keystone's sig line, so really, it was Confucius' Cat quoting me quoting Keystone.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Too Tall John

[Keystone]

that's screwed up. look up highway in the dictionary, then email it too the reviewer. see if he gets is then.

Welcome to geocaching, and to the forums. But let me respectfully suggest that I "get it" when it comes to interpreting the listing guidelines. This is borne out by Groundspeak's denial of the appeal for this cache. I "get it" based on my experience in hunting more than 2400 geocaches and reviewing thousands more than that for publication. After awhile a reviewer acquires a "sixth sense" about which locations ought to be questioned under the listing guidelines. Here, I felt hinky due to the *combination* of the bridge, the railroad and the exposed location.

 

As for the definition of "highway," one does not need to be an attorney with more than 20 years experience in the transportation industry in order to identify a highway on a road map. Here's a map of the Cleveland area, with the cache location marked by the green arrow on Route 10. The highways on this map are Interstates 71, 77, 90 and 490, US Routes 6 and 322, and Ohio State Routes 2, 10 and 178.

 

[Keystone]

::: sigh ::: but yet you let one slide that is smack dab on the very corner of a very busy road that has no place to park but in the middle of the road...

As I explained to you in response to your e-mail complaint, that cache did not break any guidelines. Publishing a cache that meets the guidelines is not "letting one slide," it is doing my job. Please show me a guideline that says a cache with no convenient nearby parking cannot be listed. And if there were a general safety guideline that I've been overlooking all these years, please excuse me while I go archive a bunch of caches on the sides of cliffs. I can only hold up publication of a cache if it violates the published guidelines. The cache under discussion in this thread violated several.

 

Now, if anyone has a herring that's blue, or yellow...

Edited May 12, 2007 by Keystone

[+Chuy!]

...Cachers would be visible from the road while searching for a cache that's less than 150 feet from busy railroad tracks and a highway overpass...

It's not against the guidelines to place a cache where cachers can be seen from the road at any distance or any conveyance; I don't see why this should be a consideration at all.

 

 

...Oh, here's a photo of the cache location we're discussing. The green arrow is the cache location. The commuter railroad runs east-west, and State Highway 10 crosses the tracks southwest-northeast...

 

So, where is the railroad in this pic? Is it behind the arrow in that dark strip? If so, and there is no barrier, I must side with the reviewer. Otherwise, that appears to be a walkway in front of the arrow, indicating pedestrian traffic; I say cache should be ok there - if there is a barrier to the train that I think may be in the dark spot.

[Keystone]

I'm told there's a fence separating the railroad from the park, and the railroad grade is 20 feet or more below the level of the park. That fact was taken into consideration but did not alter my recommendation to either demonstrate permission or move the cache a bit farther away from the observable off-limits locations.

 

Chuy correctly notes that there is no guideline *prohibiting* caches at places where the finder can be seen while hunting for the cache. I've found many of those! But the exposed location, COMBINED with the railroad and the bridge, led me to mention that as a factor in the decision. And the guidelines do counsel us to consider how the public will perceive geocachers seen searching for the cache.

(EDITED to modify/expand explanation.)

Edited May 12, 2007 by Keystone

[+edscott]

...Cachers would be visible from the road while searching for a cache that's less than 150 feet from busy railroad tracks and a highway overpass...

It's not against the guidelines to place a cache where cachers can be seen from the road at any distance or any conveyance; I don't see why this should be a consideration at all.

 

 

...Oh, here's a photo of the cache location we're discussing. The green arrow is the cache location. The commuter railroad runs east-west, and State Highway 10 crosses the tracks southwest-northeast...

 

So, where is the railroad in this pic? Is it behind the arrow in that dark strip? If so, and there is no barrier, I must side with the reviewer. Otherwise, that appears to be a walkway in front of the arrow, indicating pedestrian traffic; I say cache should be ok there - if there is a barrier to the train that I think may be in the dark spot.

 

It looks like hundreds of other city park caches I have done. Grass, tree, cache. Using the Google road map for defining placement is useless since the road widths are drawn extremely off scale, but the photo would put me on the side of approving the cache.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Oh, what the heck, approve the darn thing.

 

Cleveland's bomb squad hasn't had anything to blow up in a few weeks... they could use the excitement *yawn*

 

Funny you should mention that. I know the history of the Cleveland Bomb Squad's eagerness when it comes to geocaches. See Crouching Toddler, Hidden Tupperware, a cache blown to bits in Cleveland Heights even though it was in a very nice park and nowhere near a major commuter rail line or a state highway bridge. That cache is 7.45 miles away from the OP's cache. Prolly the same eager bomb squad.

 

Oh, here's a photo of the cache location we're discussing. The green arrow is the cache location. The commuter railroad runs east-west, and State Highway 10 crosses the tracks southwest-northeast:

 

 

Well, I didn't like the looks of it, so I questioned the cache. I question a lot of caches and the vast majority of them wind up getting published. This one can, too. There's a whole park full of trees, and plenty of hiding places, including the spot for the OP's other cache in this park which was published immediately because it met the listing guidelines. Is there something special about the tree right next to the overpass and the railroad line? Move it 100 feet away and we're golden. The tree at the lower left of the photo looks lovely.

 

So, go right ahead and make fun of my definition of "highway." I'd much rather have this thread than to have the 48th thread this year saying "how did this detonated cache ever get published?" The prior 47 threads are incorporated herein by this reference.

I just stumbled upon this thread and have read it in its entirety. First, as a prefatory remark, I agree witih the reviewer 100% in this matter. However, I must say that I am stunned and amazed that Keystone has even bothered to reply to the petty, whiny and self-pitying (and often innacurate and poorly-reasoned) claims and complaints of the OP. I have a hard time believing that Keystone has devoted the amount of time which he has to explaining the situation and why the decision not to publish was made. (If it were my website, or if I were a reviewer, I would be sorely tempted to ban the OP just out of general pissiness after such a response from the OP.) However, I must assume that the reason that Keystone has chosen to put so much hard work and careful reasoning into his well-crafted replies lies in the educational value for others (i.e., readers of this forum) of such a dialogue. Nonetheless, I am sure that I am not the first to realize that it must take Keystone inordinate amounts of time to craff such well-reasoned replies, and so I say:

 

Keystone, thank you very much for your educational and outreach efforts on sane cache placement which appear to go well beyond the call of duty! Hopefully your efforts will help to keep some hiders from making some nasty mistakes in the future!

 

Lastly, I am still wowed by the amount of time and energy that you have put into addressing these whines, and also at the incredible patience and restraint which you have shown in this matter! Amazing! Perhaps someday I may be half as mature and patient as that which you have exhibited here!

 

Postscript: A brief corollary note... On at least three separate occasions over the past 1.8 years, I have been approached privately by cache hiders in areas reviewed by Keystone where they advised me that they had recently submitted an extreme Psycho-type cache for publication and that it had been refused by the reviewer (Keystone) as being in violation of GC rules. In each case, the cachers who approached me asked me to review the facts of their placement/listing and to go to bat for them, hoping that I would help them to lobby the reviewer (i.e., Keystone) and GC appeals to get the reviewer's denial overturned. In each case, after reviewing the facts and information provided by the hider, I not only agreed strongly with the decision of the reviewer not to publish, but frankly, I also started to wonder at the amazing level of level of negligence, stupidity and arrogance exhibited by these cache hiders. (In one case, when one of these cachers had bragged to other local cachers in his area that he was trying to enlist my aid in appealing the denied-publication status of his cache, some of these local cachers contacted me privately to tell me that the hider in question was rather infamous localy for bad hides which later turned out to to be in violation of common sense and in violation of GC rules.)

[+TeamDotOne]

the petty, whiny and self-pitying (and often innacurate and poorly-reasoned) claims and complaints of the OP.

 

Innacurate (sic) claim ? No, the issue behind this entire episode is why, since apparently this road is declared a highway, is it applicable for this cache, yet the one published last summer, under the same "highway bridge" guideline which was in effect at the time as well as now, was allowed?

 

To cut and paste: "Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."

 

This is the same guideline that was in place last spring when we were placing caches along the Canal/Cuyahoga River towpath and one cache was within 150 feet of the base of a real highway bridge which soared hundreds of feet overhead. That one was moved to comply with the guidelines, but does show that the same guideline was in place at the time, indicating the one on the "highway" bridge railing should not have been approved.

 

And to answer an earlier post, yes, the 'tracks' are separated from the park playground by a tall fence in front of an approx 30ft. hillside. There is no way one could wander off and be on or near the tracks.

[+greywynd]

Just a rookie cacher here, but I would like to comment on Keystone's professionalism in handling this matter, and many others I've seen on these threads. (Though maybe he'll be upset that this is an 'off topic post?) It takes a lot of time for one to act as a moderator in a busy forum such as this, and to be an active reviewer as well takes more time.

 

To the original poster....why the big deal? There are lots of places to hide caches, work with the reviewer to adjust this one, maybe it can be part of a multi or puzzle cache, or relocate it. I know at some point I'll have a cache turned down for whatever reason, and lots that I've found now are in 'grey' areas for official permission, but due to adequate permission, have been approved.

 

You say "And as replied to, there is no way to obtain permission as permission is not needed for this city's parks. We attempted to do so and had no success after speaking with almost everyone in the Parks Department. So how is one to gain permission when the city parks department have absolutely no clue what geocaching is and don't even issue permits?!? Even if it was moved around in the park, there is still no way to get a permit." If you have the same tact and approach to the Parks Department that you did here, you might well be a reason for those same employees to suggest to city officials that a by-law to ban caches in city owned places might be a good idea. Remember, those 'elected officials' are looking to get votes to stay where they are after the next election, careful planning with the press about how much $$ it will save taxpayers by lowering the workload for the bomb squad will outweigh the votes of the geocachers.

 

We all have to work together as ambassadors to the sport, for the good of the sport in the long run. This means that we need to be respectful and courteous at all times to others in the sport, and those outside the sport as well.

 

We've all seen how media plays such a huge role in our society, if the wrong leaders play that against geocaching, we could suffer a huge blow in a lot of ways. As a current example, look at the trend from San Francisco's plastic bag ban, Ontario is now looking at a huge incentive to reduce bags, some of the municipalities are looking into total bans, and I know of other Canadian and American cities and towns looking at options. (I'm not saying that eliminating plastic bags is bad btw, just trying to show how quickly this has spread due to media attention.) Just one incident of the wrong type could put a black eye on geocaching across the continent.

 

I had an opportunity a while ago for good cache containers, free, being thrown out where I work, weatherproof. But, since they were made from plastic pipe and components, I let them be thrown out. I've decided from reading these forums that pipe containers are not good if found by the wrong people, and they will be, we know that. Honestly I'm surprised that we don't have to tell the reviewers the exact container we're using, and lots more details than we do. So far this sport hasn't been inundated with rules and regulations, we're mostly self policing (if you can go as far as calling it policing) because we rely on human nature, and the better side of that.

 

Greywynd

[+wvcoalcat]

No, the issue behind this entire episode is why, since apparently this road is declared a highway, is it applicable for this cache, yet the one published last summer, under the same "highway bridge" guideline which was in effect at the time as well as now, was allowed?

 

Regardless, it seems this part of a previous post is still being ignored by the OP

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache.

[+greywynd]

 

Innacurate (sic) claim ? No, the issue behind this entire episode is why, since apparently this road is declared a highway, is it applicable for this cache, yet the one published last summer, under the same "highway bridge" guideline which was in effect at the time as well as now, was allowed?

 

To cut and paste: "Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."

 

This is the same guideline that was in place last spring when we were placing caches along the Canal/Cuyahoga River towpath and one cache was within 150 feet of the base of a real highway bridge which soared hundreds of feet overhead. That one was moved to comply with the guidelines, but does show that the same guideline was in place at the time, indicating the one on the "highway" bridge railing should not have been approved.

 

And to answer an earlier post, yes, the 'tracks' are separated from the park playground by a tall fence in front of an approx 30ft. hillside. There is no way one could wander off and be on or near the tracks.

 

Why do the Jones's have a bigger house than me? Why do the Smith's have a fancier car than me? Because sometimes that's the way it is. One wrong doesn't mean another one is ok. The issue behind the episode is the fact that your cache was denied. Now you are arguing it should be ok, because the other one is.....not necessarily so. Just because someone else robbed a bank doesn't mean it's ok for me to do the same. Maybe the other cache needs to be reviewed, but as was stated elsewhere in the thread, it hasn't been indicated. There is also the fact that there is discretion available, your cache isn't just beside a highway, it is in the centre of a major hub of highway, interstate, and railroad, which, IMO, makes the area a much larger candidate for some sort of terrorist activity.

 

Greywynd

Edited May 12, 2007 by greywynd

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

the petty, whiny and self-pitying (and often innacurate and poorly-reasoned) claims and complaints of the OP.

 

Innacurate (sic) claim ? No, the issue behind this entire episode is why, since apparently this road is declared a highway, is it applicable for this cache, yet the one published last summer, under the same "highway bridge" guideline which was in effect at the time as well as now, was allowed?

 

To cut and paste: "Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."

 

This is the same guideline that was in place last spring when we were placing caches along the Canal/Cuyahoga River towpath and one cache was within 150 feet of the base of a real highway bridge which soared hundreds of feet overhead. That one was moved to comply with the guidelines, but does show that the same guideline was in place at the time, indicating the one on the "highway" bridge railing should not have been approved.

 

And to answer an earlier post, yes, the 'tracks' are separated from the park playground by a tall fence in front of an approx 30ft. hillside. There is no way one could wander off and be on or near the tracks.

Amazing! This poster has not heard and understood one whit of the excellent educational feedback offered to him/her by many posters here, including the tutorials offered by Keystone, and instead, continues to whine and moan and engage in self-pity. Posts of this type tend to make me toss my breakfast on my keyboard and monitor screen, and, thus, in the interest of preserving my breakfast as well as preserving my keyboard, I may need to stop reading posts from this poster. sigh...!

 

BTW, is it a full moon or something? Why do I feel that I have been seeing a large upswing in the numbers of posts/threads in these forums lately which are LOADED with attitudes of entitlement, "gimme", whining, self-pity and pettiness?

 

Edited May 12, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[Trinity's Crew]

TeamDotOne, first, thanx for hiding another cache!

Second, judging from the photo, if I were a reviewer, I wouldn't publish that one either. Trust me, it's no shame having to move a cache. Find a better spot, edit the coords, then hit the "Submit" button so Ohio will have another great cache to hunt for.

 

On a separate note, if a future hide gets denied, and upon appeal, it stays denied, hurling angst at the reviewers in these forums is not likely to get them to change their opinion. A thoughtfully worded post, complete with any & all notes between you and Groundspeak, followed by a humble request for the opinions of your peers, works a whole lot better.

Excellent advice CR.

TeamDotOne, this is great advice and I would encourage you to think about taking it.

[+Totem Clan]

You want to know what's wrong with your cache? Read the guidelines. I'll post the most relevant part here so you can find them.

 

This is why I wouldn't place a cache where you did or approve it if I were the reviewer.

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived. We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

Caches on land managed by an agency that prohibits geocaches, such as the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method.

Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans (examples may include archaeological or historic sites).

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

There may be some exceptions. If your cache fits within one of the above areas, please explain this in a note to the reviewer. If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache.

 

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations. If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local reviewer for information on regulations. If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a ‘note to the reviewer’. A reviewer may request that you provide contact information for the person who gave you permission to hide your cache.

 

 

Note the highlight sections.

 

Just move the cache and resubmit.

[+TeamDotOne]

:: sigh :: some people just don't get it

 

Actually, we couldn't give two *&^*@ about this cache. We're not moving it or changing it and resubmitting it. In fact, we decided that a while ago.

 

Insinuations and insults such as have been hurled are really more immature than trying to get a justification and reasonable explanation which still hasn't been given. I guess it's hard for some to admit to making a mistake.

 

No one is saying 'pity me' or 'gimme' - i don't see one post we made which says 'this cache should be posted.'

 

Continue on if you all wish . . . keep a rag nearby to wipe the screen and keyboard

[Keystone]

Innacurate (sic) claim ? No, the issue behind this entire episode is why, since apparently this road is declared a highway, is it applicable for this cache, yet the one published last summer, under the same "highway bridge" guideline which was in effect at the time as well as now, was allowed?

 

To cut and paste: "Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."

 

This is the same guideline that was in place last spring when we were placing caches along the Canal/Cuyahoga River towpath and one cache was within 150 feet of the base of a real highway bridge which soared hundreds of feet overhead. That one was moved to comply with the guidelines, but does show that the same guideline was in place at the time, indicating the one on the "highway" bridge railing should not have been approved.

What caches were you placing last Spring? Your first hide was in October 2006. Or do you have an "alternate account?" ::: puzzled :::

 

Could you possibly be referring to your series of caches which were SBA'd by the Cleveland MetroParks due to your failure to obtain permission from them? If so, I didn't review those; someone was covering for me in your area at that time. So I am sorry, but as with the case of the unidentified "other bridge cache" I do not have enough details to provide further insight.

 

Also, the Guidelines were revised in February 2007. A key paragraph was added after Groundspeak had an especially bad week talking to law enforcement officials about bomb scares. It wasn't present last year, but its presence now lends further support to a reviewer analysis that takes into account the question "how does this look?" So nowadays I am asking that question more and more often.

 

I hope that this explanation of the recent Guidelines change is helpful.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Wow...come on! Move the cache and work with those that have the power to approve or deny! What is soo very great about this spot that you'd even waste this much effort in crying about not getting a cache placed there?

 

Keystone told you a few times to just move the stupid thing a bit and he'd reconsider...what is the problem? You keep bringing up this "highway/roadway" issue....since it's not for you to decide what the paved section with cars traveling it is designated as, why not LISTEN??

 

GET OVER IT!

 

I agree with the extreme one here...too many people coming in whining and moaning about such petty problems as this.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

:: sigh :: some people just don't get it

 

 

Yes, and that someone is you. Reviewers have the right to request proof of permission for any cache and to deny any cache where proof cannot be provided, end of story.

[Keystone]

Reviewers have the right to request proof of permission for any cache and to deny any cache where proof cannot be provided, end of story.

Good point... that is *another* enhanced section of the listing guidelines, as of February 2007. I am much more comfortable "playing the permission card" when warranted, since this recent update. The exact language of the new text reads as follows:

 

A reviewer may request that you provide contact information for the person who gave you permission to hide your cache.

I am sorry for overlooking this when I reviewed the guidelines in my earlier posts. I'm trying to be helpful but I need to be thorough as well!

Edited May 12, 2007 by Keystone

[+Michael]

I am the Groundspeak lackey that handled this appeal. I was going to post the entire story to support Keystones action but after reading the support Keystone is getting I feel there is no need. A big thank you to all that have understood. Our, Groundspeak's and your, reviewers do a lot of work and get really bad pay plus they have to work with me. It's nice to see the support this reviewer is getting from the community. Kind words and a desire to help is all the reviewers get paid. This thread is like a raise for Keystone.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Michael

[Trinity's Crew]

He's a great reviewer AND moderator. You should double his salary!

Edited May 12, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I've never seen Keystone be anything but extremley helpful and polite, he certainly deserves all the support we can give him.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I am the Groundspeak lackey that handled this appeal. I was going to post the entire story to support Keystones action but after reading the support Keystone is getting I feel there is no need. A big thank you to all that have understood. Our, Groundspeak's and your, reviewers do a lot of work and get really bad pay plus they have to work with me. It's nice to see the support this reviewer is getting from the community. Kind words and a desire to help is all the reviewers get paid. This thread is like a raise for Keystone.

Michael, thank you for your note. Keystone, as usual, has shown amazing grace and patience and has also put incredible time and effort into refocusing the OPs efforts to engage in a whiny entitlement "debate" into a series of tutorials which will serve as an educational tool for the benefit of others. Persohally, I would not have exercised such patience were I in his shoes!

 

BTW, I also do hope -- in cases such as this one where the OP seems to have a rather bad hide record and also cannot let go of this current matter, to the point that the OP has literally been haranguing the reviewer and GC -- that GC also considers exercising, as needed, the option of simply making such persons and their accounts "go away", i.e., disappear from the GC site. Frankly, were I running GC, I must confess that I would have exercised that option a while ago!

 

Incidentally, I have also had to deal with Keystone as a reviewer out on the "battlefield", that is, as the reviewer for one of my own extreme cache hides. The cache listing in question was for a rather extreme 5/5 cache located in WV, one where an incautious or unqualified seeker could easily shuffle off this mortal coil to go to meet their Maker in very short order (or, as the New Agers would say, to "ascend" very quickly!) Despite the fact that such extreme 5/5 cache listing submissions tend to push reviewers to the limits, in light of all the things that can or could go wrong if the cache owner or the reviewer misses even just one small detail (or if the owner lies to the reviwer or hides important facts), and, despite the fact that this cache listing required granting a special exception to the rules (regarding owner-disclosed coordinates; only seekers who have found a prerequisite number of my other extreme Psycho Caches are allowed to receive the actual coordinates), I found Keystone to be very firm, strict and demanding (and I would expect no less from any reviewer who is reviewing a listing for an extreme 5/5 cache), and also very clear, helpful and direct... ...oh, and humorous and polite as well! It was an honor working with him and seeing him at work in his reviewer role, and I hope to someday place another extreme 5/5 cache in WV or WPA just to get the chance to needle and harass, I mean, work with Keystone again in his reviewer role!

 

In closing, I wish to mention that in one of those three cases which I mentioned earlier where a hider of an extreme "psycho-style" hide which was ultimately rejected for publication by Keystone appealed to me for help in persuading Keystone and the GC appeals folks to allow his cache to be published (if you have not read my earlier post in this thread, I declined to assist this hider and the others as I agreed strongly with the decisions of the reviewer), the hider in question was not at all "nice" in his behavior toward Keystone and even resorted to calling him names and using invectives. Throughout the whole matter, I was amazed to see Keystone remain poised, patient calm and unruffled, while dealing with the matter efficiently and efficiently. Amazing grace!

[Clan Riffster]

I guess it's hard for some to admit to making a mistake.

Very true. You made a mistake in not accepting guidance from the reviewing process. You made a mistake in not accepting the decision of the appellate, and you made a mistake in lashing out at one of the most respected reviewers on the planet, in a public forum. Fortunately, none of these mistakes are terminal. They can all be fixed by you admitting your mistake(s) and moving on.

[+Exocet]

I'll just throw my 2 cents in:

 

I doubt anyone will like this but: Oh so what if another geocache isn't published? It's not like there aren't hundreds of thousands to grab.

 

Within 1 mile of that cache: 1. Within 1.5 miles: 4. Within 2 miles: 11.

 

There's nearly 400,000 caches worldwide. I'll bet 4,000 are great, MAYBE 40,000 of them are "good". So, so what if another cache in the middle of no where that most likely has no value other than "this is the 397,608th cache!"

 

We have more than enough quantity. I'd love to see to see a lot more quality.

[+thedeadpirate]

I can see the OP's point of view on this subject. It looks like there are good reasons for the cache to be published, if the OP had taken the time to do his homework.

 

I may be wrong, but if the OP had taken the time to read the guidelines and have a firm understanding of their content and presented his case to the reviewer in a thoughtful, polite manner, I'm sure he would have had a shot at his cache being approved.

 

For instance, if the OP understood the guidelines dealing with railroad tracks, then he could have taken pictures of the fence between the cache and the tracks. He should also have written something explaining that he knew the distance rule, but that there was this barrier. This would make the reviewer feel much more comfortable that the cache was indeed placed in an area that would be ok, given the barrier.

 

Had the OP also noticed the rather obvious overpass nearby and mentioned something about how the cache is in a public park away from the overpass in such a manner as there would be little concern that the cache could trigger a bomb scare and taken time to take pictures of said overpass showing its relation to his cache, this would have gone a long way towards instilling the reviewer with a sense that the OP had a firm grasp of the guidelines and had taken the time to make sure it was located in an area that would not trigger a bomb scare.

 

These are just a couple of things that I have observed from reading this entire thread. I am assuming that the way this went down is the cache was submitted without these important facts, leading the reviewer to question whether the OP did in fact have a good grasp of the guidelines, which would further cause the reviewer to be concerned about the overall placement of this cache.

 

As has been explained numerous times in this thread and in many other threads, exceptions are sometimes made. But there have to be good reasons for doing so.

 

If you provide those reasons up front in a reviewer note, then you have probably gone 90% toward reassuring the reviewer that the exception would be proper.

 

If the reviewer has to ask you about these things that look rather obvious when reviewing the cache, you've probably gone 90% backwards in reassuring the reviewer that the exception would be proper.

 

As in most everything we do in life, communication is key to working things out.

 

In the end, even if you have presented your case in the best manner it could be presented and the reviewer asks you to make changes, remember that they are working for the better good of this activity. Most reviewers, I would think, like to publish caches. Work with them, not against them.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

:: sigh :: some people just don't get it

 

Actually, we couldn't give two *&^*@ about this cache. We're not moving it or changing it and resubmitting it. In fact, we decided that a while ago.

 

I bet that was gonna be a great cache...

[+Confucius' Cat]

:: sigh :: some people just don't get it

 

Actually, we couldn't give two *&^*@ about this cache. We're not moving it or changing it and resubmitting it. In fact, we decided that a while ago.

 

I bet that was gonna be a great cache...

Well, since the maps have been posted, an interested party COULD go FTF that sucka and come back here and rate it.

[+Wayfinders]

The other day I was faced with a situation.

I had a flat tire.

Knowing I could drive no longer, I pulled over as soon as I could and changed the tire.

Life went on and all was well.

 

The other day I saw a fellow in an expensive sports car with the same dilemma.

This fellow chose not to pull over and change the tire, but to move on.

The tire was flying apart and he was doing irreversible damage to the rim.

 

Now this dude had an expensive car, was dressed well, and probably had plenty of cash (no pun intended) in his pocket to pay a mechanic to fix the problem(s)....so I’m gonna guess he was probably pretty smart.. But he sure was stubborn.

 

Why be the guy in the red Audi?

[+Prime Suspect]

that's screwed up. look up highway in the dictionary, then email it too the reviewer. see if he gets is then.

Why does my post say ringbone?

 

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I can see the OP's point of view on this subject. It looks like there are good reasons for the cache to be published, if the OP had taken the time to do his homework.

 

I may be wrong, but if the OP had taken the time to read the guidelines and have a firm understanding of their content and presented his case to the reviewer in a thoughtful, polite manner, I'm sure he would have had a shot at his cache being approved.

 

For instance, if the OP understood the guidelines dealing with railroad tracks, then he could have taken pictures of the fence between the cache and the tracks. He should also have written something explaining that he knew the distance rule, but that there was this barrier. This would make the reviewer feel much more comfortable that the cache was indeed placed in an area that would be ok, given the barrier.

 

Had the OP also noticed the rather obvious overpass nearby and mentioned something about how the cache is in a public park away from the overpass in such a manner as there would be little concern that the cache could trigger a bomb scare and taken time to take pictures of said overpass showing its relation to his cache, this would have gone a long way towards instilling the reviewer with a sense that the OP had a firm grasp of the guidelines and had taken the time to make sure it was located in an area that would not trigger a bomb scare.

 

These are just a couple of things that I have observed from reading this entire thread. I am assuming that the way this went down is the cache was submitted without these important facts, leading the reviewer to question whether the OP did in fact have a good grasp of the guidelines, which would further cause the reviewer to be concerned about the overall placement of this cache.

 

As has been explained numerous times in this thread and in many other threads, exceptions are sometimes made. But there have to be good reasons for doing so.

 

If you provide those reasons up front in a reviewer note, then you have probably gone 90% toward reassuring the reviewer that the exception would be proper.

 

If the reviewer has to ask you about these things that look rather obvious when reviewing the cache, you've probably gone 90% backwards in reassuring the reviewer that the exception would be proper.

 

As in most everything we do in life, communication is key to working things out.

 

In the end, even if you have presented your case in the best manner it could be presented and the reviewer asks you to make changes, remember that they are working for the better good of this activity. Most reviewers, I would think, like to publish caches. Work with them, not against them.

I do agree that clear and honest -- and sufficient and ample -- communications are a key in any kind of relationship, but particularly when dealing with a reviewer while submitting a cache placement which may have many "red flags". And, I will go further and say that I feel that building trust is important, as well as demonstrating sincerity. In the cases in which cachers from about six states (including my own) have tried to enlist me as their ally (...sigh!) in their (always-futile) appeals and battles to get their psycho-type extreme caches published by GC after they had been refused for publication by any of several reviewers, I have noticed several common threads across all of their stories. One of those common threads was that from the start, each had withheld information, that is they, failed to give the reviewer sufficient information despite the fact that it was obvious that the reviewer would need this information, or they had lied to the reviewer about certain key facts pertaining to location, or safety (remember, safety is not an issue so long as the cache listng page bears the appropriate Terrain rating, appropriate attribute icons, and relevant warnings in the descriptive text) or permission. And, I have observed in each case as well as in a few other local cases of "caches gone bad", that once a cacher has demonstrated to the reviewers that they will either withhold information or lie to get cache approved, that it seems -- and no surprise here -- that the reviewers instantly lose trust in them, and from that moment onward, all of their caches are subjected to a much higher level of scrutiny by not only the reviewer in question but by any and all other reviewers with whom that cacher has come into contact or will come into contact.

 

On the other hand, much as GeoBain has noted, I have found when I am submitting a cache which seems to have some red flags, perhaps because it is a 5/5 extreme cache, perhaps because it is near a highway or a railroad, or perhaps because it is in a very visible spot, that if I take the time to highlight each potential "trouble spot" and to explain it, document it, and explain what research I have done regarding it (including which officials, administrative departments or law enforcement departments I spoke with in my quest for information or clarification, or which maps I used), and to also explain special or exceptional circumstances, and to include any needed photos or images, that the reviewers ALWAYS respond positively and with great respect and appreciation. This type of behavior that I have described in this section is what is known as "being proactive", and it also demonstrates sincerity, and it also shows that you can dot your i's and cross your t's, and that you are intelligent and responsive.