Reserve a Cache Site?

[+simpjkee]

I have found the most excellent cache site for a new cache I am custom making. It is in a popular area and my first cache design failed. I think I will have this cache up and ready to go in the next few days though. Is there a way to reserve a cache site? This site is perfect and because of its popularity, I am scared it will get taken.

[+deafnut]

OK from my understand ... what i have know and other place i have see recommed less muggle and more geocacher will come however the high it is and low geocacher will come because they have to make sure nobody around so if you think it the best DOING IT !!!!

[Mushtang]

I have found the most excellent cache site for a new cache I am custom making. It is in a popular area and my first cache design failed. I think I will have this cache up and ready to go in the next few days though. Is there a way to reserve a cache site? This site is perfect and because of its popularity, I am scared it will get taken.

No, the only thing that will hold a site, is an active cache. There's no way to specify a site to a reviewer and have him deny other people's caches that are ready to go while you're working on one. It's pretty much first come first served.

 

If it's a really cool cache, hurry up!

[+palmetto]

Yes, you can hold the coordinates while you're working on it by writing it up on a listing and getting a GCxxxx - if it's not ready UNCHECK "this cache is currently active" so it doesn't go to the review queue. Then email your reviewer and ask them to look at it and be aware that you are planning a cache for that spot. IF your cache write up is older than any other, it holds the spot, even if another cache shows up ready and on queue before yours. If someone else has an older GCxxxxx number for the same area, you're out of luck.

 

You can't hold it forever......

[Mushtang]

IF your cache write up is older than any other, it holds the spot, even if another cache shows up ready and on queue before yours. If someone else has an older GCxxxxx number for the same area, you're out of luck.

I don't think this is true. A reviewer may decide to hold a spot if he's aware you're working on something, as a courtesy, but the fact that you've got a GC number that is not checked as ready doesn't automatically hold the spot.

 

I believe you're right only if BOTH cache pages are checked as ready. In that case the older GC number would get the approval.

[+wiseye]

As always, I'd bank on Palmetto being correct!

[+rdaines]

Just guessing but I'd bet the ability to hold a site (short-term) may have more to do with your relationship with the reviewer. By that I mean, do you have other approved caches, did you set them up in a timely manner, what is the reason for the delay, stuff like that. A newbie with a first time cache may not be so lucky.

[Mushtang]

As always, I'd bank on Palmetto being correct!

That may be true. If it is, I will have learned something useful today!

[Keystone]

IF your cache write up is older than any other, it holds the spot, even if another cache shows up ready and on queue before yours. If someone else has an older GCxxxxx number for the same area, you're out of luck.

I don't think this is true. A reviewer may decide to hold a spot if he's aware you're working on something, as a courtesy, but the fact that you've got a GC number that is not checked as ready doesn't automatically hold the spot.

 

I believe you're right only if BOTH cache pages are checked as ready. In that case the older GC number would get the approval.

Palmetto's summary is accurate. She got straight A's at Cache Reviewer College.

 

In my review territory, there are dozens and dozens of caches "on hold" right now as part of big events or series that will be launched in the next few weeks. By submitting the pages early, the owners have avoided the need to go back and re-do their puzzles, instructions, etc., because someone else hid a cache 100 feet away that was ready to publish.

 

Generally, the lowest GC number wins. That is a better rule than "my friend's cache wins." If anything, I'd say that reviewers are tougher on enforcing the rules against their caching buddies, because they know someone will make claims of bias and favoritism if the reviewer granted too many exceptions.

[Mushtang]

IF your cache write up is older than any other, it holds the spot, even if another cache shows up ready and on queue before yours. If someone else has an older GCxxxxx number for the same area, you're out of luck.

I don't think this is true. A reviewer may decide to hold a spot if he's aware you're working on something, as a courtesy, but the fact that you've got a GC number that is not checked as ready doesn't automatically hold the spot.

 

I believe you're right only if BOTH cache pages are checked as ready. In that case the older GC number would get the approval.

Palmetto's summary is accurate. She got straight A's at Cache Reviewer College.

 

In my review territory, there are dozens and dozens of caches "on hold" right now as part of big events or series that will be launched in the next few weeks. By submitting the pages early, the owners have avoided the need to go back and re-do their puzzles, instructions, etc., because someone else hid a cache 100 feet away that was ready to publish.

 

Generally, the lowest GC number wins. That is a better rule than "my friend's cache wins." If anything, I'd say that reviewers are tougher on enforcing the rules against their caching buddies, because they know someone will make claims of bias and favoritism if the reviewer granted too many exceptions.

 

Well, there ya go! I didn't know that. I also didn't realize Palmetto was a reviewer, or I wouldn't have questioned her reply.

 

My bad.

[+wimseyguy]

Dude, you gotta quit spending so much time in the forums and get out and find more caches. She's only the reviewer for the next state south of you.

Edited August 4, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+Team GeoBlast]

IF your cache write up is older than any other, it holds the spot, even if another cache shows up ready and on queue before yours. If someone else has an older GCxxxxx number for the same area, you're out of luck.

I don't think this is true. A reviewer may decide to hold a spot if he's aware you're working on something, as a courtesy, but the fact that you've got a GC number that is not checked as ready doesn't automatically hold the spot.

 

I believe you're right only if BOTH cache pages are checked as ready. In that case the older GC number would get the approval.

 

I have done the same thing successfully with my reviewer, I think I had 2-3 weeks of things that I had to do after putting the cache out and he held the spot. I doubt they would encourage too much of it however.

[+TrailGators]

Our reviewer will do this too. I think we all get that feeling that someone may take the spot but the reality is that nobody ever does. At least it hasn't happened to anybody that I know...

[Keystone]

Never say never. In the past month alone, I've handled three cache submissions where there was another unpublished cache within a few hundred feet. In two cases, the first cache's owner relinquished the spot, saying if the other cache was ready, that was cool. In the third case, the earlier cache is part of a 53-cache series sprawled across an entire county. I had to tell the owner of a cache page saying "I can't believe nobody has hidden a cache here yet" that, in fact, someone hid one 80 feet away the previous weekend.

 

And that's just this month. It is probably a function of cache density. I have form letters to cover the common cache conflict situations. The reviewer for Nunavut probably doesn't need those templates.

[+TrailGators]

Never say never. In the past month alone, I've handled three cache submissions where there was another unpublished cache within a few hundred feet. In two cases, the first cache's owner relinquished the spot, saying if the other cache was ready, that was cool. In the third case, the earlier cache is part of a 53-cache series sprawled across an entire county. I had to tell the owner of a cache page saying "I can't believe nobody has hidden a cache here yet" that, in fact, someone hid one 80 feet away the previous weekend.

 

And that's just this month. It is probably a function of cache density. I have form letters to cover the common cache conflict situations. The reviewer for Nunavut probably doesn't need those templates.

I'm sure it does happen. I usually create my new cache page and have it ready so all I have to do is enter the coords and make a few adjustments after I hide a new cache. If I'm really worried about it I'll also email the reviewer to make sure the spot is clear before I hike out to the spot to hide the cache. Once I hide the cache, I typically submit the cache within 24 hours.

[+klipsch49er]

HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!!

 

When I decide to place a cache I do the research to find a spot where no other cache is located and there isn't one very close. I make a container with all the doings and then go to the area, place the cache, and record the coords... I then creat (or finish) my listing and submit it for review.

 

Having done all this work I would not be dissapointed if I were to learn that someone had placed one there between that time I first looked and when I listed (not very likely). However, I would be pissed to learn that the site had been reserved for a future cache. While I understand the need for event holders to do someting (maybe something special needs to be done for them) I would be upset if the spot was being held because Johnny or his 7th cousin twice removed, or anyone else for that matter, said he was going to place a cache there!

 

What would really pisss me off is if I had to drive out to the cache site to pull it because someone was going to place one there in the future.

 

HEY..... FIRST COME FIRST SERVED! There should be no reserved cache areas!

 

If a Moderator wishes to tell me that I am wrong then I am going to spend time in the next couple of days picking the spots where I might hide a cache in the next years time and reserver those spots. I am being dramtic here but I don't believe this is the way it's meant to work.

 

Regarding event caches...... Either they are meant to be like any other cache and must stand alone on their own merrits or thye would be temporary and be allowed to be plcaced in close proximity to existing cashes for the short durration of their intended use and then archived....

 

I do NOT support the reserving of cache locations!

Edited August 4, 2007 by klipsch49er

[+Astro_D]

HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!!

 

When I decide to place a cache I do the research to find a spot where no other cache is located and there isn't one very close. I make a container with all the doings and then go to the area, place the cache, and record the coords... I then creat (or finish) my listing and submit it for review.

 

Having done all this work I would not be dissapointed if I were to learn that someone had placed one there between that time I first looked and when I listed (not very likely). However, I would be pissed to learn that the site had been reserved for a future cache. While I understand the need for event holders to do someting (maybe something special needs to be done for them) I would be upset if the spot was being held because Johnny or his 7th cousin twice removed, or anyone else for that matter, said he was going to place a cache there!

 

What would really pisss me off is if I had to drive out to the cache site to pull it because someone was going to place one there in the future.

 

HEY..... FIRST COME FIRST SERVED! There should be no reserved cache areas!

 

If a Moderator wishes to tell me that I am wrong then I am going to spend time in the next couple of days picking the spots where I might hide a cache in the next years time and reserver those spots. I am being dramtic here but I don't believe this is the way it's meant to work.

 

Regarding event caches...... Either they are meant to be like any other cache and must stand alone on their own merrits or thye would be temporary and be allowed to be plcaced in close proximity to existing cashes for the short durration of their intended use and then archived....

 

I do NOT support the reserving of cache locations!

 

 

I hve to say I completely agree with you.

 

 

There is an event in our area planned for October... I heard that the local reviewer is reserving all the spots for their caches (They are going to be permenant or so I was told). We are talking about 20-30 spots. (It's some "road rally" event that requires teams and driving between cities to find caches along specified routes).

 

 

Things like this really make me dislike geocaching more and more.

Edited August 4, 2007 by AstroD-Team

[+BlueDeuce]

Having done all this work I would not be dissapointed if I were to learn that someone had placed one there between that time I first looked and when I listed (not very likely). However, I would be pissed to learn that the site had been reserved for a future cache.

 

Goodness, do you really think gc.com is just letting people reserve spots so that if one day they decide to place a cache they have it? Doubtful.

 

In addition to claiming a spot while trying to get it built, 'round here if you simply posted in the local forums you were working a location most people would be cool with it and appreciate the heads up. (and start making plans to be FTF)

Edited August 4, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+genegene]

When I found a spot for my 3rd cache I was really worried that one of the locals was going to take the spot from me so I E-mailed my reviewer and asked about reserving the spot. I had the container but needed to get some papers for the container that helps describe the area. When I received an e-mail back from my reviewer it stated that it could not be placed on reserve unless i had a listing and a cache in place. Now that I am working on an event for Sept. 8th that requests cachers place a cache for one part of a game to be played for the event, I hope that my reviewer will be able to put a hold on a cache sight for them as long as it is in the reviewer notes that it is for the event and then list it the day after the event. I will edit this when I get an answer

[+Kit Fox]

There was a thread posted here a long time ago where a cachers hid and had approved a temporary cache, that his full intention was to archive, when his masterpiece was done.

 

Twice I've scouted out locations, got coordinates, and worked on a new puzzle, only to have new caches placed within 200 to 300 feet of my chosen spot. I found new spots, and started over.

[+J-Way]

As I understand the replies from the reviewers, you can "reserve" a site under two conditions:

 

1. You are actively working on the cache, but have a little more work to do before finishing. A little research for the description, one more coat of camo paint, finishing the calculations for a complex multi, or maybe waiting on that Rite-in-the-Rain logbook to arrive in the mail. So you start the process and submit the cache as not currently active. Give the reviewer details, projected schedule, and progress reports. This would work to reserve a site for a very limited amount of time, depending on the reviewer; maybe a few weeks.

 

2. The cache is ready to place and the description is finished, but you want to hold off on publication to coincide with something. Maybe a local event or finishing a long series where all in the series are published simultaneously. To keep the container from being stolen it doesn't have to be placed until right before publication, but all other requirements for publication are completed. This would work to reserve a site for a longer period of time, maybe a few months.

 

I see nothing wrong with either of these methods for reserving a site. Neither of them are reserving a site because someone "might" place a cache there in the future. Some of the more complex multi's take weeks or more to prepare... starting the process early and reserving locations is the only way to prevent someone from plopping an LPC right in the middle of it.

[+klipsch49er]

Having done all this work I would not be dissapointed if I were to learn that someone had placed one there between that time I first looked and when I listed (not very likely). However, I would be pissed to learn that the site had been reserved for a future cache.

 

Goodness, do you really think gc.com is just letting people reserve spots so that if one day they decide to place a cache they have it? Doubtful.

 

In addition to claiming a spot while trying to get it built, 'round here if you simply posted in the local forums you were working a location most people would be cool with it and appreciate the heads up. (and start making plans to be FTF)

 

I don't think gc.com would support location reservations, yet it seems that some of that is what occurs in some areas with some reviewers (according to some in this thread) and to an extent for cache events.

 

I have considered a complicated "Gold Rush Historic Tour" puzzel cache and have been somewhat reluctant due to the logistics of so many caches interrelated and over such a distance. It would be a real bitc% if I was seeding the caches and one was not allowed due to another being placed nearby. I don't have any solution to offer and I'm willing to live with the Firtst Come First Served philosophy.

 

Carpe Noctum

[+BlueDeuce]

 

I don't think gc.com would support location reservations, yet it seems that some of that is what occurs in some areas with some reviewers (according to some in this thread) and to an extent for cache events.

 

Okay. I don't read it the same way. Yes, there were some "They let some other guy" scenarios. Still not enough examples to point out a trend.

 

I have considered a complicated "Gold Rush Historic Tour" puzzel cache and have been somewhat reluctant due to the logistics of so many caches interrelated and over such a distance. It would be a real bitc% if I was seeding the caches and one was not allowed due to another being placed nearby. I don't have any solution to offer and I'm willing to live with the Firtst Come First Served philosophy.

 

Carpe Noctum

 

You point out special treatment and when worry about not getting it.

 

I bet if you let them know what you were setting up and provide documentation of a real plan they'd probably give you a couple months claim time.

 

Seems fair, don't it?

[+briansnat]

As I understand the replies from the reviewers, you can "reserve" a site under two conditions:

 

1. You are actively working on the cache, but have a little more work to do before finishing. A little research for the description, one more coat of camo paint, finishing the calculations for a complex multi, or maybe waiting on that Rite-in-the-Rain logbook to arrive in the mail. So you start the process and submit the cache as not currently active. Give the reviewer details, projected schedule, and progress reports. This would work to reserve a site for a very limited amount of time, depending on the reviewer; maybe a few weeks.

 

2. The cache is ready to place and the description is finished, but you want to hold off on publication to coincide with something. Maybe a local event or finishing a long series where all in the series are published simultaneously. To keep the container from being stolen it doesn't have to be placed until right before publication, but all other requirements for publication are completed. This would work to reserve a site for a longer period of time, maybe a few months.

 

I see nothing wrong with either of these methods for reserving a site. Neither of them are reserving a site because someone "might" place a cache there in the future. Some of the more complex multi's take weeks or more to prepare... starting the process early and reserving locations is the only way to prevent someone from plopping an LPC right in the middle of it.

 

I think you nailed it. It's not like you can find a great spot, say "I'm gonna place a cache there one day" and reserve it.

[+simpjkee]

OK, Here's what I did and what has happened. BTW, I already have coords and everything except no cache (at least no operable cache)

 

I went through the typical publishing routine (coords, description, difficulty, everything) only I wrote a reviewer note that said this.

 

"Everything for this cache is set up except the cache itself. Unfortunately the cache did not pass it's first test. I am almost certain though that the cache will be ready to go within the next week. I would like to "claim" this spot so that someone else can't take the spot while I'm getting my cache ready for caching. Thanks."

 

That was last night and then tonight I got this note/e-mail from the reviewer:

 

"Hi

Once you have the cache in place and published, then you have "claimed" the spot. I am sorry, but the guidelines do state that caches are to be in place prior to submitting a cache listing.

 

I'll put this on hold, send me a note when it's ready to go.

 

Thanks"

 

I DO have a GC number now. BTW, I was thinking more about this today and I figured that I could just go place an extra lame and easy lamp base cache to hold the spot until my good cache is ready. Then when my good cache is ready I just archive the lame lamp base cache and publish the totally awesome cache. Would this fly?

Edited August 5, 2007 by simpjkee

[Cascade Reviewer]

What would really pisss me off is if I had to drive out to the cache site to pull it because someone was going to place one there in the future.

 

If a Moderator wishes to tell me that I am wrong then I am going to spend time in the next couple of days picking the spots where I might hide a cache in the next years time and reserver those spots. I am being dramtic here but I don't believe this is the way it's meant to work.

Not exactly.

 

If I was reviewing your cache and saw a cache nearby that wasn't published yet, I'd write to the other owner and see if they were working on their cache. You might have to wait for a few weeks (or more), but if if it ends up that they're not working on it anymore and don't want it (perhaps that cache page has been sitting there for months, unfinished for whatever reason), or perhaps they never even respond. Then your cache could go in there. People cannot reserve a spot indefinately. If someone else comes in who wants that spot, the first hider needs to finish or give up the spot. They can't just "reserve" it for "someday". Unless, I suppose, they had a very good reason to hold it for a bit.

[Cascade Reviewer]

OK, Here's what I did and what has happened. BTW, I already have coords and everything except no cache (at least no operable cache)

 

I went through the typical publishing routine (coords, description, difficulty, everything) only I wrote a reviewer note that said this.

 

"Everything for this cache is set up except the cache itself. Unfortunately the cache did not pass it's first test. I am almost certain though that the cache will be ready to go within the next week. I would like to "claim" this spot so that someone else can't take the spot while I'm getting my cache ready for caching. Thanks."

 

That was last night and then tonight I got this note/e-mail from the reviewer:

 

"Hi

Once you have the cache in place and published, then you have "claimed" the spot. I am sorry, but the guidelines do state that caches are to be in place prior to submitting a cache listing.

 

I'll put this on hold, send me a note when it's ready to go.

 

Thanks"

 

I DO have a GC number now. BTW, I was thinking more about this today and I figured that I could just go place an extra lame and easy lamp base cache to hold the spot until my good cache is ready. Then when my good cache is ready I just archive the lame lamp base cache and publish the totally awesome cache. Would this fly?

I can't necessarily speak for Reviewers in other areas. But since you are planning to have the cache up and running in a week or so, if I were you I would make a cache page for it (which you said that you have done). That's good for planning, anyway. Just don't check the box that says, "Yes, this cache is currently active" (this answers to the issue of not having the physical cache in place, because you're not asking for the cache to be published yet). That way the cache won't show up in the Reviewer queue. When everything's in place, including the cache, check the box and then it can be reviewed.

 

By making that cache page, you can accomplish a few things. You can check and see if there are any caches too close, you can look at maps and just make sure in general that the cache complies with the guidelines. If you need to move the cache, you can just edit the coordinates. As long as the cache is not published, you can change the coordinates as far as you need to.

 

Also, by having that cache page, it *should* hold that spot for you in general. As in, it shows the Reviewer that you are actively working on a cache in that spot. It's best if you post a Reviewer note on that cache page explaining that you are finishing up details and hope to have it finished soon. Like I said, I cannot speak for every Reviewer, and mistakes do happen, but that should hold your spot for at least a little while.

 

Again, as I mentioned before in my other post, this is not an excuse to run around willy-nilly setting up cache pages just to reserve places. I believe that this is disrespectful to others, because for the most part I think that it should be first come first served. Don't hurt other's chances of the enjoyment of placing caches by abusing the system. And of course if a Reviewer sees that happening, they probably will be right on top of it, making sure that the cache page is legit. If not, then the new cache will go in that spot.

 

As for placing a "lame lamp base cache" so you can reserve the spot for a "totally awesome cache", archiving the former to make way for the latter...just remember that the listing guidelines say:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

[+KBI]

Just don't check the box that says, "Yes, this cache is currently active" ... That way the cache won't show up in the Reviewer queue. When everything's in place, including the cache, check the box and then it can be reviewed.

 

... Also, by having that cache page, it *should* hold that spot for you in general. As in, it shows the Reviewer that you are actively working on a cache in that spot. It's best if you post a Reviewer note on that cache page explaining that you are finishing up details and hope to have it finished soon.

Thanks for the VERY useful info.

 

So, just to clarify:

 

It sounds like you're saying that even with the "cache is active" box UNchecked, the Reviewer will still have some kind of indication that the not-yet-ready cache is there, and will take its location into account when reviewing other caches?

 

I had always assumed that the Reviewers couldn't see my cache page, or at least wouldn't necessarily know it was there, until I checked the "active" box.

[+palmetto]

even with the "cache is active" box UNchecked, the Reviewer will still have some kind of indication that the not-yet-ready cache is there, and will take its location into account when reviewing other caches?

 

It shows up on proximity. When I'm in admin mode, I see all the caches; archived, and those written up but never submitted or published when checking the area around a new submission for existing caches.

If I'm looking at a brand new cache and I see an as yet unsubmitted cache in close proximity, I'll look at it. If it's older than the cache I'm currently reviewing, I'll post a reviewer note to it asking if the cacher is working on it. I'd defer to the older cache, even though it isn't yet ready for review, if the cacher responds. I haven't seen this abused.

[+KBI]

even with the "cache is active" box UNchecked, the Reviewer will still have some kind of indication that the not-yet-ready cache is there, and will take its location into account when reviewing other caches?

It shows up on proximity. When I'm in admin mode, I see all the caches; archived, and those written up but never submitted or published when checking the area around a new submission for existing caches.

If I'm looking at a brand new cache and I see an as yet unsubmitted cache in close proximity, I'll look at it. If it's older than the cache I'm currently reviewing, I'll post a reviewer note to it asking if the cacher is working on it. I'd defer to the older cache, even though it isn't yet ready for review, if the cacher responds. I haven't seen this abused.

Awesome! That's good to know. Now I know how to proceed with my next few hides. Thanks!

[+gnbrotz]

Don't forget....landowner permission trumps an older cache 'in progress' (or an existing cache for that matter).

 

Just purchase the land where you wish you hide your cache (and at least a 528' perimeter), dis-allow cache placement by anyone else, ask for any existing caches to be archived (since they don't have permission to be there any longer), and hide your cache.

 

*other cache placement guidelines still apply

[Donald, Daisy and Kids]

HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!!

 

When I decide to place a cache I do the research to find a spot where no other cache is located and there isn't one very close. I make a container with all the doings and then go to the area, place the cache, and record the coords... I then creat (or finish) my listing and submit it for review.

 

Having done all this work I would not be dissapointed if I were to learn that someone had placed one there between that time I first looked and when I listed (not very likely). However, I would be pissed to learn that the site had been reserved for a future cache. While I understand the need for event holders to do someting (maybe something special needs to be done for them) I would be upset if the spot was being held because Johnny or his 7th cousin twice removed, or anyone else for that matter, said he was going to place a cache there!

 

What would really pisss me off is if I had to drive out to the cache site to pull it because someone was going to place one there in the future.

 

HEY..... FIRST COME FIRST SERVED! There should be no reserved cache areas!

 

If a Moderator wishes to tell me that I am wrong then I am going to spend time in the next couple of days picking the spots where I might hide a cache in the next years time and reserver those spots. I am being dramtic here but I don't believe this is the way it's meant to work.

 

Regarding event caches...... Either they are meant to be like any other cache and must stand alone on their own merrits or thye would be temporary and be allowed to be plcaced in close proximity to existing cashes for the short durration of their intended use and then archived....

 

I do NOT support the reserving of cache locations!

 

what annoys me is when people come to the forums using vulgar language. My children aged from 7 to 18yo ALL read through the forums, so PLEASE have some respect!

[+BlueDeuce]

what annoys me is when people come to the forums using vulgar language. My children aged from 7 to 18yo ALL read through the forums, so PLEASE have some respect!

 

Anytime you are concerned about a posting you can click the report button. It's anonymous and the site moderators will address it.

[+It's grim oop Nurth]

 

what annoys me is when people come to the forums using vulgar language. My children aged from 7 to 18yo ALL read through the forums, so PLEASE have some respect!

 

What annoys me is when other parents throw hissy fits regarding stuff their children may, or more to the point may not, be exposed to on the internet. The words parental and moderation spring to mind. My 6 and 8 year olds use the internet under my direct supervision on the basis that I, as their father, am prepared to explain to them anything that they may seek clarification of whilst surfing the net. That means anything. I take the responsibility for letting them have access. What I don't do is expect anybody to modify their normal behaviours simply for my personal peace of mind. You don't have to let them use it (except maybe the 18 year old doesn't HAVE to take your direction anymore but you still pay the broadband bills right).

 

Regarding the point in question: the split seems fairly even; newbies favor FCFS whilst the wizened hacks favour a more pragmatic approach. Personally i think y'all need to get out more! I plan to keep my number of posts lower than my number of finds!

 

-------------------------------

and with that, Elvis left the building.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

What annoys me is when...<snip>

 

-------------------------------

and with that, Elvis left the building.

 

Anytime you are concerned about a posting you can click the report button. It's anonymous and the site moderators will address it.

 

Although they might address it by telling you that your concern isn't theirs.

[Donald, Daisy and Kids]

 

what annoys me is when people come to the forums using vulgar language. My children aged from 7 to 18yo ALL read through the forums, so PLEASE have some respect!

 

What annoys me is when other parents throw hissy fits regarding stuff their children may, or more to the point may not, be exposed to on the internet. The words parental and moderation spring to mind. My 6 and 8 year olds use the internet under my direct supervision on the basis that I, as their father, am prepared to explain to them anything that they may seek clarification of whilst surfing the net. That means anything. I take the responsibility for letting them have access. What I don't do is expect anybody to modify their normal behaviours simply for my personal peace of mind. You don't have to let them use it (except maybe the 18 year old doesn't HAVE to take your direction anymore but you still pay the broadband bills right).

 

Regarding the point in question: the split seems fairly even; newbies favor FCFS whilst the wizened hacks favour a more pragmatic approach. Personally i think y'all need to get out more! I plan to keep my number of posts lower than my number of finds!

 

-------------------------------

and with that, Elvis left the building.

 

I suggest that you may want to read the FORUM GUIDELINES

 

It states quite clearly:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Why expose your kids to things that they dont need to hear or see? Gutter mouth language doesnt make a person look good, even though it is becoming more and more acceptable in this day and age to hear "them" 4 letter words, it just makes the person sound really trashy!

[+Alan2]

As I understand the replies from the reviewers, you can "reserve" a site under two conditions:

 

1. You are actively working on the cache, but have a little more work to do before finishing. A little research for the description, one more coat of camo paint, finishing the calculations for a complex multi, or maybe waiting on that Rite-in-the-Rain logbook to arrive in the mail. So you start the process and submit the cache as not currently active. Give the reviewer details, projected schedule, and progress reports. This would work to reserve a site for a very limited amount of time, depending on the reviewer; maybe a few weeks.

 

2. The cache is ready to place and the description is finished, but you want to hold off on publication to coincide with something. Maybe a local event or finishing a long series where all in the series are published simultaneously. To keep the container from being stolen it doesn't have to be placed until right before publication, but all other requirements for publication are completed. This would work to reserve a site for a longer period of time, maybe a few months.

 

I see nothing wrong with either of these methods for reserving a site. Neither of them are reserving a site because someone "might" place a cache there in the future. Some of the more complex multi's take weeks or more to prepare... starting the process early and reserving locations is the only way to prevent someone from plopping an LPC right in the middle of it.

 

That's pretty much what I did on a series of multis that required a lot of text preparation that I wanted all 8 published at the same time. I explained the situation and reserved the final coordinates weeks ahead although the reviewer asked me to keep publishing to a couple of weeks after reserving. I was up to 3,4 in the morning writing up and subnmitting the final caches pages.

 

Funny thing happened on one of them where I hid the container a month before publishing. The FTF real cacher was not the first. A NYC sanitation worker on a mushroom hunt came across the ammo can hidden well inside a tree trunk, logged in, left some union literature, and re-hid the container. What a nice guy!

Edited August 14, 2007 by Alan2

[+FireRef]

I ran into the same kind of problem with a couple of caches I did recently - one was a 5 step multi, and the other was a series of 3 that led to a 4th. I was extremely concerned with the amount of work that went into putting out the 5 step multi, and the way I set it up, I tried to build it in such a way that if one or more of the sites was rejected for some reason I was unaware of (like a mystery cache or something simlar, which happened with the series), I could redo the errant stage, and the one before leading to it, in order to preserve the entire multi.

 

Last night, I submitted the series of 4 caches. 1 was rejected, being too close to a mystery cache I hadn't done yet. I had to take a random guess in which direction to move it and how far to get it far enough away, as the reviewer didn't respond within several hours to my question of 2 alternate possible sites.

 

There was a topic on here about finding a better way to check coordinates for a possible cache. I still believe there has to be a better way. Keystone indicated an automatic system would cause problems whereby people could use it to solve puzzles without solving the puzzle, but I do believe there has to be something that can be done. In some cases, it is difficult to get out, place a cache, find out you can't place it there for a reason you weren't aware of, go back out, move it, redo the coords, possibly get it rejected again for the same reason, etc. Sometimes, it makes it seem not worthwhile to place caches.

 

I had another final that I had problems with because of the end of a 2 stage multi I hadn't done yet. Turns out stage 1 was missing, and it took the owner a week to get back to me with into to figure out where the cache was so I could move my final and place it.

 

I guess another option would be to pick coords, get the cache published, and immediately disable it until you were able to put the cache in that new location. Hopefully no one goes hunting for it before you move it to the right place and reenable it, but I can't think of any other way than the current method of hit or miss, which the reviewers don't seem to be interested in coming up with a better way to do. (or maybe just haven't had a better idea yet... any suggestions?)

 

I do have to say with the addition of a new reviewer in my area a while back, most things seem to get reviewed or published within 8 hours or so of them being made active, and for that I am happy. I am just irritated by the fact that I will attempt to fix things immediately, and often won't get an immediate (or even within a few hours) answer to a fix of a problem.

[+FamilyDNA]

By making that cache page, you can accomplish a few things. You can check and see if there are any caches too close, you can look at maps and just make sure in general that the cache complies with the guidelines. If you need to move the cache, you can just edit the coordinates. As long as the cache is not published, you can change the coordinates as far as you need to.

This didn't work for me recently. Earlier this month, I hosted a local event. While setting up the event page, I also started two cache pages for the park. (A new park with no prior caches). One cache I got place quickly and activated, asking in a reviewer note to hold until close to the event, and also mentioning I was working on another across the park. This other did have a cache page, but life got in the way and the cache was not placed prior to the event. The FTF on the one that was published (on the day of the event) went over and dropped a cache very near my selected, but incomplete, cache spot. His cache was published.

 

I've since edited the now unpublishable cache page to work on someting else.

[Cascade Reviewer]

By making that cache page, you can accomplish a few things. You can check and see if there are any caches too close, you can look at maps and just make sure in general that the cache complies with the guidelines. If you need to move the cache, you can just edit the coordinates. As long as the cache is not published, you can change the coordinates as far as you need to.

This didn't work for me recently. Earlier this month, I hosted a local event. While setting up the event page, I also started two cache pages for the park. (A new park with no prior caches). One cache I got place quickly and activated, asking in a reviewer note to hold until close to the event, and also mentioning I was working on another across the park. This other did have a cache page, but life got in the way and the cache was not placed prior to the event. The FTF on the one that was published (on the day of the event) went over and dropped a cache very near my selected, but incomplete, cache spot. His cache was published.

 

I've since edited the now unpublishable cache page to work on someting else.

Yes, unfortunately that can happen. None of this is perfect, as everyone is human. People make mistakes, and also, different Reviewers can review differently.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

If you need to move the cache, you can just edit the coordinates. As long as the cache is not published, you can change the coordinates as far as you need to.

 

Please explain to me how to do that. I have 3 caches that Im setting up... with a minor root canal detour before finishing the caches... and I tried to edit the coordinates since I got a better read on one of them. It wouldnt let me do that. It kept reverting to the former coordinates. The adjustment was only a few feet or so, not a large distance at all. None of the caches are published currently, or in the reviewer queue.

[Cascade Reviewer]

If you need to move the cache, you can just edit the coordinates. As long as the cache is not published, you can change the coordinates as far as you need to.

 

Please explain to me how to do that. I have 3 caches that Im setting up... with a minor root canal detour before finishing the caches... and I tried to edit the coordinates since I got a better read on one of them. It wouldnt let me do that. It kept reverting to the former coordinates. The adjustment was only a few feet or so, not a large distance at all. None of the caches are published currently, or in the reviewer queue.

I'm not sure what the problem is. If your cache has never been published, you should be able to go to the edit page and change your coords to any distance.

[+Isonzo Karst]

When you edit that page, you MUST click the edit link in the lower right corner of the cache page, or it will revert to the last saved data.

[+Flo.]

I have a question. Someone said they could place a LPC then archive it when the real one is ready. I know that is not the right thing to do, so could they place the LPC or a micro in the correct coords, take their time on getting the real one ready, then in a few weeks when the real one is ready just switch out caches? Its in the same place, same thing, just different boxes so to speak. Sorry if I hijacked the thread. Just curious on the answer to this.

[+tollerdudes]

I would get off the forums and go work on the cache and GET IT OUT THERE!!!

[+Too Tall John]

I have a question. Someone said they could place a LPC then archive it when the real one is ready. I know that is not the right thing to do, so could they place the LPC or a micro in the correct coords, take their time on getting the real one ready, then in a few weeks when the real one is ready just switch out caches? Its in the same place, same thing, just different boxes so to speak. Sorry if I hijacked the thread. Just curious on the answer to this.

I think Cascade Reviewer said it best:

As for placing a "lame lamp base cache" so you can reserve the spot for a "totally awesome cache", archiving the former to make way for the latter...just remember that the listing guidelines say:

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

They didn't actually say it wasn't possible, but if the reviewer gets wind that that is what is happening, you will probably draw a more watchful eye after they notice it.

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Edited September 21, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+Flo.]

Thank you too tall john. I was just curious as to the answer.

[+GPSlug]

I have a question. Someone said they could place a LPC then archive it when the real one is ready. I know that is not the right thing to do, so could they place the LPC or a micro in the correct coords, take their time on getting the real one ready, then in a few weeks when the real one is ready just switch out caches? Its in the same place, same thing, just different boxes so to speak. Sorry if I hijacked the thread. Just curious on the answer to this.

Thinking about this, it's not really any different from just lying about the cache being in place. The cache isn't in place. Whether there's a film canister with paper in it, a rock, or a gap of air reserving the spot is irrelevant.

 

And just lying would be less work.

[Cascade Reviewer]

When you edit that page, you MUST click the edit link in the lower right corner of the cache page, or it will revert to the last saved data.

This is true.

[Cascade Reviewer]

I have a question. Someone said they could place a LPC then archive it when the real one is ready. I know that is not the right thing to do, so could they place the LPC or a micro in the correct coords, take their time on getting the real one ready, then in a few weeks when the real one is ready just switch out caches? Its in the same place, same thing, just different boxes so to speak. Sorry if I hijacked the thread. Just curious on the answer to this.

I think Cascade Reviewer said it best:

As for placing a "lame lamp base cache" so you can reserve the spot for a "totally awesome cache", archiving the former to make way for the latter...just remember that the listing guidelines say:

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

We realize that it is possible that a planned long-term cache occasionally becomes finite because of concerns with the environment, missing or plundered caches, or the owner’s decision to remove the cache for other valid reasons. Please do your best to research fully, hide wisely, and maintain properly for a long cache life.

They didn't actually say it wasn't possible, but if the reviewer gets wind that that is what is happening, you will probably draw a more watchful eye after they notice it.

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

Thank you, Too Tall John. This is true.

 

And to answer this question:

 

I know that is not the right thing to do, so could they place the LPC or a micro in the correct coords, take their time on getting the real one ready, then in a few weeks when the real one is ready just switch out caches? Its in the same place, same thing, just different boxes so to speak. Sorry if I hijacked the thread. Just curious on the answer to this.

That would be fine. It's the same cache in the same spot, you're just changing the cache container. Just make sure and remember to edit the cache page to reflect the new size.